5542 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

effective competitive opportunities test

in § 63.18(h)(6)(i) of this chapter has

been satisfied on the route covered by

the alternative settlement arrangement;

or

(ii) The effective competitive

opportunities test in § 63.18(h)(6)(i) of

this chapter is satisfied on the route

covered by the alternative settlement

arrangement; or

(iii) The alternative settlement

arrangement is otherwise in the public

interest.

(2) A certification as to whether the

alternative settlement arrangement

affects more than 25 percent of the

outbound traffic or 25 percent of the

inbound traffic on the route to which

the alternative settlement arrangement

applies.

(3) A certification as to whether the

parties to the alternative settlement

arrangement are affiliated, as defined in

§ 63.18(h)(1)(i) of this chapter, or

involved in a non-equity joint venture

affecting the provision of basic services

on the route to which the alternative

settlement arrangement applies.

(4) A copy of the alternative

settlement arrangement if it affects more

than 25 percent of the outbound traffic

or 25 percent of the inbound traffic on

the route to which the alternative

settlement arrangement applies, or if it

is between parties that are affiliated, as

defined in § 63.18(h)(1)(i) of this

chapter, or that are involved in a nonequity joint venture affecting the

provision of basic services on the route

to which the alternative settlement

arrangement applies.

(5) A summary of the terms and

conditions of the alternative settlement

arrangement if it does not come within

the scope of paragraph (b)(4) of this

section. However, upon request by the

International Bureau, a full copy of such

alternative settlement arrangement must

be forwarded promptly to the

International Bureau.

(c) An alternative settlement

arrangement filed for approval under

this section cannot become effective

until the petition for declaratory ruling

required by paragraph (a) of this section

has been granted under paragraph (e) of

this section.

(d) On the same day the petition for

declaratory ruling has been filed, the

filing carrier must serve a copy of the

petition on all carriers providing the

same or similar service with the foreign

administration identified in the petition.

(e) All petitions for declaratory ruling

shall be subject to a 21 day pleading

period for objections or comments,

commencing the day after the date of

public notice listing the petition as

accepted for filing. The petition will be

deemed granted as of the 28th day

without any formal staff action being

taken: provided

(1) The petition is not formally

opposed within the meaning of

§ 1.1202(e) of this chapter; and

(2) The International Bureau has not

notified the filing carrier that grant of

the petition may not serve the public

interest and that implementation of the

proposed alternative settlement

arrangement must await formal staff

action on the petition. If objections or

comments are filed, the petitioning

carrier may file a response pursuant to

§ 1.45 of this chapter. Petitions that are

formally opposed must await formal

action by the International Bureau

before the proposed alternative

settlement arrangement may be

implemented.

[FR Doc. 97–2922 Filed 2–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AB88

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Determination of

Endangered Status for ‘‘Pseudobahia

bahiifolia’’ (Hartweg’s golden

sunburst) and Threatened Status for

‘‘Pseudobahia peirsonii’’ (San Joaquin

adobe sunburst), Two Grassland

Plants From the Central Valley of

California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) determines endangered status

for Pseudobahia bahiifolia (Hartweg’s

golden sunburst) and threatened status

for Pseudobahia peirsonii (San Joaquin

adobe sunburst) pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). The two plants occur

primarily in nonnative grasslands in the

eastern and southeastern portions of the

San Joaquin Valley, but also at a few

sites at the ecotone between grasslands

dominated by nonnative species and

blue oak woodland communities. Both

plants are threatened primarily by

conversion of habitat to residential

development. To a lesser extent, the

species are variously threatened by

agriculture (ag-land development),

competition from nonnative plants,

incompatible grazing practices,

transmission line maintenance,

recreational activities, mining, road

construction and maintenance, a flood

control project, and other human

impacts. Potential threats include

herbicide application to control

herbaceous and weedy taxa. This rule

implements the Federal protection and

recovery provisions afforded by the Act

for these species.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is available for public inspection,

by appointment, during normal business

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Sacramento Field Office, 3310

El Camino Avenue, Suite 130,

Sacramento, California 95821–6340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Warne (see ADDRESSES

section) telephone 916/979–2120;

facsimile 916/979–2128.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pseudobahia bahiifolia (Hartweg’s

golden sunburst) and Pseudobahia

peirsonii (San Joaquin adobe sunburst)

are endemic to the nonnative grassland

and grassland-blue oak woodland

community ecotone of the southern

Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin

Valley of California. These two valleys

comprise the Central Valley. The

prehistoric composition of the native

grasslands and adjoining plant

communities likely will remain a

mystery (Brown 1982), although

numerous authors have speculated as to

the composition of the ‘‘pristine’’ flora

of the Central Valley (Clements 1934,

Munz and Keck 1950, Biswell 1956,

Twisselmann 1956, White 1967,

McNaughton 1968, Bakker 1971,

Ornduff 1974, Heady 1977, Bartolome

and Gremmill 1981, and Wester 1981).

Nonnative annual grasses and forbs

invaded the low elevation plant

communities of California during the

days of the Franciscan missionaries in

the 1700’s. These nonnative grasses now

account for up to 80 percent or more of

the floral composition of the grasslands

of California (Heady 1956). The

nonnative grasses have outcompeted the

native flora throughout much of

California because these exotics

germinate in late fall prior to the

germination of the native forbs,

including the two sunflower species

discussed herein, Pseudobahia

bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii.

Each species, however, occurs in a

distinctive microhabitat within the

larger matrix of nonnative annual

grassland. Pseudobahia bahiifolia

prefers the top of ‘‘Mima’’ mound

topography where the grass cover is
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 5543

minimal (Stebbins 1991). Vernal pools,

an increasingly rare California landform,

are often interspersed with the Mima

mounds (Stebbins 1991). Pseudobahia

peirsonii prefers heavy adobe clay soils

where the water retention properties are

high.

Karl Hartweg, a German botanist, first

collected Pseudobahia bahiifolia on

Cordua’s farm near the junction of the

Yuba and Feather Rivers in Yuba

County, California in April of 1847.

George Bentham described the species

as Monolopia bahiaefolia in 1849.

Edward L. Greene placed the species in

the genus Eriophyllum in 1897. In 1915,

Per Rydberg established the genus

Pseudobahia on the basis of leaf and

floral morphology and formed the new

combination Pseudobahia bahiaefolia.

Dale Johnson (1978) recognized a

spelling error in the specific epithet

bahiaefolia and used Pseudobahia

bahiifolia in his doctoral dissertation.

