Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55791

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW, Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Iowa, is amended by

adding New London, Channel 247A.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–27943 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96–124; RM–8813, RM–

8864]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Winner

and Wessington Springs, SD

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the

request of Midwest Radio Corporation,

substitutes Channel 252C1 for Channel

253C1 at Winner, reallots Channel

252C1 from Winner to Wessington

Springs, South Dakota, and modifies

Station KGGK(FM)’s construction

permit accordingly (RM–8813). See 61

FR 31489, June 20, 1996. At the request

of Dakota Communications, Inc., we

also allot Channel 227C1 at Wessington

Springs, South Dakota, as the

community’s second local FM

transmission service (RM–8864).

Channels 227C1 and 252C1 can be

allotted to Wessington Springs in

compliance with the Commission’s

minimum distance separation

requirements at city reference

coordinates. The coordinates for

Channels 227C1 and 252C1 at

Wessington Springs are North Latitude

44–05–12 and West Longitude 98–34–

24. With this action, this proceeding is

terminated.

DATES: Effective November 24, 1997.

The window period for filing

applications for Channel 227C1 at

Wessington Springs, South Dakota, will

open on November 24, 1997, and close

on December 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 96–124,

adopted October 1, 1997, and released

October 10, 1997. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy

contractors, International Transcription

Service, Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under South Dakota, is

amended by removing Channel 253C1

from Winner, and adding Wessington

Springs, Channels 227C1 and 252C1.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–27942 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AD36

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Determination of

Endangered Status for Nine Plants

From the Grasslands or Mesic Areas of

the Central Coast of California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) determines

endangered status pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act) for nine plants:

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

(Sonoma alopecurus), Astragalus

clarianus (Clara Hunt’s milk-vetch),

Carex albida (white sedge), Clarkia

imbricata (Vine Hill clarkia), Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense (Pitkin

Marsh lily), Plagiobothrys strictus

(Calistoga allocarya), Poa napensis

(Napa bluegrass), Sidalcea oregana ssp.

valida (Kenwood Marsh checkermallow), and Trifolium amoenum

(showy Indian clover). These nine

species grow in a variety of habitats

including valley grasslands, meadows,

freshwater marshes, seeps, and blue oak

woodlands in Marin, Napa, and Sonoma

Counties on the central coast of

California. Habitat loss and degradation,

competition from invasive plant species,

elimination through plant community

succession, trampling and herbivory by

livestock and wildlife, collection for

horticultural use, and hydrological

alterations to wetland areas threaten the

continued existence of these plants.

This rule implements Federal protection

and recovery provisions afforded by the

Act for these nine species.

DATES: Effective November 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is available for public inspection,

by appointment, during normal business

hours at the Sacramento Field Office,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3310 El

Camino Avenue, Suite 130, Sacramento,

California 95821–6340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane Elam or David Wright,

Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section) (telephone 916/979–2120;

facsimile 916/979–2128).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Populations of the nine plant species

in this rule are found in Sonoma, Marin,

and Napa Counties, California.

Astragalus clarianus (Clara Hunt’s milkvetch), Plagiobothrys strictus (Calistoga

allocarya), and Poa napensis (Napa

bluegrass) are found up to 70 kilometers

(km) (32 miles (mi)) inland in a variety

of habitats near the City of Calistoga in

the Napa Valley, California. Alopecurus

aequalis var. sonomensis (Sonoma

alopecurus), Carex albida (white sedge),

Clarkia imbricata (Vine Hill clarkia),

Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense

(Pitkin Marsh lily), Sidalcea oregana

ssp. valida (Kenwood Marsh checkermallow), and Trifolium amoenum
55792 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(showy Indian clover) are found in

mesic areas mostly within 33 km (15 mi)

of the central coast of California.

Urbanization, road construction, airport

construction, development of hot

springs into commercial resorts,

agricultural land conversion,

hydrological alteration of wetlands,

waste disposal, competition with

invasive plant species, collection for

horticultural use, or livestock grazing

have eliminated or adversely impacted

much of the habitat and have extirpated

numerous populations of these plant

species. Historically, these species have

not been known to occur outside of

Alameda, Marin, Mendocino, Napa,

Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma

Counties.

Willis Jepson (1925a) first described

Astragalus clarianus in 1909 from

specimens collected by Clara Hunt in

the Conn Valley near St. Helena, Napa

County, California. Axel Rydberg (1929)

and Jepson (1936) later treated this

taxon as Hamosa clariana and

Astragalus rattani var. clarianus,

respectively. Rupert Barneby (1950)

reestablished Astragalus clarianus as a

full species, a treatment retained by

Spellenberg (1993). Astragalus clarianus

is a low-growing annual herb in the pea

family (Fabaceae). It is a slender,

sparsely leafed plant, sparingly covered

with sharp, stiff, appressed hairs. The

simple single or few basally branching,

stems ascend 7 to 20 centimeters (cm)

(3 to 8 inches (in)) in height. The leaves

are alternate, 1.5 to 6.0 cm (0.5 to 2.5

in) long, with 5 to 9 uncrowded leaflets

2 to 10 millimeters (mm) (0.1 to 0.4 in)

long. The leaflets are oblong to obovate,

narrow at the base, and notched at the

tip. Small flowers appear from March

through April. The petals are bicolored,

with the wings whitish and the banner

and keel purple in the upper third. The

keel is longer and wider than the wings.

The horizontal to declining seed pods

are narrow, linear, slightly curved,

pointed at both ends, and are borne on

a 1.5 to 2.5 mm (0.06 to 0.10 in) long

slender stalk. Astragalus rattanii var.

jepsonianus resembles A. clarianus, but

grows 10 to 36 cm (4 to 14 in) tall, has

larger flowers, and has seed pods that

are not elevated on a stalk.

Astragalus clarianus is found on thin,

rocky clay soils derived from volcanic

or serpentine substrates (Joe Callizo,

California Native Plant Society (CNPS),

in litt. 1996; Jake Ruygt, CNPS, Napa

Valley Chapter, pers. comm. 1996,

public hearing transcript) in grasslands

and openings in whiteleaf manzanita

(Arctostaphylos manzanita)-blue oak

(Quercus douglasii) woodlands (Liston

1990) over an elevation range of 75 to

225 meters (m) (240 to 840 feet (ft)). Six

historical occurrences were known from

Napa and Sonoma counties. Two of

these occurrences were extirpated by

urbanization and viticulture (California

Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB)

1996). Of the remaining four

occurrences, three are found in

northwestern Napa County and one

occurs in adjacent Sonoma County.

These four disjunct occurrences are

restricted to about 28 hectares (ha) (70

acres (ac)) (CNDDB 1996). The trend for

Clara Hunt’s milk-vetch is one of

decline as a result of habitat destruction

and modification (California

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)

1991). Extant populations of A.

clarianus are variously threatened by

urbanization, recreational activities,

airport maintenance, elimination due to

plant community succession,

competition from invasive weeds, a

proposed water storage project, and

random events. Populations occur on

private, State, and municipal land.

Edward Greene (1892) and Jepson

(Abrams ex Jepson 1951) treated

Plagiobothrys strictus as Allocarya

stricta and Allocarya californica var.

stricta, respectively, before Ivan

Johnston (1923) assigned the name,

Plagiobothrys strictus, to specimens

collected on alkaline flats near sulphur

springs at Calistoga, Napa County,

California. This treatment was retained

by Messick (1993). Plagiobothrys

strictus is a small, erect, annual herb

belonging to the borage family

(Boraginaceae). It grows 1 to 4

decimeters (dm) (4 to 15 in) in height.

The nearly hairless plant has either a

single stem or branches from near the

base. The linear lower leaves are 4 to 9

cm (1.5 to 4 in) long. Small, usually

paired, white flowers appear in March

to April in a slender, unbranched

inflorescence. The fruit is an egg-shaped

nutlet about 1.5 mm (0.6 in) long, keeled

on the back, with wart-like projections

without any prickles. Plagiobothrys

greenei, P. lithocaryus, P. mollis var.

vestitus, P. stipitatus, and P. tener have

ranges that overlap with that of

Plagiobothrys strictus and occur in

similar habitats, but they do not

resemble P. strictus and have not been

found at the known P. strictus sites (J.

Callizo, in litt. 1996).

Plagiobothrys strictus is found in

pools and swales adjacent to and fed by

hot springs and small geysers in

grasslands within an elevation range of

90 to 160 m (300 to 500 ft). Three

historical populations occurred within a

3 km (2 mi) radius of Calistoga, Napa

County, California. One population was

extirpated by urbanization and

agricultural land conversion. Of the two

remaining populations of P. strictus, one

occurs near a geyser and some

undeveloped thermal hot springs while

the other occurs at the airport in the city

of Calistoga. The combined area of the

two remaining populations is less than

80 square meters (m2) (900 square feet

(ft2)) (CNPS 1990). The overall trend for

Calistoga allocarya (Plagiobothrys

strictus) is one of decline (CDFG 1991).

The species is threatened by

recreational activities, airport

maintenance, urbanization, and random

events. Both populations are on private

land and neither is protected.

Alan Beetle first described Poa

napensis in 1946 from specimens that

he collected in a meadow moistened by

seepage from hot springs, 3 km (2 mi)

north of Calistoga at Myrtledale Hot

Springs, Napa County, California. This

treatment was retained by Soreng

(1993). Poa napensis is an erect, tufted

perennial bunchgrass in the grass family

(Poaceae) that grows to 1 dm (4 in) in

height. Leaves are folded, stiffly erect, 1

mm (0.04 in) wide, with the basal leaves

20 cm (8 in) long and upper stem leaves

to 15 cm (6 in) in length. A few stiff,

erect flowering stems appear in May and

grow 7 dm (27 in) in height. Flower

clusters occur as a pale green to purple,

condensed, oblong-oval panicle 10 to 15

cm (4 to 6 in) long and 2 to 5 cm (0.8

to 2.0 in) wide. Poa napensis most

closely resembles P. unilateralis (ocean

bluff bluegrass), but differs in leaf and

panicle form and habitat.

Poa napensis is found in grasslands

and moist, alkaline meadows fed by hot

springs. The elevation range of this

plant is 100 to 120 m (340 to 400 ft)

within a radius of 6 km (4 mi) of

Calistoga. Historically, the range of this

plant has been diminished by the

development of recreational hot springs

and the growth of the town of Calistoga.

Only two populations of the species are

known to exist, one near Myrtledale Hot

Springs which is restricted to a 100 m2

(1,100 ft2) area, and a second smaller

population of 100 plants nearby (CDFG

1979). Both populations of P. napensis

depend on moisture from adjacent hot

springs or surface runoff. Any action

that would alter the hydrology or flow

from these hot springs would be

detrimental to these populations (CDFG

1979). The trend for Napa bluegrass is

one of decline (CDFG 1991). Poa

napensis is threatened by recreational

activities, airport maintenance,

urbanization, and random events (CNPS

1987, 1990; J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993; J.

Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996). Both extant

populations are located on private land

and are not protected.

Peter Rubtzoff (1961) described

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

based on a specimen collected in 1955
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55793

in Guerneville Marsh, Sonoma County,

California. Specimens assignable to this

taxon were collected as early as 1880 in

Sonoma and Marin counties, but had

been identified as Alopecurus aequalis

Sobol., a circumboreal foxtail grass

found as far south as adjacent

Mendocino County. These specimens,

however, deviated considerably from

typical A. aequalis and were identified

by Rubtzoff as A. aequalis var.

sonomensis. Although William Crins

(1993) only referred to this variety in

passing in a discussion of the species,

its varietal status adequately reflects its

morphological and ecological attributes

and it is considered to be a distinct

variety (William Crins, Ontario Ministry

of Natural Resources, in litt. 1993).

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

is a tufted perennial in the grass family

(Poaceae) that reaches 30 to 75 cm (12

to 30 in) in height. The stems are mostly

erect and either straight or weakly bent

near the base. The leaf blades are up to

7.5 mm (0.3 in) wide. The panicle is 2.5

to 9.0 cm (1.0 to 3.5 in) long and 4 to

8 mm (0.1 to 0.3 in) wide. The spikelets

are usually tinged violet-gray near the

tip. The awn (bristlelike part) is straight,

and exceeds the lemma body by 1.0 to

2.5 mm (0.04 to 0.1 in). This variety is

distinguished from A. aequalis var.

aequalis by its more robust, upright

appearance, generally wider panicle,

violet-gray tinged spikelets, and longer

awn (Rubtzoff 1961; William Crins,

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,

in litt. 1993).

When the proposed rule was written,

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

was known from five natural

populations. Three of the sites, in

Sonoma County, were privately owned,

and two sites were on Federal land

within Point Reyes National Seashore

(PRNS) in Marin County (CNDDB 1993;

Virginia Norris, CNPS, Marin Chapter,

in litt. 1993). Three more natural sites in

Marin County have since been

identified. Two are on Federal land

within PRNS, and the third is a private

inholding within the PRNS (CNDDB

1996; V. Norris, in litt. 1995; Robert

Soost, CNPS, Marin Chapter, in litt.

1996). One of the newly discovered

populations was initially thought to be

the result of seeds washed down from

a reintroduced population, but it is now

considered a natural population (V.

Norris, in litt. 1995). All populations

occur in moist soils in permanent

freshwater marshes between 6 and 210

m (20 and 680 ft) in elevation.

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

was known historically from 16

populations. The historical range of the

taxon was approximately 48 km (30 mi),

extending north from Point Reyes

Peninsula to Guerneville and east to

Cunningham. Although fewer sites are

now present, the range of the species

has changed little. The numbers of

populations of this species are declining

due to competition from invasive plant

species, trampling and grazing by cattle,

and low reproductive success. Three

attempts to reintroduce the species in

the PRNS have failed (CNDDB 1996; V.

Norris, in litt. 1995). The proposed rule,

published August 2, 1995 (60 FR

39314), stated that one attempt was

destroyed by a flash flood in 1993. It is

now thought that the affected

population was a natural population

and not a reintroduction. This

population reestablished and contained

15 plants in 1994 and 13 in 1995 (V.

Norris, in litt. 1995).

The number of individuals in

populations of Alopecurus aequalis var.

sonomensis may fluctuate markedly

between years. The largest population

recorded in recent years was about 600

plants in 1995; this population dropped

to about 100 plants in 1996 (V. Norris,

in litt. 1995; R. Soost, in litt. 1996). A

population in Sonoma County reported

to have 150 individuals in 1987 had

dropped to only 4 plants by 1994 (V.

Norris, in litt. 1995). Most often,

populations of A. aequalis ssp.

sonomensis have about 100 or fewer

individuals (CNDDB 1996).

Liberty Bailey (1889) described Carex

albida based on a specimen collected by

John Bigelow in 1854 on Santa Rosa

Creek, Sonoma County, California.

Specimens of the plant collected by

John T. Howell and John W. Stacey in

1937 were described as C. sonomensis

(Stacey 1937), but Howell (1957) later

stated that the type specimen of C.

albida had been misinterpreted by

Stacey and others and that C.

sonomensis is a synonym of C. albida.

Howell’s interpretation continues to be

accepted (Mastrogiuseppe 1993).

Carex albida is a loosely tufted

perennial herb in the sedge family

(Cyperaceae). The stems are triangular,

4 to 6 dm (1.3 to 2.0 ft) tall, erect, and

longer than the leaves. The leaves are

flat and 3 to 5 cm (1 to 2 in) wide with

closed sheaths. The inflorescence

consists of 4 to 7 ovoid or obovoid to

oblong spikelets 8 to 18 mm (0.3 to 0.7

in) long. The achenes (fruits) are threesided when mature. The sacs (perigynia)

surrounding the achenes are light green

to yellow-green when mature and 3.0 to

4.5 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in) long. Several traits

distinguish C. albida from other closely

related sedges. Carex albida has

inflorescences with staminate flowers

above the pistillate flowers, especially

on the terminal inflorescence, lateral

spikelets, and leaves that are shorter

than the stems and 3 to 5 mm (0.1 to 0.2

in) wide. Some individuals of Carex

lemmonii resemble C. albida, but differ

in perigynia and fruit size, or in other

respects.

Carex albida was thought to be extinct

but is now known from a single

population discovered in 1987. Carex

albida was known historically from four

other locations including the type

locality on Santa Rosa Creek and three

additional populations in two marshes,

all in Sonoma County. The marsh

containing C. albida at the Santa Rosa

Creek site was destroyed in the 1960’s

by channelization and other alterations

to Santa Rosa Creek (Betty Guggolz,

CNPS, Milo Baker Chapter, in litt. 1993).

A second marsh has been used for

cannery waste disposal since 1971,

causing the probable loss of the

population (CNDDB 1996). At the third

marsh, one of the two historical

populations has not been seen since

1951. Access to the other population has

been denied by the landowner, and the

presence of the plant has not been

confirmed since 1976. This marsh has

become drier in recent years because the

addition of wells and other construction

has altered the marsh hydrology, and it

likely no longer supports the species (B.

Guggolz, in litt. 1993).

The only extant population of C.

albida is found in a sphagnum bog,

between 45 and 60 m (150 and 200 ft)

in elevation. The population contains

about 1,000 plants and occurs on private

property in Sonoma County (CDFG

1993a, CNDDB 1996). Carex albida is

threatened by potential alteration of

hydrology from changes in land use or

potential disturbance from a proposed

wastewater treatment project,

competition from invasive species,

potential disturbance from repair or

alteration of a nearby state highway, and

random events.

F. Harlan Lewis and Margaret Lewis

(1953) described Clarkia imbricata from

specimens they collected on July 10,

1951, along Vine Hill Road, Sonoma

County. This treatment continues to be

accepted (Lewis 1993). Clarkia

imbricata is an erect, annual herb in the

evening-primrose family (Onagraceae).