Pseudobahia bahiifolia, a member of

the sunflower or aster family

(Asteraceae), is one of three species of

Pseudobahia in the subtribe

Eriophyllinae of the tribe Helenieae

(Johnson 1978). The species is a fewbranched annual about 6 to 15

centimeters (cm) (2 to 6 inches (in.)) tall,

covered throughout with white, wooly

hairs. Its leaves are narrow, alternate,

three-lobed or entire with three blunt

teeth at the apex, and about 1 to 2 cm

(0.4 to 0.8 in.) long. The bright yellow

flower heads, produced in March or

April, are solitary at the ends of the

branches. The ray flowers are equal in

number to the sub-floral bracts

(phyllaries) and the pappus is absent.

Pseudobahia bahiifolia is distinguished

from other members of the genus by

having the largest leaves, entire or threelobed versus once or twice pinnatifid, as

in Pseudobahia heermanii and

Pseudobahia peirsonii. The range of

Pseudobahia bahiifolia is strongly

correlated with the distribution of the

Amador and Rocklin soil series

(Stebbins 1991). Both series generally

consist of shallow, well-drained,

medium-textured soils that exhibit

strong Mima mound microrelief

(Stebbins 1991). Such topography is

characterized by a series of mounds that

may range from 30 cm to 2 meters (m)

(1.0 to 6.6 feet (ft)) in height and 3 to

30 m (10 to 98 ft) in basal diameter

interspersed with shallow basins that

may pond water during the rainy season

(Bates and Jackson 1987). Pseudobahia

bahiifolia nearly always occurs on the

north or northeast facing slopes of the

mounds, with the highest plant

densities on upper slopes with minimal

grass cover (Stebbins 1991). A variant of

one of the two soil series is concentrated

near Friant in Madera County and

contains large quantities of pumice,

which is mined for use as an industrial

binder and is used in making concrete

blocks (Chesterman and Schmidt 1956).

According to a status survey by John

Stebbins (1991), Pseudobahia bahiifolia

may have existed throughout the Central

Valley of California from Yuba County

in the north to Fresno County in the

south, a range of approximately 322

kilometers (km) (200 miles (mi)). The

plant presently occurs only in the

eastern San Joaquin Valley in

Stanislaus, Madera, and Fresno

Counties, a range of approximately 153

km (95 mi). One population occurs on

land owned and managed jointly by the

Bureau of Reclamation and a private

owner; the remaining populations all

occur on privately owned property

(California Natural Diversity Data Base

(CNDDB) 1996).

Over 90 percent of all Pseudobahia

bahiifolia plants occur in two general

locations. One site, in Madera County,

approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mile) long

and containing about 16,000 plants, is

the remnant of one large population that

now has become fragmented. The

second large population, in Stanislaus

County, covers about 2 hectares (ha) (5

acres (ac)) and contains approximately

15,000 plants. Although the number of

individuals per population of annual

species is highly variable from year to

year, 11 of 16 extant populations are

very small, and numbered fewer than

200 plants during the 1990 field season

(Stebbins 1991).

Conversion of native habitat to

residential development is the primary

threat to the existence of Pseudobahia

bahiifolia. To a lesser degree,

agriculture (ag-land development),

competition from aggressive exotic

plants, incompatible grazing practices,

mining, and other human impacts

actions also threaten the species

(CNDDB 1996).

In March 1925, Philip Munz first

collected specimens of Pseudobahia

peirsonii in a grassy flat near Ducor in

Tulare County, California. Until Munz

described Pseudobahia peirsonii as a

species in 1949, specimens had been

included in Monopolia heermani,

Eriophyllum heermani, or Pseudobahia

heermani, depending on the prevailing

treatment of the time (Stebbins 1991).

Sherwin Carlquist (1956) and Johnson

(1978) supported Munz’s taxonomic

position with additional morphological

and cytological evidence.

Pseudobahia peirsonii, like

Pseudobahia bahiifolia, is a member of

the Asteraceae family and is an erect

annual herb about 1 to 6 decimeters

(dm) (4 to 18 in.) tall, loosely covered

with white, wooly hairs. Its alternate

leaves are twice divided into smaller

divisions (bipinnatifid), triangular in

outline, and 2 to 6 cm (1 to 3 in.) in

length. Flower heads, which appear in

March or April, are solitary at the ends

of the branches. The ray flowers are

bright yellow and equal in number to

the subfloral bracts and about 3

millimeters (mm) (0.1 in.) long with

many disk flowers; the pappus is absent.

The dry fruits, called achenes, are black.

Pseudobahia peirsonii is distinguished

from Pseudobahia heermani, the species

most similar in appearance, primarily

by its subfloral bracts, which are united

only at the base versus united to half

their length in the latter species.

Pseudobahia peirsonii occurs only on

heavy adobe clay soils over a range of

approximately 193 km (120 mi) through

Fresno, Tulare, and Kern counties. One

population occurs on land owned and

managed by the Fresno Flood Control

District; two populations occur on land

owned by the U. S. Army Corps of

Engineers (Corps); all other populations

occur on privately owned land (CNDDB

1996). Stebbins (1991) speculates that

the edaphic restriction is associated

with the ability of these clay soils to

retain moisture longer into the summer

dry season. These soils are mainly

distributed in the valleys and flats near

the foothills of the southeastern San

Joaquin Valley (Stebbins 1991). Avena

fatua, Brassica kaber, Bromus mollis,

Bromus rubens, and Erodium

cicutarium are some of the common

nonnative associates of Pseudobahia

peirsonii (Stebbins 1991). The intrusive

and aggressive characteristics of

herbaceous weedy species appear to be

detrimental to habitat quality of this rare

plant.

Pseudobahia peirsonii is concentrated

in three major locations—east of Fresno

in Fresno County; west of Lake Success

in Tulare County; and northeast of

Bakersfield in Kern County. Of the 36

known occurrences, 20 are small and

contain fewer than 250 plants (Stebbins

1991; Karen and Gregory Kirkpatrick,

KAS Consultants, in litt. 1993; CNDDB

1996). Approximately 80 percent of all

plants are contained in 4 populations

(CNDDB 1996, Mark Mebane, rancher,

in litt. 1993). Conversion of natural

habitat to residential development is the

primary threat to Pseudobahia peirsonii.

In addition, road maintenance projects,

recreational activities, competition from

nonnative plants, ag-land development,

incompatible grazing practices, a flood

control project, transmission line

maintenance, and other human impacts

also may threaten the species.
5544 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Previous Federal Action

Federal government actions on these

two plants began as a result of section

12 of the Act, which directed the

Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution

to prepare a report on those plants

considered to be endangered,

threatened, or extinct in the United

States. The report, designated as House

Document No. 94–51, was presented to

Congress on January 9, 1975. In the

report, Pseudobahia bahiifolia was

included as a threatened species and

Pseudobahia peirsonii as an endangered

species.

On July 1, 1975, the Service published

a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR

27823) of its acceptance of the report as

a petition within the context of section

4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3) of the Act),

and its intention thereby to review the

status of the plant taxa named therein.