The stems grow to 6 dm (2.5 ft) tall,

unbranched or with numerous short

branches in the upper parts. This plant

is densely leafy, with entire, lanceolate

leaves 2.0 to 2.5 cm (0.8 to 1.0 in) long

and 4 to 7 mm (0.2 to 0.3 in) broad that

are ascending and overlapping. The

showy inflorescences appear from June

through July. The flowers are grouped

closely together and each flower has a

conspicuous funnel-shaped tube at its

base. Each flower has four fan-shaped,

lavender petals 2.0 to 2.5 cm (0.8 to 1.0
55794 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

in) long with a V-shaped purple spot

extending from the middle to the upper

margin of the petal. Clarkia purpurea

ssp. viminea is the only other Clarkia

taxon with which C. imbricata can be

confused. Clarkia purpurea ssp. viminea

has a much shorter, funnel-shaped tube

and does not have the relatively broad,

ascending, overlapping leaves of C.

imbricata.

Clarkia imbricata has never been

known to be common. Unsuccessful

searches for this plant at its type locality

have been made since 1974 (B. Guggolz,

in litt. 1993). This taxon is only known

from two populations, one natural and

one planted in a preserve, found in

sandy grasslands in Sonoma County.

The natural population was the source

for cuttings that were transplanted into

the 0.6 ha (1.5 ac) preserve in 1974. The

two populations are 1.2 km (0.75 mi)

apart, have an elevation range of 60 to

75 m (200 to 250 ft), and occur on

private land. The natural population

contains 2,000 to 5,000 plants and

occurs on an open, flat grassland

surrounded by a variety of introduced

trees and shrubs. The planted

population, located in a preserve owned

and managed by the CNPS, has

fluctuated between 200 and 300 plants.

Plants have recently expanded onto an

adjacent parcel of private land to the

east, where 70 to 100 plants were found

in 1993. The planted population is

threatened by damage associated with

trespassers collecting other rare plants

found in the preserve, while the natural

population is at risk due to proposed

land use conversion (B. Guggolz, in litt.

1993). Both populations are also

susceptible to adverse impacts from

random events.

Lawrence Beane and Albert M.

Vollmer first collected Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense on July 20,

1954, in Sonoma County, California.

Beane (1955) described the plant as

Lilium pitkinense. Mark Skinner (1993)

subsequently treated the plant as a

subspecies of L. pardalinum.

Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense is

an herbaceous, rhizomatous

(underground stem) perennial in the lily

family (Liliaceae). The slender, erect

stems reach 1 to 2 m (3 to 6 ft) in height.

Leaves are yellow-green, up to 14 cm

(5.5 in) long, and 1 to 2 cm (0.4 to 0.8

in) wide. The leaves are generally

scattered along the stem, but in some

plants occur in 2 or 3 whorls of 3 to 6

leaves near the middle of the stem. The

inflorescence is a terminal raceme. The

flowers are large, showy, and nodding.

The petals, which are reflexed from the

middle, are red at the outer edge

changing to yellow at the center with

small, deep maroon dots mostly within

the yellow zone. Anthers (pollenbearing part of the stamen) are purplebrown. The fruit is an elliptical capsule

containing many rounded seeds (CDFG

1993b). The species flowers from June to

July. Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense

is distinguished from L. pardalinum ssp.

pardalinum by generally shorter petals

and anthers.

Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense

grows only in permanently saturated,

sandy soils in freshwater marshes and

wet meadows that are 35 to 60 m (115

to 200 ft) in elevation. Only three

populations of L. pardalinum ssp.

pitkinense at two sites were recorded

historically. All three populations are

on private land within a distance of 13

km (8 mi) in Sonoma County. Access to

one of the sites has been denied by the

landowner since 1975 (CNPS 1988a). As

a result, the status of this population has

not been confirmed, but it is presumed

to be extant. Two populations occur at

a second site. The size of these

populations has declined due to loss of

habitat from urbanization and

competition with blackberries (Rubus

spp.) (CDFG 1993b). About 300

individual plants remain on these two

sites (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996).

Collection of plants, seeds, and bulbs for

horticultural use, competition from

invasive plant species, potential

disturbance from a proposed

subdivision, trampling and herbivory by

livestock and wildlife and random

events threaten this species (Lynn

Lozier, The Nature Conservancy (TNC),

in litt. 1990; CDFG 1993b; B. Guggolz,

pers. comm. 1993, 1996).

Edward L. Greene (1897) first

described Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida

in June, 1894, based on material he

collected from Knight’s Valley, Sonoma

County, California. Since then, this

taxon has been known as S. maxima

(Baker), S. oregana var. spicata (Jepson),

S. eximia (Baker) and S. spicata ssp.

valida (Wiggins) (CNPS 1988b). C. L.

Hitchcock (1957) studied the genus

Sidalcea and recognized four

subspecies, including S. oregana ssp.

valida, a treatment accepted by Steven

Hill (1993).

Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida is a

perennial herb in the mallow family

(Malvaceae). The plants are 1 to 2 m (3

to 6 ft) tall. The leaves are rounded.

Lower leaves have 5 to 7 shallow lobes;

upper leaves are generally smaller and

divided into 3 to 5 entire, lanceolate

segments. The compound inflorescence

consists of densely flowered, spike-like

racemes 2 to 5 cm (0.8 to 2.0 in) long.

Petals are 1.0 to 1.5 cm (0.4 to 0.6 in)

long, notched at the apex, and deep

pink-mauve. The flowers appear from

late June to September. Sidalcea

oregana ssp. valida differs from S.

oregana ssp. eximia in having a hairless

calyx.

Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida has

never been recorded as abundant and

only two occurrences are known. These

occurrences are about 29 km (18 mi)

apart in Sonoma County, California.

Both are on private land. Sidalcea

oregana ssp. valida inhabits freshwater

marshes approximately 150 m (490 ft) in

elevation. One population covers less

than 0.1 ha (0.25 ac), and was reported

to have fewer than 100 plants in 1979

(CDFG 1987) and approximately 60

plants in 1993 (Nick Wilcox, State

Water Resources Control Board, pers.

comm. 1993). The other population

contained approximately 70 individuals

in 1993 (Ann Howald, CDFG, pers.

comm. 1993). Both populations are

adversely affected by trampling and

reduced seed set resulting from cattle

grazing (CNPS 1988b). The potential

alteration of the hydrology of one site

due to urbanization and water

withdrawal poses a threat to the species

(A. Howald, pers. comm. 1993). The

plants may also suffer from competition

by common tule (Scirpus acutus) and

yellow star-thistle (Centaurea

solstitialis), and from periodic

maintenance of a local aqueduct located

in the marsh (A. Howald, pers. comm.

1993). This species is also susceptible to

adverse impacts from random events.

Edward L. Greene (1891) described

Trifolium amoenum from specimens

that he collected near Vanden, Solano

County, California, in 1890. This

treatment was retained by Duane Isely

(1993). Historically, this species has

been found in a variety of habitats

including low, wet swales, grasslands,

and grassy hillsides up to 310 m (1,020

ft) in elevation. This annual plant,

which is a member of the pea family

(Fabaceae), is hairy, erect, and grows to

1 to 6 dm (4 to 27 in) in height. The

leaves are pinnately compound, widely

obovate, and 2 to 3 cm (0.8 to 1.2 in)

long. The flowers, which are purple

with white tips, are 12 to 16 mm (0.5 to

0.6 in) long and occur in dense, round

or ovoid heads, 2 to 3 cm (0.8 to 1.2 in)

long. Flowers appear from April to June.

Trifolium amoenum is similar in

appearance to T. macraei, but is

generally larger and the flowers lack

subtending bracts.

The historical range of Trifolium

amoenum was from the western edge of

the Sacramento Valley in Solano

County, west and north to Marin and

Sonoma counties, where many sites

were presumed extirpated by urban and

agricultural development (CNPS 1977).

Until 1993, Trifolium amoenum was

considered extinct. However, one
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55795

locality was discovered in 1993 and a

second in 1996. In 1993, Peter Connors,

Bodega Marine Laboratory, discovered a

single Trifolium amoenum plant in

Sonoma County. The land on which this

plant was found is private (CNDDB

1996), and at the time of writing of the

proposed rule the land was for sale

(Peter Connors, Bodega Marine

Laboratory, pers. comm. 1994). No

plants were found at the site in 1994 or

1995, and the site has now been

developed (P. Connors, pers. comm.

1996). The only known extant

population of T. amoenum is that found

in 1996. This population consists of

about 200 plants growing on two

residential lots in Marin County. One lot

has a house on it, and a house is being

built on the other; both landowners are

currently cooperating in the

conservation of the species on their

property (P. Connors, pers. comm.

1996).

In 1994, Dr. Connors grew 18 plants

in cultivation from seed produced by

the single plant found in 1993 (Connors

1994). These plants were grown to

produce seed for later reintroduction

efforts (P. Connors, pers. comm. 1994);

the seed is expected to be viable for

decades (P. Connors, pers. comm. 1996).

Should additional T. amoenum be

found, these populations would likely

be threatened by urbanization,

competition with invasive plants, land

conversion to agriculture, livestock

grazing, and random events.

Previous Federal Action

Federal government actions on these

nine species 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. This report, designated as House

Document No. 94–51, was presented to

Congress on January 9, 1975, and

included Astragalus clarianus, Carex

albida, Clarkia imbricata, Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense (as L.

pitkinense), Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa

napensis, and Trifolium amoenum as

endangered and Sidalcea oregana ssp.

valida as threatened. The Service

published a notice in the July 1, 1975,

Federal Register (40 FR 27823) of its

acceptance of the report of the

Smithsonian Institution as a petition

within the context of section 4(c)(2)

(petition provisions are now found in

section 4(b)(3) of the Act) and of its

intent to review the status of the plant

taxa named therein. The above eight

taxa were included in the July 1, 1975,

notice. On June 16, 1976, the Service

published a proposal 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. Astragalus

clarianus, Carex albida, Clarkia

imbricata, Lilium pardalinum ssp.

pitkinense, Poa napensis, and Trifolium

amoenum 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 Endangered Species Act

Amendments of 1978 required that all

proposals over 2 years old be

withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was

given to those proposals already more

than 2 years old. In the December 10,

1979, Federal Register (44 FR 70796),

the Service published a notice of

withdrawal of the June 16, 1976,

proposal, along with four other

proposals that had expired.

The Service published a Notice of

Review for plants in the Federal

Register on December 15, 1980 (45 FR

82480). This notice included

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis,

Astragalus clarianus, Carex albida,

Clarkia imbricata, Lilium pardalinum

ssp. pitkinense, Plagiobothrys strictus,

Poa napensis, Sidalcea oregana ssp.

valida, and Trifolium amoenum as a

Candidate species. On November 28,

1983, the Service published a

supplement to the Notice of Review (48

FR 53640). This supplement changed

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis,

Astragalus clarianus, Plagiobothrys

strictus, Poa napensis, Sidalcea oregana

ssp. valida, and Trifolium amoenum to

category 2. At that time, category 2 taxa

were those being considered for possible

addition to the Federal List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Designation of category 2 species was

discontinued in the February 28, 1996,

Federal Register notice (61 FR 7596).

The plant notice was revised again on

September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526). The

candidate status of eight of the plant

species remained unchanged in this

notice. Trifolium amoenum was

indicated as being possibly extinct.

Another revision of the plant notice was

published on February 21, 1990 (55 FR

6184). In this revision, Astragalus

clarianus, Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa

napensis, and Sidalcea oregana ssp.

valida were designated as Candidates.

The Service made no changes to the

status of any of the nine species in the

plant notice published on September 30,

1993 (58 FR 51144). The Service

approved Candidate status for

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis on

August 26, 1993. However, the status

change was inadvertently not published

in the plant notice published on

September 30, 1993. After the

publication of that notice, the Service

received information that Trifolium

amoenum had been rediscovered

(Connors 1994).

In the August 2, 1995, Federal

Register, the Service published a

proposed rule to list the nine plant

species as endangered, and invited

public comment (60 FR 39314).

Processing of the proposed rule was

delayed by a congressional moratorium

on activities associated with final

listings from April 10, 1995, through

April 26, 1996. After the moratorium

was lifted, the Service reopened the

comment period and scheduled a public

hearing on September 11, 1996 (61 FR

47856).

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

the Secretary to make findings on

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 Astragalus clarianus, Carex

albida, Clarkia imbricata, Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense,

Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis,

Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida, and

Trifolium amoenum because the 1975

Smithsonian report had been accepted

as a petition. The Service found that the

petitioned listing of those eight species

was warranted but precluded by other

higher priority listing actions. This

finding was reviewed annually in

October from 1983 through 1994.

Publication of the proposed rule on

August 2, 1995 (60 FR 39314),

constituted the final finding for the

petitioned action for these species.

The processing of this final listing

rule conforms with the Service’s final

listing priority guidance made final on

December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64475). The

guidance clarifies the order in which the

Service will process rulemakings

following two related events, the lifting,

on April 26, 1996, of the moratorium on

final listings imposed on April 10, 1995

(Pub. L. 104–6) and the restoration of

significant funding for listing through

passage of the omnibus budget

reconciliation law on April 26, 1996,

following severe funding constraints

imposed by a number of continuing

resolutions between November 1995

and April 1996. The guidance calls for

giving highest priority to handling
55796 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

emergency situations (Tier 1) and

second highest priority (Tier 2) to

resolving the status of proposed listings.

A lower priority is assigned to resolving

the conservation status of candidate

species and processing administrative

findings on petitions to add species to

the lists or reclassify species from

threatened to endangered status (Tier 3).

The lowest priority actions are in Tier

4, a category which includes processing

critical habitat determinations,

delistings, or other types of

reclassifications. Processing of this final

rule is Tier 2 action.

Summary of Comments and

Recommendations

In the August 2, 1995, proposed rule

and associated notifications, all

interested parties were requested to

submit factual reports or information

that would contribute to the

development of a final determination on

the proposed listing. A 65-day comment

period closed on October 9, 1995.

Appropriate Federal and State agencies,

county and city governments, scientists,

and interested parties were contacted

and requested to comment. The Service

published notices in the Marin

Independent Journal, Mill Valley Pacific

Sun, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Ross

Valley Reporter, San Francisco

Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner

on August 9, 1995, in the Napa Register

on August 10, 1995, and in the Napa

County Record and Petaluma ArgusCourier on August 11, 1995, inviting

general public comment. In response to

the publication of the proposed rule, the

Sonoma County Farm Bureau, Santa

Rosa, California, requested a public

hearing in one of 2 letters each dated

August 28, 1995.

Following the lifting of the listing

moratorium, the comment period was

reopened on September 11, 1996, for 35

days, closing on October 15, 1996. Upon

the reopening of the comment period,

the Service again contacted interested

parties, and published notices—in the

Petaluma Argus-Courier on September

17, 1996, in the Marin Scope and Mill

Valley Pacific Sun on September 18,

1996, and in the Marin Independent

Journal, Napa Register, and Santa Rosa

Press Democrat on September 19,

1996—inviting general public comment

and announcing the scheduling of a

public hearing. A public hearing was

held at the Best Western Novato Oaks

Inn in Novato, California, on October 3,

1996. The hearing was attended by

approximately 20 people, of whom nine

presented oral or written testimony.

In accordance with Service peer

review policy published on July 1, 1994,

(59 FR 34270), the Service sent copies

of the proposed rule to one ecologist

who works for a university, two plant

ecologists who work for State agencies,

eight university professors who are

species experts, and six other species

experts. The Service received one

response, from a species expert. The

comments received in this response did

not contain any new information

substantive to the listing determination.

The remaining reviewers did not

respond to the Service.

In total, 24 individuals, groups, or

agencies submitted comments,

including the California Department of

Parks and Recreation, the California

Native Plant Society (CNPS), the Marin

and the Sonoma County Farm Bureaus,

the California Cattlemen’s Association,

and the Washington Legal Foundation.

Several individuals commented more

than once. Nine commenters supported

the proposed action, eight opposed it or

expressed reservations, and seven did

not state a position. Several commenters

provided corrections or updated

information regarding one or more of

the species proposed for listing. The

Service has incorporated into the final

rule any verifiable new information that

is substantive to the listing decision.

Written comments and oral

statements presented at the public

hearing and received during the

comment periods are addressed in the

following summary. Comments of a

similar nature are grouped together into

general issues. These issues and the

Service’s responses are presented below.

Issue 1: Several commenters

expressed concern that listing the plants

would adversely affect the economies of

Marin, Sonoma, and Napa counties, or

requested the Service to consider

possible economic impacts.

Service Response: Under section

4(b)(1)(A), 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. 97–835, 97th Cong. 2d

Sess. 19 (1982). Because the Service is

precluded from considering economic

impacts in a final decision on a

proposed listing, the Service has not

examined such impacts.

Issue 2: One commenter stated that

the Service must complete a Taking

Implications Assessment, as directed by

Presidential Executive Order 12630,

before issuing a final rule.

Service Response: The Attorney

General has issued guidelines to the

Department of the Interior (Department)

on implementing Executive Order

12630: Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights. Under these

guidelines, a special rule applies when

an agency within the Department is

required by law to act without

exercising its usual discretion, that is, to

act solely upon specified criteria that

leave the agency no choice. In the

present context, the Service’s action

might be subject to legal challenge if it

considered or acted upon economic

information in reaching a listing

decision.

In such cases, the Attorney General’s

guidelines state that Taking

Implications Assessments (TIAs) shall

be prepared after, rather than before, the

agency makes the decision in which its

discretion is restricted. The purpose of

the TIAs in these special circumstances

is to inform policy makers of areas

where unavoidable taking exposures

exist. Such TIAs must not be considered

in the making of administrative

decisions that must, by law, be made

without regard to their economic

impact. In enacting the Act, Congress

required that listings be based solely on

scientific and commercial data showing

whether or not the species are in danger

of extinction. Thus, by law and by U.S.