Pseudobahia bahiifolia and

Pseudobahia peirsonii were included in

that notice. On June 16, 1976, the

Service published a proposed rule in the

Federal Register (41 FR 24523) to

determine approximately 1,700 vascular

plant species to be endangered species

pursuant to section 4 of the Act. The list

of 1,700 plant taxa was assembled on

the basis of comments and data received

by the Smithsonian Institution and the

Service in response to House Document

No. 94–51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal

Register publication. Pseudobahia

bahiifolia and the Pseudobahia peirsonii

were included in the June 16, 1976

Federal Register document.

General comments received in

relation to the 1976 proposal were

summarized in an April 26, 1978,

Federal Register publication (43 FR

17909). The Act Amendments of 1978

required that all existing proposals over

2 years old be withdrawn. A 1-year

grace period was given to those

proposals already more than 2 years old.

On December 10, 1979, the Service

published a notice in the Federal

Register (44 FR 70796) of withdrawal of

that portion of the June 16, 1976,

proposal that had not been made final,

along with four proposals that had

expired due to a procedural requirement

of the 1978 Amendments.

On December 15, 1980, the Service

published a revised Notice of Review of

native plants in the Federal Register (45

FR 82480). Pseudobahia bahiifolia and

Pseudobahia peirsonii were included as

category 1 candidate species, meaning

that the Service had in its possession

substantial information on biological

vulnerability and threats to support

preparation of a listing proposal. On

November 28, 1983, the Service

published in the Federal Register (48

FR 53640) a supplement to the 1980

Notice of Review. This supplement

treated Pseudobahia bahiifolia and

Pseudobahia peirsonii as category 2

species, meaning that the data in the

Service’s possession indicated listing

may be appropriate, but that substantial

data on biological vulnerability and

threats were not currently known or on

file to support preparation of a proposed

rule. The plant notice was again revised

on September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526).

Both species remained in category 2. In

the February 21, 1990, revision of the

plant notice (55 FR 6184), Pseudobahia

bahiifolia remained as a category 2

candidate species and Pseudobahia

peirsonii returned to category 1 status.

On February 28, 1996, the Service

published a Notice of Review in the

Federal Register (61 FR 7596) that

discontinued the designation of category

2 species as candidates.

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires

the Secretary to make findings on

certain pending petitions within 12

months of their receipt. Section 2(b)(1)

of the 1982 amendments further

requires that all petitions pending on

October 13, 1982, be treated as having

been newly submitted on that date. This

was the case for Pseudobahia bahiifolia

and Pseudobahia peirsonii because the

1975 Smithsonian report had been

accepted as a petition. On October 13,

1983, the Service found that the

petitioned listing of these species was

warranted, but precluded by other

pending listing actions, in accordance

with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act;

notification of this finding was

published on January 20, 1984 (49 FR

2485). Such a finding required the

petition to be recycled, pursuant to

section 4(b)(3)(c)(I) of the Act. The

finding was reviewed annually in

October of 1984 through 1991.

A proposed rule to list Pseudobahia

bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii as

endangered was published in the

Federal Register on November 30, 1992

(57 FR 56549). That proposal was based,

in large part, on the status survey and

occurrence data, and information on

pending projects that would adversely

affect the two species. Pseudobahia

bahiifolia was included in the proposal

after a review of existing information

indicated that the species should be

assigned category 1 status and that the

proposal for listing was warranted. The

Service now determines Pseudobahia

bahiifolia to be an endangered species

and Pseudobahia peirsonii to be a

threatened species with the publication

of this rule.

Summary of Comments and

Recommendations

In the November 30, 1992, proposed

rule (57 FR 56549) and associated

notifications, all interested parties were

requested to submit factual reports or

information to assist the Service in

determining whether these two species

warrant listing. Appropriate Federal and

State agencies, county and city

governments, scientific organizations,

and other interested parties were

contacted and requested to comment.

Newspaper notices inviting general

comment were published on December

16, 1992, in the Hanford Sentinel, and

Porterville Recorder; on December 17,

1992, in the Bakersfield Californian,

Fresno Bee, Madera Daily Tribune,

Modesto Bee, Union Democrat, and

Advance-Register; and on December 18,

1992, in the Visalia Times-Delta. The

Service received written requests for a

public hearing from Congressman Bill

Thomas, Kern County Farm Bureau,

Tulare County Cattlemen’s Association,

and Kern County Cattlemen’s

Association. As a result, the Service

published a notice of a public hearing

on April 2, 1993 (58 FR 17376), and

extended the deadline for the comment

period to May 3, 1993. The Service

conducted the public hearing on April

21, 1993, at the Kern County

Administrative Center Board Chambers

in Bakersfield, California.

During the comment period, the

Service received 28 comments (letters

and oral testimony), including

representatives from a Federal agency, a

State agency, a County agency, and 21

individuals. Eight commenters

supported listing, 15 opposed listing or

favored delaying the listing, and five

were neutral. In addition, several

individuals presented oral and written

testimony during the public comment

period concerning the 1989 Tulare

Pseudobahia Species Management Plan,

written for the California Department of

Fish and Game. This document was not

written for the Service, nor was it used

to support the Federal listing action of

the two species. Comments or portions

of comments that were submitted to the

Service addressing this plan are

considered not substantive and are not

considered in the response section of

this rule.

Written comments or oral statements

obtained during the public hearing and

comment period are combined in the

following discussion. Opposing

comments and comments questioning

the listing have been organized into

specific issues. The majority of

comments concerned Pseudobahia

peirsonii. These issues and the Service’s
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 5545

response to each are summarized as

follows:

Issue 1

The status survey covered only

known documented sites; the listing

should be delayed until a more

thorough survey is conducted.

Service Response

The field survey for both species

(Stebbins 1991) examined 55 previously

documented sites. Data from

observations at the known sites were

used to identify suitable habitat areas to

search for undocumented populations of

the two species. As a result, 69

additional sites within and adjoining

the population concentrations within

the ranges of the species were explored.

It should be noted that, in cases where

access was denied by private

landowners of historical sites, these

sites were not surveyed. The current

status on these sites is unknown.

Surveys conducted on Pseudobahia

peirsonii after 1990, showed that many

populations continued to decrease in

size during 1991 and 1992 in spite of

increased rainfall (J. Stebbins, California

State University, Fresno, pers. comm.

1993). One commenter who supported

the listing of Pseudobahia peirsonii,

submitted additional population data

from an extensive survey conducted in

Tulare County in 1992. This information

has been incorporated into this rule.