Attorney General guidelines, the Service

is forbidden to conduct TIAs prior to

listing.

Issue 3: Several commenters

expressed concern that farmers and

ranchers would be restricted in their

everyday operations by listing of the

nine plant species. One worried that

farmers and ranchers would be subject

to criminal prosecution for the

accidental taking of these plants.

Another suggested that compensation

should be provided for land taken out

of range production.

Service Response: The Act does not

restrict the taking of listed plants due to

otherwise lawful private activities on

private land. Listing the nine plants as

endangered will not regulate farming or

ranching operations, including cattle

grazing, on private land. Other activities

that do not violate the taking

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

are discussed further under

‘‘Conservation Measures.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55797

Issue 4: Several commenters,

including representatives of the

California Cattlemen’s Association,

Sonoma-Marin Cattlemen’s Association,

and the Marin County Farm Bureau,

stated that grazing is likely to be

beneficial to the nine plant species, both

as a land use alternative to urbanization

and other land uses, and in reducing

competition from other plant species,

notably nonnative grasses. One

commenter stated that there is no

verifiable evidence of a relationship

between grazing and these plants.

Another said that because there is

public debate about the effects of

grazing on land and vegetation, little

scientific basis exists for claims that

grazing is a threat. One commenter

asserted that the Service has a strong

bias against all grazing.

Service Response: Some degree of

grazing by cattle and other animals is

likely to be beneficial to some or all of

the nine plant species addressed in this

rule. Evidence that heavy grazing is a

threat to some of the species, however,

is discussed under Factor C. The Service

is not opposed to grazing, and maintains

that best grazing management practices

are compatible with many natural

resource objectives.

Issue 5: Two commenters believed

that listing would allow the Service or

the California Department of Fish and

Game to intrude upon private property

to search for the listed plants.

Service Response: Listing will have no

such effect. The Act does not give any

person or government agency the right

to trespass.

Issue 6: Several commenters

requested an extension of the comment

period beyond the second deadline of

October 15, 1996. One member of the

Marin County Farm Bureau stated that

their organization had not had adequate

time to notify their membership of the

public hearing regarding the proposed

rule. Other commenters requested

additional hearings at more convenient

places and times.

Service Response: The Service

believes that the comment period

provided was adequate. The beginning

of this section reviews the Service’s

efforts to notify the public of the

proposed rule regarding these nine

plants. In addition to publication in the

Federal Register and public notices

appearing in several local and regional

newspapers, the Service mailed separate

notifications of the public hearing to

species experts, other individuals, and

Federal, State, and county entities,

including the Marin County Farm

Bureau, on September 17, 1996. The

location and time of the public hearing

was selected to be convenient to most

citizens living around populations of

the proposed plant species.

Issue 7: One commenter, noting

certain errors in the proposed rule and

in a Service press release on the

proposed listing, requested an

additional public hearing after

corrections had been made.

Service Response: One purpose of the

public comment period is to seek

feedback on the accuracy of the

information in the proposed rule;

correction of errors in the rule does not

mandate the re-opening of public

comment. The inaccurate information in

the Service’s press release dealt only

with consequences of any listing, not

with information or procedures relevant

to this listing determination.

Issue 8: One commenter questioned

whether all appropriate public land has

been surveyed for the nine plant

species, and whether the species can

truly be listed as threatened by

extinction without such surveys. She

requested that the listing decision be

postponed and the comment period be

extended until such surveys have been

conducted. Another commenter asserted

that the Service lacks data supporting

the likelihood of the purported threats

to the species, and that the Service has

discussed threats that do not exist. As

examples, the commenter stated that the

water level of Lake Hennessey has not

been raised such that it completely

inundates a population of Astragalus

clarianus and that Carex albida is not

grazed, yet the Service considers these

threats.

Service Response: The Act requires

the Service to reach its decision based

on the best scientific and commercial

information available. The Service

believes that botanical study of the

appropriate habitats on public and

private lands in Marin, Napa, Sonoma,

and nearby counties has been adequate

to show that the nine plants are indeed

extremely rare. The threats to the

species discussed under Summary of

Factors Affecting the Species are also

based on the best information available,

and are well documented or reasonably

foreseeable. With respect to the

assertion that the Service has identified

threats that do not exist, threats, by

general definition, are descriptions of

events that have not yet taken place but

that are likely to occur in the foreseeable

future.

Issue 9: One commenter argued it

would be safer to engage in conservation

actions without listing the nine plants,

since listing could provoke malicious

damage.

Service Response: Factor D presents

information about the inadequacy of

existing protections for the nine plant

species. Additional protections that they

will receive as a result of listing are

discussed under Available Conservation

Measures. The Service believes that

listing these nine species as endangered

under the Act will significantly reduce

the threats to their continued existence.

Although real, the Service considers the

risk of malicious damage to most of

these plants to be relatively small,

especially for the species that are

inconspicuous. The degree of risk,

however, will increase significantly if

precise maps of the locations of these

species were published. This aspect is

discussed further in the Critical Habitat

section.

Issue 10: One commenter asserted that

the Service has not given proper

consideration to data provided by

ranchers and other landowners, and that

the Service gives much more weight to

the information provided by California

Native Plant Society volunteers. He

further stated that references to grazing

impacts in reports to the Natural

Diversity Database maintained by the

California Department of Fish and Game

are inaccurate and biased and that the

volunteers who submit these reports

lack experience in range management or

livestock behavior.

Service Response: The Service

considers all information received from

all sources. No group’s or individual’s

information receives ‘‘more weight’’

than others. Information received from

all sources was carefully evaluated in

accordance with Service policy on

information standards under the Act,

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

34271). Criteria for what information

may be considered are discussed in the

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species, and in the response to Issue 1.

The Service has checked all substantive

information for accuracy, and believes

that the information included in this

rule is reliable and credible and

represents the best scientific and

commercial information available.

Issue 11: One commenter,

representing the California Cattlemen’s

Association, commented that it is very

unlikely that grazing is a threat to

Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, in

part because livestock prefer dry areas

to the bogs and marshes in which this

plant grows.

Service Response: Although cattle

prefer dryer areas, they will enter and

graze such wet areas, especially if forage

in the surrounding dry areas is less

attractive. Evidence of cattle and other

herbivores grazing on Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, is

discussed under Factor C.
55798 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Issue 12: One commenter suggested

that the nine plants may be naturally

rare, and may nevertheless be thriving.

Service Response: Decisions on listing

plants and animals are based on the

threats facing the species. A species may

be determined to be endangered or

threatened due to one or more of the

five factors described in section 4(a)(1)

of the Act. Evidence that the nine plants

are in danger of extinction in all or

significant portions of their ranges is

discussed under Summary of Factors

Affecting the Species.

Issue 13: One commenter noted that

the proposed rule claimed that habitat

for Trifolium amoenum has been lost

due to livestock grazing and called for

the Service to recognize that livestock

grazing does not permanently alter the

landscape.

Service Response: The final rule has

been changed to clarify that proper

grazing generally does not cause

permanent habitat loss.

Issue 14: Two commenters suggested

that the observation in the proposed

rule that a fenced population of Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense continued

to suffer from herbivory demonstrating

that something other than domestic

livestock is causing the damage.

Service Response: The Service

maintains that domestic livestock as

well as other vertebrate and invertebrate

herbivores are capable of damaging

these plants (see Factor C and response

to Issue 11).

Issue 15: One commenter said that

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

and Trifolium amoenum might prove to

have agricultural value, since both are

palatable to cattle. Alopecurus aequalis

var. sonomensis appears tolerant of

some grazing, and T. amoenum might

renew soil fertility and provide valuable

forage if it could be grown in sufficient

quantity. The commenter speculated

that these species could be seeded to

improve pastures.

Service Response: The Service will

evaluate these points as it plans and

implements the recovery of these

species.

Issue 16: One commenter argued that

passive preservation of individual

species is ecologically unsound and will

not ultimately protect biodiversity.

Service Response: The Service notes

that habitat protection helps conserve

other species with similar habitat needs

contributing to the biodiversity of the

ecosystem. Some species require active

management and the Service will

address this in the recovery plan.

Issue 17: One commenter asserted that

policies calling for the removal of

nonnative species are based on outdated

science, that nonnative plants have

increased the biodiversity of California’s

annual grasslands and that these alien

species do not threaten the ecological

community of grasslands.

Service Response: The Service has

extensive information and has received

a large number of comments from

farmers, ranchers, and scientists,

indicating that competition from

invasive plants, mostly of nonnative

origin, has played a major role in the

decline of several of the nine plant

species and is a continuing and serious

threat to most of them. This information

is summarized under Factor E.

Issue 18: One commenter stated that,

under the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA), the Service must

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for this rule.

Service Response: For the reasons set

out in the NEPA section of this

document, the Service has determined

that the rules issued under section 4(a)

of the Act do not require the preparation

of an EIS. Courts in Pacific Legal

Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 829

(6th Circuit 1981), held that an EIS is

not required for listing under the Act.