This commenter also noted that portions

of eastern Kern County contain the only

remaining suitable Pseudobahia

peirsonii habitat that has not been

thoroughly surveyed for the species. A

landowner in Kern County commented

that he discovered one population that

had been presumed extirpated in the

status survey, as well as four previously

unrecorded populations, the largest of

which contained approximately 10,000

plants. Information on all newly

recorded populations has been

incorporated into this rule. Much of the

suitable habitat for these species has

been surveyed. In the period of time

since the publication of the proposed

rule in 1993, no data have been

presented to contradict the Service’s

contention that these species are

imperiled by habitat loss and other

threats described in the Summary of

Factors. The Service believes that

sufficient information is available on

these species to warrant determination

of Pseudobahia bahiifolia as endangered

and Pseudobahia peirsonii as

threatened.

Issue 2

The Service should consider

economic effects in determining

whether to list these species under the

Act.

Service Response

Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, a

listing determination must be based

solely on the best scientific and

commercial data available. The

legislative history of this provision

clearly states the intent of Congress to

‘‘ensure’’ that listing decisions are

‘‘based solely on biological criteria and

to prevent non-biological considerations

from affecting such decisions’’, H.R.

Rep. No. 97–835, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 19

(1982). As further stated in the

legislative history, ‘‘Applying economic

criteria * * * to any phase of the

species listing process is applying

economics to the determinations made

under section 4 of the Act and is

specifically rejected by the inclusion of

the word ‘‘solely’’ in this legislation.’’

H.R. Rep. No. 567, part I, 97th Cong., 2d

Sess. 20 (1982).

Issue 3

Extensive grazing poses no threat to

Pseudobahia peirsonii. Populations of

this species have been grazed for 100

years or more with no adverse effects.

Grazing is necessary for the species to

compete against aggressive weeds.

Service Response

Any assessment of the historical range

and population size of the species is

complicated by the fact that most

records of plant populations were begun

after widespread agricultural

development had occurred (Stebbins

1991). No range or population data

exists for Pseudobahia peirsonii prior to

1925, the year this species was first

collected by Phillip Munz. All known

extant populations are found in grazed

grasslands dominated by nonnative

grasses and forbs. Populations not

grazed by domestic livestock are

unknown. Because the extent and size

of populations prior to introduction of

domestic livestock is also unknown, it

cannot be shown that there has been no

historical decline in Pseudobahia

peirsonii due to grazing.

Appropriate grazing practices may, in

fact, prove beneficial to Pseudobahia

peirsonii. Some populations of

Pseudobahia peirsonii appear to be

stable under current grazing practices at

their sites (CNDDB 1996). Grazing

reduces the cover and probably the

amount of seed produced by weedy

species that compete with Pseudobahia

peirsonii. Several botanists experienced

with Pseudobahia peirsonii commented

that ‘‘well-managed, moderate’’ grazing

is conducive to the survival of the plant

and that ‘‘removing the cattle entirely

can promote the rapid growth of

nonnative plants against which

Pseudobahia peirsonii has difficulty

competing.’’ Timing of grazing also may

affect weedy species abundance. A

controlled sheep grazing study showed

that early spring grazing resulted in a

higher frequency of native grasses than

did later grazing (Amme and Pitschel

1989).

Inappropriate grazing practices may,

however, be detrimental to the species

in several ways. Soil disturbance by

grazing animals may allow nonnative or

weedy species that are adapted to

growing in disturbed sites to become

established (Zedler 1987); these species

may, for various reasons, have an

advantage over Pseudobahia peirsonii in

competition for water, light, or

nutrients. Excessive trampling by

livestock also can degrade habitat by

compacting the soil and promoting

erosion. Although the palatability of

Pseudobahia peirsonii to cattle is

unknown, grazing animals are less

selective at heavy grazing pressure

when less forage is available per animal

(Kothmann 1983). Any remaining

plants, therefore, have a higher

probability of being grazed. This

increased grazing pressure in turn

affects seed production and can result in

population decline (Heady 1961).

Reduced population sizes during

periods of drought may be more

susceptible to the impacts of

inappropriate grazing practices. Over

half of all known populations of

Pseudobahia peirsonii had fewer than

250 individuals in 1991.

Issue 4

The status survey was conducted in a

drought year, which resulted in

abnormally low population counts.

Service Response

The Service used the best available

data at the time the proposal was

written. It was not possible to predict

the duration of the drought or to

postpone the survey until a favorable

rainfall year. Although the drought may

have had adverse effects on the size of

the Pseudobahia peirsonii populations,

surveys conducted on Pseudobahia

peirsonii after 1990 revealed that

despite increased rainfall, many

populations continued to decrease in

size during 1991 and 1992. Observations

made in the spring of 1993 showed that

most populations covered more area and

contained more plants than in previous

years; however, extirpated sites did not

reappear (J. Stebbins, pers. comm.

1993). Population counts of annual

species would be expected to fluctuate

yearly according to climatic conditions.
5546 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Moreover, the factors threatening the

remaining habitat of these species are

not diminished by annual population

fluctuations. As stated earlier, no data

have been presented to contradict the

Service’s contention that these species

are threatened by factors described in

the Summary of Factors.

Issue 5

The sampling period for Pseudobahia

peirsonii (1 month during 1 year), was

too short; more sites may have been

found during a longer sampling period.

Service Response

Pseudobahia peirsonii and

Pseudobahia bahiifolia are small annual

plants with a short blooming period of

3 to 4 weeks in March and April. The

period of time in which population

surveys can be conducted most

efficiently is during the blooming

period, when the plants are most readily

detectible and identifiable. The plants

are less visible later in the year as the

surrounding vegetation becomes denser

and Pseudobahia peirsonii and

Pseudobahia bahiifolia begin to produce

seed and die. To determine the range of

both species, all sites from historical

records, as well as potential sites, were

surveyed during this 1 month period.

The goal of the survey was not to

determine actual plant numbers but

rather the location, condition, and

relative size of the populations and

habitat. Actual plant numbers are not as

useful an index of population health as

is condition of occupied habitat and

general population condition. Annual

species can vary widely from year to

year in numbers of plants due to

variation in environmental conditions.

The Service believes that the properlytimed survey period during 1990 was

appropriate to evaluate the status of

both species. No significant

distributional data affecting the status of

either species has been reported during

subsequent surveys. Although several

new populations have been reported,

most are small, isolated, occur within

the known range of the species, and are

threatened by the same activities

affecting previously known populations.

Issue 6

The status survey was not ‘‘peerreviewed’’ before being accepted by the

Service; all data were collected by one

botanist and, therefore, subject to

personal bias.

Service Response

During the compilation of the

document, the author of the survey

consulted frequently with several

respected botanists, all of whom had

recent experience with Pseudobahia

peirsonii and Pseudobahia bahiifolia.

Historical population data were

compiled by CNDDB from records

dating back to 1897. Field data from

1990 were collected by several

technicians and were field checked by

the author.

Issue 7

Statements contained in the proposed

rule concerning the low numbers of

seeds of Pseudobahia bahiifolia and

Pseudobahia peirsonii in the seed bank

are speculative because no samples

were taken.

Service Response

Pseudobahia bahiifolia and

Pseudobahia peirsonii, when growing in

marginal habitats, produce few seeds in

comparison to the vigorous seed output

of the surrounding nonnative grasses

and forbs (Stebbins, pers. comm., 1993).

All remaining populations of

Pseudobahia bahiifolia and

Pseudobahia peirsonii are considered to

occur in marginal or degraded habitat

dominated by nonnative species and

may suffer from reduced seed output

resulting from poor physical condition

and competition (J. Stebbins, pers.

comm., 1993). In addition to

proportionally low seed input to the

seed bank, the overall seed bank of these

two species may become smaller if

reduction in population size and

consequent reduction in seed

production occurs.

Issue 8

No populations of Pseudobahia

peirsonii are threatened by highway

construction.

Service Response

The status of the highway

construction projects discussed in the

proposed rule has been reviewed. The

present status of these projects indicates

that they do not pose a threat to the

species; the final rule has been revised

to reflect this information. Nine

populations of Pseudobahia peirsonii,

however, are threatened by county and

private road maintenance as mentioned

under Factor A of Summary of Factors

Affecting the Species.

Issue 9

Current zoning laws and economic

conditions make future protection an

unnecessary duplication of existing

regulations.

Service Response

As was previously stated in the

proposed rule (57 FR 56549), existing

State and local regulations are

inadequate to protect these species.

Nearly all populations of both species

occur entirely on private land. State and

Federal laws are limited in their ability

to regulate potentially detrimental

activities on private property.

Pseudobahia peirsonii and Pseudobahia

bahiifolia are listed as endangered

under the Natural Plant Protection Act

of 1977 and the California Endangered

Species Act of 1984. Although both

statutes prohibit the ‘‘take’’ of State

listed species, State law exempts the

taking of plant species via habitat

modification or land use change by the

landowner. Current county zoning

ordinances do not offer protection from

land conversion. In each of the five

counties in which the two species

occur, no ordinances exist that regulate

the conversion of land use from grazing

to agricultural use. The Madera County

General Plan states that the proposed

permitted residential development in

that county likely will result in the

significant degradation or complete

elimination of the two populations of

Pseudobahia bahiifolia that occur in

Madera County (Madera County

Planning Department 1994). These

populations represent approximately

half of all Pseudobahia bahiifolia plants.

The majority of habitat loss that has

already occurred for both species has

been a result of conversion of natural

land to agricultural use. Current

economic conditions do not represent a

safeguard against future development

and change in land use.

Issue 10

The status survey on which the listing

is partially based was unpublished and

not available to the public before the

species were proposed to be listed.

Service Response

The status survey was prepared to

assist the Service in compiling available

scientific and commercial information,

including additional field surveys and

habitat evaluation. The status report was

completed in January 1991 and has been

available to the public upon request

since that time.

Issue 11

Methods used to collect population

data for the status survey were not

scientific and not described.

Service Response

The method used to examine the

populations of both species was a

meandering transect (Stebbins, pers.

comm. 1993). This is an established

method for surveying for rare plant

species (Nelson 1985). Population data

consisting of numbers and size class
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 5547

distribution of individual plants were

collected. Additionally, data relating to

physical site characteristics,

physiographic and topographic

characteristics, edaphic and erosion

factors, and vegetation type and

associated species were collected and

discussed in the status survey (Stebbins

1991). These environmental

characteristics are widely accepted as

important information upon which to

partially determine habitat viability and

suitability, and population threats.

Issue 12

Threats to Pseudobahia peirsonii from

agriculture are opinions of the author of

the status survey and are not supported

by facts.

Service Response

Historically, many populations of

both species have probably been lost to

agriculture. Pseudobahia peirsonii is

restricted to the heavy clay soil type

found in the valleys and flats which is

used for row crops and orchards. With

increased irrigation, foothill areas also

are being converted for agriculture. Of

the 30 historic populations of this

species surveyed in 1990, eight were

found to have been extirpated due to

conversion of land use to agriculture

(Stebbins 1991). Six remaining

populations are adjacent to farm land

and may be converted to agricultural

use in the future. Several other sites

currently are used only for grazing, but

also could face conversion to agriculture

because of proximity to active

agricultural land.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)

and regulations (50 CFR part 424)

promulgated to implement the listing

provisions of the Act set forth the

procedures for adding species to the

Federal lists of endangered and

threatened species. A species may be

determined to be an endangered or

threatened species due to one or more

of the five factors described in section

4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to Pseudobahia bahiifolia

(Bentham) Rydberg (Hartweg’s golden

sunburst) and Pseudobahia peirsonii

Munz (San Joaquin adobe sunburst) are

as follows:

A. The present or threatened

destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range.

Pseudobahia bahiifolia and

Pseudobahia peirsonii are restricted to

specific habitats in nonnative valley

grassland and occasionally the

grassland-woodland ecotone of the San

Joaquin Valley and neighboring

foothills. The primary threat facing the

two plants is ongoing and threatened

destruction and adverse modification of

their habitat. The habitat of the two

species is being threatened or

eliminated primarily by residential

development. Ag-land development, a

flood control project, competition from

nonnative plants, incompatible grazing

practices, mining, recreational activities

(including ORVs), transmission line

maintenance, road maintenance, and

other human impacts pose threats to

these species.

Urbanization and ag-land

development eliminated the type

locality in Yuba County, the only

documented occurrence of this plant in

the Sacramento Valley. The species

likely was extirpated in the area

between Stanislaus and Yuba counties

before other collections were

documented, as valley soils in this area

were rapidly converted to agricultural

use in the late 1800’s (Stebbins 1991).

Pseudobahia bahiifolia is now known

only from 16 sites in two localized areas

in the eastern portion of the San Joaquin

Valley—the Friant region in Madera and

Fresno counties, and the CooperstownLa Grange region in Stanislaus County

(CNDDB 1996). Habitat alteration from

residential development, ag-land

development, ORVs, and mining

threatens populations of Pseudobahia

bahiifolia in all three counties.

Two historical occurrences of

Pseudobahia bahiifolia have been

eliminated or seriously degraded in

Madera County by conversion to

orchards, mining, unauthorized

dumping, and grazing. The remaining

populations in Madera County are

threatened by residential development.

The Madera County General Plan states

that the proposed permitted residential

development in that county will likely

result in the complete elimination or

significant degradation of the two

populations that occur in Madera

County (Madera County Planning

Department 1995). These populations

represent approximately half of all

Pseudobahia bahiifolia plants. Habitat

supporting the plants is proposed to be

replaced by low density residential

housing. In addition, these Madera

County occurrences are threatened by

quarry activities and ORV use (Stebbins

1991). The largest of these two

populations, containing approximately

16,000 plants, is located 0.3 km (0.2 mi)

north of a pumicite quarry. Ongoing

quarry operations and associated ORV

use may damage this population, which

likely represents a fragment of an even

larger population that once occurred

west of Cottonwood Creek and east of

State Route 145, north of the San

Joaquin River at Friant Bridge. Off road

vehicle use occurs throughout the area

(Stebbins 1991). A similar quarry in

Stanislaus County is located 0.4 km

(0.25 mi) east of the second largest

population of Pseudobahia bahiifolia.