The Sixth Circuit decision noted that

preparing an EIS on listing actions does

not further the goals of NEPA or the Act.

Issue 19: One commenter urged the

Service, in the event of listing, to

designate critical habitat for the nine

plant species with a consideration of

economic impacts of such designation

required by law.

Service Response: The Service has

determined that the designation of

critical habitat for these nine plant

species is not prudent. Please refer to

the ‘‘Critical Habitat’’ section of this rule

for a detailed discussion of the critical

habitat determination.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

After a thorough review and

consideration of all information

available, the Service has determined

that Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. var.

sonomensis Rubtzoff (Sonoma

alopecurus), Astragalus clarianus

Jepson (Clara Hunt’s milk-vetch), Carex

albida Bailey (white sedge), Clarkia

imbricata Lewis and Lewis (Vine Hill

clarkia), Lilium pardalinum Kellogg.

ssp. pitkinense (Beane and Vollmer) M.

Skinner (Pitkin Marsh lily),

Plagiobothrys strictus (Greene) I.M.

Johnston (Calistoga allocarya), Poa

napensis Beetle (Napa bluegrass),

Sidalcea oregana (Nutt.) Gray ssp.

valida (Greene) C.L. Hitchcock

(Kenwood Marsh checker-mallow), and

Trifolium amoenum Greene (showy

Indian clover) should be classified as

endangered species. The Service

followed procedures found at section

4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations

implementing the listing provisions of

the Act (50 CFR part 424) in reaching

this determination. A species may be

determined to be endangered or

threatened due to one or more of the

five factors described in section 4(a)(1).

These factors and their application to

the nine species are as follows:

A. The present or threatened

destruction, modification, or

curtailment of their habitat or range.

Habitat destruction and modification

due to urbanization, land use changes,

or alterations in hydrology pose the

most serious threats to the survival of

these nine plant species.

Astragalus clarianus is known

currently from three populations in

Napa County and one population in

Sonoma County (CNPS 1989, CNDDB

1996). The four populations face a

variety of threats to their continued

existence. One population in Napa

County was reduced in size when the

creation of Lake Hennessey in the

1950’s inundated much of the site (L.

Lozier, pers. comm. 1993). The City of

Napa owns the lake and uses Lake

Hennessey as a water source. Recently,

the City of Napa conducted a feasibility

study on the raising in elevation of the

dam as part of a project to increase

water storage for the city. This would

have raised the lake level and

submerged the remnant population of A.

clarianus (J. Ruygt, CNPS, in litt. 1993).

This increased water-storage project at

Lake Hennessey is currently considered

too costly (Don Ridenhour, Public

Works Dept., City of Napa, pers. comm.

1993). However, any future water

storage project that would involve

increasing the height of the dam and

raising the level of Lake Hennessey

would constitute a threat to the

population of A. clarianus that lies

along the lakeshore. In December 1990,

this remnant population was nearly

destroyed when dredge spoils from the

lake were placed on top of it (A.

Howald, pers. comm. 1993). The City of

Napa, in cooperation with CDFG,

removed most of the dredge spoils and

fenced the 1 ha (2 ac) area, placing a

gate in the fence for fishing access to the

lake. Ground disturbance caused by

dredge spoil removal resulted in

proliferation of invasive weeds that

further threaten the site, as discussed

below under Factor E. The population

has not recovered well (J. Ruygt, pers.

comm. 1996). Eight plants of A.

clarianus were counted at this site in

1991, 325 plants in 1992, 156 plants in

1993 (CDFG 1989; J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993),

9 plants in 1994 (CNDDB 1996), and 15

plants in 1996 (J. Ruygt, pers. comm.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55799

1996, public hearing transcript). The

area remains a favorite fishing access to

the lake and receives significant use by

the public (CDFG 1989). The City of

Napa has repaired damage to the fence

several times (A. Howald, pers. comm.

1993).

Another population of Astragalus

clarianus occurs in Bothe Napa Valley

State Park. Plant numbers have been

reported as 8 plants in 1988, 220 plants

in 1992, 101 plants in 1993, and 39

plants in 1996 on a 1 ha (2 ac)

monitoring site (J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993,

pers. comm. 1996, public hearing

transcript). The larger portion of the

population of A. clarianus outside of the

monitoring zone occurs sparsely on a 6

ha (15 ac) area. This area has been

partially protected by placing brush

piles next to a foot trail to divert people

away from the population (William

Grummer, Bothe Napa Valley State Park,

California Dept. of Parks and Recreation,

pers. comm. 1993). The general plan for

the park indicates a campground to be

placed over the larger portion of A.

clarianus, but the Service does not

consider the proposed action in this

plan as an imminent threat because of

lack of funding and possible revisions to

the park plan (W. Grummer, pers.

comm. 1993). At present, no specific

plans to develop a campground have

been made (W. Grummer, pers. comm.

1996). Although the campground

development may be relocated away

from the population of A. clarianus, the

Service considers that increased

recreational use from an additional

campground in this park constitutes a

potential threat.

The third population of Astragalus

clarianus occurs near the City of Santa

Rosa in eastern Sonoma County. This

population was estimated at 2,100

plants in 1996 scattered over 6 ha (15

ac) and appears stable at the present

time (Saxon Holt, CNPS, Milo Baker

Chapter, pers. comm. 1996). It is on

private land under a voluntary

protection agreement with TNC.

Upslope and adjacent to this population

is the 454 ha (1,350 ac) approved Saddle

Mountain subdivision (J. Ruygt, in litt.

1993, S. Holt, pers. comm. 1996). Soil

erosion from proposed road and pad

construction for house lots potentially

threatens this population of A. clarianus

(J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993). Construction of

this development has not yet begun (S.

Holt, pers. comm. 1996).

The fourth population of Astragalus

clarianus consisted of 2,238 plants in

1993 scattered over less than 2 ha (5 ac)

of private land (J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993).

Feral pigs uprooted a substantial

number of plants during 1994; the

number of plants at this site has

declined in 1995 and 1996, although

this decline may be attributable to

factors other than damage by pigs (J.

Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996, public hearing

transcript).

One historical occurrence and over 70

percent of the original habitat of

Plagiobothrys strictus have been

extirpated by urbanization and

conversion of land to vineyards (CNPS

1990). The two remaining populations

of P. strictus are threatened by

urbanization (CNDDB 1996, CNPS

1990). One of these populations occurs

at the Calistoga Airport, where about

5,000 plants were counted in an area of

about 180 m2 (2,000 ft2) in 1994 (J.

Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996, public hearing

transcript). The number of individuals

in this population fluctuates

considerably, perhaps due to variations

in spring rainfall between years (CDFG

1988). Future development at this site

could threaten this population (J. Ruygt,

in litt. 1993), as could airport

maintenance activities (J. Ruygt, pers.

comm. 1996). The other population of P.

strictus is scattered over a 4 ha (10 ac)

area bisected by an asphalt road on

private land near Myrtledale Hot

Springs in the City of Calistoga. The

number of individuals in this

population was estimated to be in the

hundreds (J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993). In

recent years, the landowner has denied

access to the site. The landowner has

proposed to build a hospital on this site,

but has been unsuccessful due to

current zoning status (CDFG 1988; J.

Ruygt, in litt. 1993; J. Ruygt, pers.

comm. 1996).

Historically, the habitat of the two

remaining populations of Poa napensis

has been reduced by the development of

health spas and resorts in the City of

Calistoga and other construction

activities at the Calistoga Airport (CNPS

1989). The remnant population of P.

napensis at the Calistoga Airport was

thought to be extirpated as a result of

construction activities in 1981 because

no plants were found that year. By 1987,

however, 500 plants were counted at the

airport location (CDFG 1989; J. Ruygt, in

litt. 1993). In 1994 and 1996, about 150

plants were counted at the airport site

(J. Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996). The only

other population is near Myrtledale Hot

Springs in the City of Calistoga, where

several thousand plants were reported

in a 100 m2 (1,100 ft2) area in the early

1980’s. The landowner has denied

access to the property in recent years.

Because Poa napensis and Plagiobothrys

strictus occur at both the Calistoga

Airport site and the other site near

Myrtledale Hot Springs, the threats from

urbanization, including construction of

a hospital, are the same for both species

(CNPS 1987, 1990; J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993;

J. Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996).

The single known population of Carex

albida is located approximately 46 m

(150 ft) from a State highway in a

sphagnum bog. Any direct impact or

change in the hydrology of the area

resulting from highway widening or

maintenance, or a change in land use

would adversely affect the population.

Draining the wetland would not only

directly impact the species but would

encourage the spread of blackberries

(Rubus spp.), which have become

dominant in other parts of the marsh

that have been drained (CDFG 1993a;

CNDDB 1996; B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993).

When the proposed rule was written,

a wastewater treatment project was

proposed to be built 300 m (328 yards)

from the Carex albida population.

Potential impacts from this project, as

originally proposed, included adverse

effects from the application of recycled

wastewater and the temporary or

permanent removal of wetlands,

riparian vegetation, and special status

plants and their habitats (Environmental

Science Associates 1993). The treatment

plant has now been constructed, but the

use of recycled wastewater has not been

implemented (B. Guggolz, pers. comm.