Although there are no current plans to

expand either mining operation, the

threat of expansion is dependent on

product demand.

In Fresno County, one population

grows on three land parcels, two of

which are protected. One parcel is

jointly managed by the U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation and The Nature

Conservancy and one parcel is protected

by conservation easement. The third

parcel is in private ownership and is

threatened by incompatible grazing

practices and residential development.

The other Fresno County population

occurs entirely on private lands. Both

privately-held Fresno County

occurrences are threatened by

urbanization associated with the

‘‘Millerton New Town’’ development,

the Friant Redevelopment Plan,

incompatible grazing practices, and

water tank access and maintenance

(Stebbins 1991).

In the Cooperstown-La Grange area of

Stanislaus County, three of the

remaining 12 occurrences are variously

threatened by ORV, incompatible

grazing practices, erosion resulting from

over grazing, potential quarry

expansion, and ag-land development

(Stebbins 1991). At one of the three

threatened sites, habitat was present but

no Pseudobahia bahiifolia plants were

found during the 1990 survey. The

remaining nine populations, all of

which occur on private land, are small,

containing less than 250 plants each.

Although the populations appear to be

stable under current grazing practices,

they may suffer if grazing pressures or

land use is changed.

Pseudobahia peirsonii is known from

36 sites in Fresno, Tulare, and Kern

counties (Stebbins 1991; K. and G.

Kirkpatrick, in litt. 1993; M. Mebane, in

litt. 1993; CNDDB, 1996). Habitat loss

and alteration from increased

urbanization are the primary threats to

Pseudobahia peirsonii. Transmission

line maintenance, ag-land development,

water projects, inappropriate grazing

practices, and road construction and

maintenance also threaten populations

of this species. These activities

collectively have reduced the species to

a small number of isolated colonies that

occur in three areas in three counties in

the southeastern portion of the San

Joaquin Valley—the Round Mountain

region in Fresno County, the PortervilleFountain Springs region in Tulare

County, and the Pine Mountain-Woody
5548 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

region in Kern County. Ag-land

development, urbanization, flooding

and shore erosion at Lake Success,

recreational activities, grazing, and

water projects have extirpated eight

historical occurrences, all of which were

in Tulare County.

Until recently, two of the largest

known populations of Pseudobahia

peirsonii, comprising approximately 34

percent of all plants of this species,

were found in Fresno County. Both

populations have now been impacted by

habitat alteration. The largest

population, containing approximately

5,000 plants spread over 1.2 hectares

(ha) (3 acres (ac)), is being impacted by

a large, residential project (Quail Lakes)

and an adjacent, recreational water park

(Clovis Lakes). The Quail Lakes project,

currently under construction, consists of

a 20.4 ha (51-ac) lake and 730 housing

units spread over 152 ha (375 ac)

(Valley Planning Consultants, Inc. 1993,

EIP 1993). Part of the mitigation for the

project includes preservation of the two

highest density of four subpopulations

of Pseudobahia peirsonii on the site and

the establishment of a third new

subpopulation using topsoil salvaged

from an area to be destroyed. The

salvaged topsoil would be planted with

seeds collected from a high density

population eliminated by the project.

The success of the proposed mitigation

is unknown. Frequently, propagation of

rare species is not successful. In a study

funded by California Department of Fish

and Game (CDFG), the success of 40

projects attempting to transplant,

relocate, or reintroduce endangered or

threatened plant species in California,

was evaluated; only 20 percent of the

projects were deemed fully successful

(Fiedler 1991).

The second largest population of

Pseudobahia peirsonii, also located in

Fresno County, had nearly 4,500 plants

spread over 17 ha (42 ac), and was

located in the Fancher Creek Reservoir

Project Area. The Fancher Creek

Reservoir Project was constructed

several years ago by the Fresno

Metropolitan Flood Control District to

temporarily detain water during flood

periods. which it has done at various

times over the past two years. The

project was predicted to impact

approximately 40 percent of this

population (Jones and Stokes 1990). The

three other Fresno County sites are

threatened variously by the proposed

residential expansion in the greater

Fresno area, ag-land development,

incompatible grazing practices,

competition from nonnative plants, and

livestock trampling (Stebbins 1991).

Most Tulare County populations of

Pseudobahia peirsonii lie in the

Porterville-Fountain Springs area,

although several small, isolated

populations recently have been

discovered in the northern part of the

county (K. and G. Kirkpatrick, in litt.

1993). Maintenance and repair of the

Southern California Edison transmission

lines pose a potential threat to two

Tulare County populations of

Pseudobahia peirsonii located under the

transmission line right-of-way south of

Fountain Springs. Another population,

located near the high water line at Lake

Success east of Porterville could be

impacted or extirpated by inundation or

erosion resulting from a rise in water

level. Although the Corps has no current

plans to increase water storage, such a

project has been proposed in the recent

past.

Numerous other human impacts

threaten populations of Pseudobahia

peirsonii. In Fresno County, potentially

harmful runoff from State Route 180

may impact a population growing on

both sides of the highway on the soft

shoulder (Stebbins 1991). Road

stabilization and maintenance practices

threaten four populations in Kern

County, three in Tulare County, and two

in Fresno County (Stebbins 1991; K. and

G. Kirkpatrick, in litt., 1993; CNDDB

1996). Off road vehicle use and hiking

threaten one population of

approximately 200 plants spread over

1.2 ha (3 ac) in Tulare County.

B. Overutilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes. There are no known

significant existing or potential threats

to Pseudobahia bahiifolia and

Pseudobahia peirsonii as a result of

these activities. However, the increased

publicity associated with proposing

these species may make them attractive

to researchers and collectors of rare

plants.

C. Disease or predation. Pseudobahia

bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii

have been subjected to various levels of

livestock grazing. Several populations of

Pseudobahia peirsonii appear to be

stable under the current grazing

practices on their sites (CNDDB 1996).

Stebbins (1991) concluded that

moderate levels of grazing help to

control the aggressive nonnative forbs

and grasses against which Pseudobahia

bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii

must compete in their respective habitat

areas. Others have also noted that

livestock grazing appears to be

compatible and possibly beneficial to

Pseudobahia peirsonii if managed

properly, and that the biggest threat to

the species comes not from routine and

moderate grazing practices, but from

land conversion or extensive

overgrazing of the population sites (K.

and G. Kirkpatrick, in litt., 1993; R.

Hansen, in litt., 1993; T. Mallory, in litt.,

1993). Both Pseudobahia species may

benefit, in particular, from a reduction

of grazing levels during flowering and

fruiting in March and April. Excessive

trampling of the plants by livestock may

also be detrimental because of direct

and indirect effects of soil compaction

on soil-water relations and erosion. One

historical occurrence in Tulare County

of Pseudobahia peirsonii is thought to

have been extirpated by incompatible

grazing practices (Stebbins 1991).

D. The inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms. Nearly all

populations of both plants occur

entirely on private land. State and

Federal laws are limited in their ability

to regulate potentially detrimental

human activities on private property

(Clausen 1989). For example, local

zoning ordinances in the five counties

in which both species occur, do not

regulate the conversion of open

rangeland to ag-land. Under the Native

Plant Protection Act of 1977 (Chapter 10

§ 1900 et seq. of the California Fish and

Game Code) and California Endangered

Species Act of 1984 (Chapter 1.5 § 2050

et seq.), the California Fish and Game

Commission has listed both

Pseudobahia bahiifolia and

Pseudobahia peirsonii as endangered

(14 California Code of Regulations

Section 670.2). Though both statutes

prohibit the ‘‘take’’ of State-listed plants

(Chapter 10 § 1908 and Chapter 1.5

§ 2080), State law exempts the taking of

such plants via habitat modification or

land use change by the landowner. After

the CDFG notifies a landowner that a

State-listed plant grows on his or her

property, State law requires only that

the landowner notify the agency ‘‘at

least 10 days in advance of changing the

land use to allow possible salvage of

such plant.’’ (Chapter 10 § 1913).

The California Environmental Quality

Act (CEQA) requires a full public

disclosure of the potential

environmental impacts of proposed

projects. The public agency with

primary authority or jurisdiction over

the project is designated as the lead

agency, and is responsible for

conducting a review of the project and

consulting with other agencies

concerned with resources affected by

the project. Section 15065 of the CEQA

Guidelines requires a finding of

significance if a project has the potential

to ‘‘reduce the number or restrict the

range of a rare or endangered plant or

animal.’’ Once significant impacts are

identified, the project agency has the

option to require mitigation for effects

through changes in the project or to

decide that overriding considerations
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 5549

make mitigation infeasible. In the latter

case, projects may be approved that

cause significant environmental

damage, such as destruction of

endangered species. Protection of listed

species through CEQA is therefore at the

discretion of the project agency

involved.

E. Other natural or manmade factors

affecting its continued existence. The

typical variation in rainfall

characteristics of the regional climate

very likely will subject populations of

both species to periodic drought, which

may threaten the remaining small,

marginal populations of both species.

Marginal habitat conditions and past

disturbances could exacerbate already

critically low population sizes and

decrease the amount and/or viability of

stored seed banks for both species.

Annuals and other monocarpic plants

(individuals that die after flowering and

fruiting), like both species considered

herein, may be more vulnerable to

random fluctuations or variation

(stochasticity) in annual weather

patterns and other environmental

factors than plant species with different

life histories (Huenneke et al. 1986).

Fifty percent of all populations of both

species have been observed with fewer

than 100 plants, which may make them

more vulnerable to random chance

extirpation (Stebbins 1991, K. and G.

Kirkpatrick, in litt. 1993). Moreover,

nonnative species germinate in late fall

and likely outcompete Pseudobahia

bahiifolia and Pseudobahia peirsonii for

sunlight, nutrients, and water.

Competition from nonnative plants

threatens the Pseudobahia bahiifolia

population at the botanical preserve in

Fresno County (Rosalie Faubion, U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation, pers. comm.

1992). Competition from nonnative

plants also threatens four occurrences of

Pseudobahia peirsonii in Tulare County

(Stebbins 1991, K. and G. Kirkpatrick, in

litt. 1993). The invasion of nonnative

plants likely has been a significant

factor in the degradation of the habitat

of both plants throughout their

respective ranges (Heady 1977, Amme

and Pitschel 1989).

The Service has assessed carefully the

best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past,

present, and future threats faced by both

species in determining to make this rule

final. Based on this evaluation, the

preferred action is to list Pseudobahia

bahiifolia as endangered and

Pseudobahia peirsonii as threatened.

Both species occupy specific habitat

within a restricted geographic area. All

remaining populations of both species

are considered to occur in marginal or

degraded habitat (J. Stebbins, pers.

comm. 1993). Remaining habitat is

highly fragmented and most remaining

populations are quite small. The largest

populations of both species are

imminently threatened by residential

development. In addition, a significant

portion of the remaining range of both

species is threatened by ag-land

development, a flood control project,

mining, grazing, and competition from

nonnative species.

Over 90 percent of all Pseudobahia

bahiifolia plants occur in two general

locations. One site, approximately 0.8

km (0.5 mi) long and containing about

16,000 plants, is the remnant of one

large population that now has become

fragmented. This occurrence,

representing approximately half of all

plants of this species, is proposed to be

eliminated by a residential development

project. The second large population

contains approximately 15,000 plants

and is located 0.4 km (0.25 mi) from a

quarry. Although there are no current

plans to expand the quarry, the threat of

quarry expansion is dependent on

product demand. Moreover, degradation

from off-road vehicle use on these sites

is on-going. Grazing occurs at both

locations and appears to be accelerating

soil erosion at the smaller site. Neither

of these two sites is protected.

Over 80 percent of Pseudobahia

peirsonii plants occur at 4 sites; 32

additional smaller sites contain 1,000

plants or fewer. The Quail Lakes

population, largest of all known

populations with 18 percent of the total

plant population, is being impacted by

urban development. The second largest

population, with 16 percent of the total

plant population, lies in the Fancher

Creek Flood Control Project area. This

project, completed several years ago,

was predicted to impact 40 percent of

the population. Gradual conversion of

range land in eastern San Joaquin Valley

to residential use also threatens the

species (J. Stebbins pers. comm. 1996).

Anthropogenic actions have degraded

and reduced the habitat of most of the

remaining populations. As a result,

Pseudobahia bahiifolia is in danger of

extinction and Pseudobahia peirsonii is

likely to become in danger of extinction

within the foreseeable future throughout

all or a significant portion of their

ranges.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3

of the Act as: (1) the specific areas

within the geographical area occupied

by a species, at the time it is listed in

accordance with the Act, on which are

found those physical or biological

features (I) essential to the conservation

the species and (II) that may require

special management considerations or

protection and; (ii) specific areas

outside the geographical area occupied

by a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are

essential for the conservation of the

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use

of all methods and procedures needed

to bring the species to the point at

which listing under the Act is no longer

necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires

that, to the maximum extent prudent

and determinable, the Secretary

designate critical habitat concurrently

with determining a species to be

endangered or threatened. The Service

finds that the determination of critical

habitat is not prudent for either species

at this time. Because the two species

face numerous anthropogenic threats

(see Factor A, Factor C, and Factor E in

the ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species’’) and occur predominantly on

private land, the publication of precise

maps and descriptions of critical habitat

in the Federal Register would make

both plants more vulnerable to incidents

of vandalism and, therefore, could

contribute to the decline of the two

plants. The listing of these species also

publicizes the rarity of the plants and,

thus, may make them attractive to

researchers or collectors of rare plants.