1996). If implemented, from 1,200 to

4,900 cubic m (1 to 4 ac-ft) of

wastewater per year would be applied

on approximately 14 to 27 ha (35 to 60

ac) of land. Although the population of

C. albida would not be directly

impacted, the application of this volume

of wastewater could result in the

alteration of remaining habitat within

the historical range of C. albida through

modification of surface hydrology

(Environmental Science Associates

1993). The historical ranges of Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense and

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

also occur within the project

boundaries.

The type locality of Clarkia imbricata

along the roadside at Pitkin Ranch was

extirpated prior to 1974, as a probable

result of changes in land use or roadside

maintenance (B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993).

Another population of C. imbricata in

Sonoma County was extirpated as a

result of tree farming and weed control

activities (B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993). The

sole remaining natural population of C.

imbricata is threatened by changing

land use, such as conversion to

agriculture, and inadvertent mowing of

its habitat (B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993; B.

Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996).

One site with two populations of

Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense was

largely destroyed by urbanization in

1961; however, approximately 300

plants remain at this site (CDFG 1993b;
55800 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996).

Although a subdivision is planned for

the area surrounding a portion of this

site, the landowner agreed to protect a

portion of the habitat of L. pardalinum

ssp. pitkinense (Allan Buckmann,

CDFG, in litt. 1993; B. Guggolz, pers.

comm. 1996). This agreement, if

implemented, would place all sensitive

natural resource areas in a conservation

easement for long-term management,

with CDFG as easement holder (A.

Buckmann, in litt. 1993). Neither this

easement, however, nor another

easement that would protect the other

population of L. pardalinum ssp.

pitkinense at this site, has been

executed and recorded (B. Guggolz,

pers. comm. 1996). At the second site,

wetland fills in the marsh have lowered

the water table and resulted in drier soil

conditions, which have negatively

affected L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense.

This change in habitat quality is

considered a significant threat to the

population (CDFG 1993b), since only

about 10 plants remain at this site

(CNDDB 1996; B. Guggolz, pers. comm.

1996).

One of the two remaining sites of

Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida is

threatened by permitted and

unauthorized water diversions from a

stream that flows into the marsh where

two subpopulations of the species

occur. In the past, these diversions have

removed all water from the stream

channel, eliminating a source of surface

water to the marsh (A. Howald, pers.

comm. 1993). Plant census data from

1991 indicate that the eastern and

western subpopulations in the marsh

declined by approximately 40 and 30

percent, respectively, compared to 1989

and 1990 data. These figures suggest

that this population may have been

experiencing a delayed response to a

drought period that began in the late

1980’s. The adverse effects of future

droughts may be exacerbated by

increased surface water diversions and

result in a further decline, or extinction

of the species (John Turner, CDFG, in

litt. 1993).

Trifolium amoenum was known from

about 20 historical occurrences in 7

counties (Skinner and Pavlik 1994;

CNDDB 1996). Loss of this habitat

resulted primarily from urbanization

and land conversion to agriculture

(CNPS, 1977; Corelli and Chandik

1995). Two occurrences of T. amoenum

have been recently discovered. The

occurrence found in 1993 in Sonoma

County consisted of a single plant

located on private property that has

subsequently been developed. The

second, a population of about 200

plants, is found on two residential lots

in Marin County (P. Connors, pers.

comm 1996). If this property is further

developed or altered, it may no longer

contain suitable habitat for T.

amoenum. Widespread urbanization has

occurred, and continues to occur,

throughout the historic range of the

species. The populations of Sonoma and

Marin counties are expected to grow by

11.1 and 10.4 percent, respectively, by

the year 2000 (California Department of

Finance 1993, 1996).

B. Overutilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes. One of the remaining

populations of Lilium pardalinum ssp.

pitkinense has been nearly extirpated by

uncontrolled collection of plants, seeds,

and bulbs for horticultural use. This

species was abundant historically at this

site, but the removal of plants and bulbs

for horticultural use reduced this

population to two plants by 1993 (CDFG

1993b). This population of L.

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense has since

expanded slightly to approximately 10

plants (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996).

Similar activities at the remaining site,

which contains only 300 individuals in

two populations, would likely result in

the extinction of the species (B.

Guggolz, pers. comm. 1993, 1996). Of

the two remaining populations of

Clarkia imbricata, one population is

found in a preserve owned by the CNPS.

Although CNPS has attempted to

discourage unauthorized collection by

fencing the preserve and by not

publicizing the exact location of the site,

trespassers have damaged the fence,

trampled the vegetation, and collected

seed of C. imbricata on several

occasions (B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993).

No evidence of over-collection of

Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida by

botanists and/or horticulturists for

scientific and commercial purposes is

known at this time, although the species

is considered to have horticultural

potential (Hill 1993). Both populations

are small enough, however, that even

limited collecting pressure would have

adverse impacts. Sidalcea oregana ssp.

valida is an attractive plant, and may be

sought for collection once the rarity of

this species becomes known and if

current site locations become known.

Wild collected seed of the species, S.

oregana (no variety given), are available

through a seed exchange program

offered by an international gardening

society (North American Rock Garden

Society (NARGS) 1996).

Any occurrences of Trifolium

amoenum that may be discovered in the

future also may attract collectors of

plants or seed because the species was

previously considered to be extinct.

Overutilization is currently not known

to be a factor for the remaining five

species, but unrestricted collecting for

scientific or horticultural purposes or

excessive visits by individuals

interested in seeing rare plants could

result from increased publicity as a

result of this proposal.

C. Disease or predation. Little is

known about any diseases that may

affect the nine plant species considered

here. None of the species is currently

known to be threatened by disease.

Seven of the 8 known sites of

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

are currently grazed or have been grazed

in recent years by cattle (CNDDB 1996;

V. Norris, in litt. 1995; R. Soost, in litt.

1996). All three populations in Sonoma

County are currently threatened by

cattle grazing (CNDDB 1996), as is a

portion of one population outside of a

fenced area on the PRNS where three

small patches disappeared from a

gathering place for cattle over a one

week period of observation (V. Norris,

in litt. 1995). The portion of the

population inside of the fenced area

decreased from 603 flowering culms

(stems) in 1995 to 195 flowering culms

in 1996, possibly due to annual

fluctuation or competition from other

vegetation (R. Soost, in litt. 1996).

Another population on the PRNS was

fenced from cattle in 1987. The number

of individuals of A. aequalis var.

sonomensis was 0 in 1990, 14 in 1991,

and 0 in 1993, possibly due to

competition from a dense growth of

other marsh plants (V. Norris, in litt.

1993). Since then, experiments have

been conducted with partial opening

and closing of the entry gate, but few

cattle found their way in and no plants

have been seen at this site since 1991

(V. Norris, in litt. 1995; R. Soost, , in litt.

1996). These results suggest that some

grazing may be necessary to maintain

populations of A. aequalis var.

sonomensis in the face of competition

from other plants, but that excessive

grazing by cattle can adversely impact

the species.

Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida is

adversely affected at both of its

locations by reduced seed set resulting

from cattle grazing (CNPS 1988b).

Populations of Lilium pardalinum ssp.

pitkinense have been enclosed with

various types of wire fencing in an

attempt to prevent grazing or browsing

by cattle, horses, and deer, but most of

the fences have failed to prevent grazing

completely. The plants continue to

suffer from herbivory by cattle, deer,

and perhaps gophers and other

herbivores, resulting in loss of flowers

and seeds (L. Lozier, in litt. 1990).

Trifolium amoenum may have

disappeared from some of its former
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55801

locations due to grazing (Connors 1994).

This species is a large clover that

blooms when many grassland plants

have already turned brown, likely

making it more attractive to grazing

herbivores. Most recent sightings of the

plant were located outside of fences

along roadsides, suggesting that the

species survived for a period where it

was protected from grazing (Connors

1994). Threats due to herbivory on the

one natural population of this species,

which occurs on portions of two

residential lots, are unknown, but

livestock grazing is unlikely. Grazing

may, however, pose a threat to any

undiscovered sites for the species.

D. The inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms. The California

Fish and Game Commission has listed

Carex albida, Clarkia imbricata, Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, Poa

napensis, and Sidalcea oregana ssp.

valida as endangered species under the

California Endangered Species Act

(Division 3, Chapter 1.5 section 2050 et

seq. of the California Fish and Game

Code and Title 14 California Code of

Regulations 670.2). The California Fish

and Game Commission has also listed

Astragalus clarianus and Plagiobothrys

strictus as threatened species. Listing by

the State of California requires

individuals to obtain authorization from

CDFG to possess or ‘‘take’’ a listed

species. Although the ‘‘take’’ of Statelisted plants is prohibited (California

Native Plant Protection Act, Division 2,

Chapter 10, section 1908 and California

Endangered Species Act, Division 3,

Chapter 1.5, section 2080), State law

exempts the taking of such plants via

habitat modification or land use changes

by the owner. After CDFG notifies a

landowner that a State-listed plant

grows on his or her property, the

California Native Plant Protection Act

only requires that the landowner notify

the agency ‘‘at least 10 days in advance

of changing the land use to allow

salvage of such a plant’’ (Division 2,

Chapter 10, section 1913 of the

California Fish and Game Code).