The proper agencies will be notified of

the location and importance of

protecting the habitat of both species.

Protection of both species’ habitat will

be addressed through the recovery

process and through the section 7

consultation process.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include

recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and

prohibitions against certain activities.

Recognition through listing encourages

and results in conservation actions by

Federal, State, and private agencies,

groups, and individuals. The Act

provides for land acquisition and

cooperation with the State and requires

that recovery actions be carried out for

all listed species. Such actions are

initiated by the Service following

listing. The protection required of

Federal agencies and the prohibitions

against certain activities involving listed

plants are discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act requires

Federal agencies to evaluate their

actions with respect to any species that

is proposed or listed as endangered or

threatened and with respect to its

critical habitat, if any is being

designated. Regulations implementing
5550 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

this interagency cooperation provision

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part

402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires

Federal agencies to confer with the

Service on any action that is likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of a

proposed species or result in

destruction or adverse modification of

proposed critical habitat. If a species is

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2)

requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry

out are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of such a species or

to destroy or adversely modify its

critical habitat. If a Federal action may

affect a listed species or its critical

habitat, the responsible Federal agency

must enter into formal consultation with

the Service.

Federal involvement for these species

is expected to include the U.S. Bureau

of Reclamation, which operates, as part

of the Central Valley Project, the FriantKern canal system located within 0.4

km (0.25 mile) of six Pseudobahia

bahiifolia and two Pseudobahia

peirsonii populations. In addition, the

Corps operates the facilities at Lake

Success located within 0.8 km (0.50 mi)

of three Pseudobahia peirsonii colonies

and sponsored the Redbank-Fancher

Creek Flood Control Project, which

currently impacts another Pseudobahia

peirsonii colony near Round Mountain.

Any future construction or maintenance

activities on these government projects

that may affect the plant populations, as

well as water contract renewals, would

require section 7 consultation with the

Service. The Service may develop, in

cooperation with other knowledgeable

parties, grazing recommendations for

habitats supporting the two species. The

goal of the recommendations would be

to encourage grazing practices which, if

implemented, would benefit growth and

reproduction of Pseudobahia bahiifolia

and Pseudobahia peirsonii.

A Pseudobahia bahiifolia population

in Fresno County is provided some

protection on one parcel by joint

management by The Nature

Conservancy (TNC) and the Bureau of

Reclamation, and on a second parcel by

a conservation easement between a

private landowner and TNC. This site is

difficult to protect, however, because of

its proximity to residential housing, the

Friant-Kern Canal, and a Friant water

tank.

The Act and its implementing

regulations found at 50 CFR 17.61,

17.62, and 17.63 for endangered plant

species and 17.71 and 17.72 for

threatened plant species set forth a

series of general prohibitions and

exceptions that apply to all endangered

or threatened plants. With respect to

Pseudobahia bahiifolia and

Pseudobahia peirsonii, all trade

prohibitions of sections 9(a)(2) of the

Act, implemented by 50 CFR 17.61 or

17.71, would apply. These prohibitions,

in part, make it illegal for any person

subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States to import or export, deliver,

receive, carry, transport or ship in

interstate or foreign commerce in the

course of a commercial activity, sell or

offer for sale these species in interstate

or foreign commerce; or remove and

reduce to possession these species from

areas under Federal jurisdiction. Other

prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act

make it illegal to maliciously damage or

destroy any such plant species on any

area under Federal jurisdiction; or to

remove, cut, dig up, damage, or destroy

any such plant species on any other area

in knowing violation of any State law or

regulation or in the course of any

violation of a State criminal trespass

law. Certain exceptions can apply to

agents of the Service and State

conservation agencies. The Act and 50

CFR 17.62, 17.63, and 17.72 also

provides for the issuance of permits to

carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered or threatened

plant species under certain

circumstances. The Service anticipates

few trade permits would ever be sought

or issued for the two species because the

plants are not common in cultivation or

in the wild.

It is the policy of the Service (59 FR

34272) to identify to the maximum

extent practicable at the time a species

is listed those activities that would or

would not constitute a violation of

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this

policy is to increase public awareness of

the effect of the listing on proposed and

ongoing activities within a species’

range. Populations of both species occur

on Federal lands. Collection, damage, or

destruction of the two species on

Federal lands is prohibited, although, in

appropriate cases, a Federal endangered

species permit may be issued to allow

collection for scientific or recovery

purposes. Such activities on nonFederal lands would constitute a

violation of California State laws or

regulations. California law requires a ten

day notice be given before taking of

plants on private land. Activities, such

as landscape maintenance, and clearing

vegetation for firebreaks, and livestock

grazing on privately-owned lands not

under Federal funding or authorization,

would not be considered a violation of

section 9 of the Act.

Questions regarding whether specific

activities will constitute a violation of

section 9 should be directed to the Field

Supervisor of the Service’s Sacramento

Field Office. Requests for copies of the

regulations on plants and inquires

regarding them may be addressed to the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Ecological Services, Endangered Species

Permits, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue,

Portland, Oregon 97232–4181 (phone

503/231–2063, facsimile 503/231–6243).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has

determined that Environmental

Assessments or Environmental Impact

Statements, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, need not be

prepared in connection with regulations

adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the

Act. A notice outlining the Service’s

reasons for this determination was

published in the Federal Register on

October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

The Service has examined this

regulation under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to

contain no information collection

requirements. This rulemaking was not

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein, as well as others, is available

upon request from the Field Supervisor,

Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Author

The primary author of this rule is

Elizabeth Warne, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Sacramento Field Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, and

Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of

chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, is amended as set forth

below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 17.12(h) is amended by

adding the following, in alphabetical

order under [FLOWERING PLANTS], to

the List of Endangered and Threatened

Plants to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 5551

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range Family Status When

listed

Critical

habitat

Special

rules Scientific name Common name

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * *

Pseudobahia bahiifolia ....... Hartweg’s golden sunburst.U.S.A. (CA) ................ Asteraceae ................ E 609 NA NA

Pseudobahia peirsonii ........ San Joaquin adobe

sunburst.

U.S.A. (CA) ................ Asteraceae ................ T 609 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Dated: December 5, 1996.

John G. Rogers,

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

[FR Doc. 97–2875 Filed 2–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P