The California Environmental Quality

Act (CEQA) requires a full 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 the other agencies

concerned with the 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.’’ Species that are eligible for

State listing as rare, threatened, or

endangered, but are not so listed, are

given the same protection as those

species that are officially listed with the

State or Federal governments. Once

significant effects are identified, the

lead agency has the option to require

mitigation for effects through changes in

the project or to decide that overriding

considerations 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, dependent upon the

discretion of the agency involved. In

addition, CEQA guidelines recently

have been revised in ways which, if

made final, may weaken protections for

threatened, endangered, and other

sensitive species.

Hot spring areas and perennial

freshwater emergent marshes are

generally small and scattered, and

treated as isolated wetlands or waters of

the United States for regulatory

purposes by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (Corps) under section 404 of

the Clean Water Act. However, the

Clean Water Act, alone, does not

provide adequate protection for

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis,

Carex albida, Lilium pardalinum ssp.

pitkinense, Poa napensis, Plagiobothrys

strictus, Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida,

and Trifolium amoenum. For example,

Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 26 (33

CFR part 330 Appendix B (26)) was

established by the Corps to facilitate

issuance of permits for discharge of fill

into wetlands. Under current

regulations, NWPs may be issued for

fills up to 1.2 ha (3.0 ac); fills greater

than 1.2 ha require an individual

permit. For project proposals falling

under NWP 26, the Corps seldom

withholds authorization unless a listed

threatened or endangered species’

continued existence would be

jeopardized by the proposed action,

regardless of the significance of other

wetland resources. Moreover, for fills

less than 0.13 ha (1⁄3 ac) only an afterthe-fact report is required by the Corps.

This report must be submitted within 30

days of completion of the work and

include only the name, address, and

telephone number of the permittee;

location and description of the work;

and the type and acreage of the loss. All

of the populations of the seven species

in this rule that occur in wetlands are

significantly smaller than 0.13 ha (1⁄3

ac). Although General Condition 11 of

the NWP states that ‘‘no activity is

authorized under any NWP which is

likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a threatened or endangered

species or which is likely to destroy or

modify the critical habitat of such

species,’’ the after-the-fact nature of the

reporting requirement is inadequate to

ensure the protection of populations

that occur in areas smaller than the 0.13

ha (1⁄3 ac) threshold. Four of the seven

plant species in this rule that occur in

wetlands are known from only two

populations, and two of the seven

species are known only from a single

population. Thus, for six of the seven

species, the post facto reporting

requirement may be inadequate to

prevent their extinction.

Additionally and equally important,

the upland watersheds that contribute

significantly to the hydrology of

marshes are not provided any direct

protection under section 404.

Disturbance to, or loss of, seep or marsh

habitat and alteration of hydrology have

damaged populations and habitat, as

discussed previously under Factor A.

Reductions in water volume or

inundation of the sites have the

potential to adversely affect the seven

plant taxa listed above. Thus, as a

consequence of the small size of these

marsh, meadow, and hot spring areas

and lack of protection of associated

uplands, these types of habitats receive

insufficient protection under section

404 of the Clean Water Act.

The Sonoma County Department of

Planning has designated several

marshes where some of these plants

occur as ‘‘critical habitat’’ (Sonoma

County 1989). The streams within these

marshes are designated as ‘‘riparian

corridors.’’ It is not likely that these

designations will adequately protect the

species involved. County policies for

‘‘critical habitat’’ include 15 m (50 ft)

setbacks of construction from wetland

boundaries and preparation of biotic

resource assessments for development

of mitigation measures, if the planning

director determines that a ‘‘critical

habitat’’ area will be impacted (Sonoma

County 1989). A setback may be waived,

however, if the setback is determined to

make the parcel unsuitable for

construction. The single population of

Carex albida and the larger population

of Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense

occur within 15 m (50 ft) of streams in

Sonoma County (CNDDB 1996). The

Sonoma County policy for ‘‘riparian

corridors’’ allows the removal of

riparian vegetation as part of a pest

management program administered by

the County Agricultural Commissioner,

as well as construction of roads and

summer dams (Sonoma County 1989).

In addition, agricultural projects that

may involve removal of native

vegetation, including the species in this
55802 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

rule and their habitats, are considered in

Sonoma County to be ‘‘ministerial’’ (Ken

Ellison, Sonoma County Department of

Planning, pers. comm. 1993).

Ministerial projects are those projects

that the public agency must approve

after the applicant shows compliance

with certain legal requirements. They

may be approved or carried out without

undertaking CEQA review.

Only a few measures have been taken

to protect some of the species in this

rule. In 1989, the landowners of the two

confirmed populations of Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense entered into

voluntary protection agreements with

TNC (CDFG 1993b). Since that time,

TNC and the California Conservation

Corps have jointly built and maintained

cattle exclosures in an attempt to protect

the plants at both sites. Some plants,

however, continue to suffer herbivory

from livestock and wildlife, resulting in

loss of flowers and seeds (L. Lozier, in

litt. 1990). A memorandum of

understanding is currently in effect

between CDFG and the Berry Botanic

Garden, Portland, Oregon, for research

on germination and recovery of this

species (CDFG 1993b). TNC also

obtained a voluntary agreement with

private landowners in 1990 to protect

one population of Astragalus clarianus.

CDFG has proposed to purchase

approximately 37 ha (90 ac) of the

marsh where Sidalcea oregana ssp.

valida occurs to create an ecological

preserve (A. Howald, pers. comm.

1993). Acquisition of the preserve,

however, is dependent on the

cooperation of the current landowners.

The owner of one parcel with about half

of the population has declined to sell

her property to the State (N. Wilcox,

pers. comm. 1994). Purchase of the land

as a preserve would ensure appropriate

grazing practices on the site and would

allow direct management of the plant

population with possible opportunities

to expand the population (A. Howald,

pers. comm. 1993). The preserve would

include only a small portion of the

watershed, however, limiting the

protection that the preserve would

afford to the hydrology of the marsh (N.

Wilcox, pers. comm. 1994).

TNC also has entered into a verbal

conservation agreement with a

landowner for the protection of the one

natural population of Clarkia imbricata.

However, this population of C.

imbricata was inadvertently mowed

before seed set in 1989 and 1991,

reducing the seed production and

number of plants in the years following

mowing (B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993).

Seed from cultivated Trifolium

amoenum plants is currently being

collected for future reintroduction

efforts (P. Connors, pers. comm. 1994,

1996). In addition, half of the seed that

was recovered from the single plant in

1993 was deposited for long-term

storage at the U.S. Department of

Agriculture National Seed Storage

Laboratory in Fort Collins, Colorado

(Connors 1994).

Although the PRNS is part of the

National Park system, 17 cattle and

dairy ranches are contained within its

boundaries. Grazing and ranching,

which have occurred on the peninsula

for more than a century, have been

determined to be ‘‘consistent with the

purpose for which the Seashore was

authorized’’ (Clark and Fellers 1987).

Clark and Fellers (1986) state that

grazing has been a serious threat to

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

occurrences located on the Seashore,

but more recent reports indicate

concerns about both too much and too

little grazing (CNDDB 1996; V. Norris, in

litt. 1995; R. Soost, in litt. 1996).

E. Other natural or manmade factors

affecting their continued existence.

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

suffers from competition from invasive

emergent wetland species, including

rushes (Juncus spp.) and nutsedges

(Cyperus spp.) at one location. These

wetland plants have nearly extirpated

A. aequalis var. sonomensis from that

site (V. Norris, in litt. 1993; CNDDB

1996). Additionally, A. aequalis var.

sonomensis is not readily propagated.

Three attempts to reintroduce the

species from seed to suitable habitat

within its range have failed, as has an

attempt to start a population in the East

Bay Botanic Garden in Tilden Park.

Naturally occurring floods also may be

an ongoing threat. One population was

damaged by a flash flood in 1993 (V.

Norris, in litt. 1995; R. Soost, in litt.

1996).

The population of Astragalus

clarianus located along the north shore

of Lake Hennessey has an infestation of

the invasive and dominating alien weed,

yellow star-thistle (Centaurea

solstitialis) (A. Howald, pers. comm.

1993; J. Ruygt, hearing transcript). This

infestation was a direct result of ground

disturbance associated with the removal

of dredge spoils that were placed on top

of this population as discussed under

Factor A (A. Howald, pers. comm.

1993). Competition from this alien

annual weed is also considered a threat

to the population of A. clarianus at the

Bothe Napa Valley State Park (J. Ruygt,

in litt. 1993). A proposed application to

build two small agricultural water

storage reservoirs along a creek in Napa

County would avoid direct impacts to

another population of A. clarianus, but

ground disturbance would most likely

introduce this same alien invasive weed

(A. Howald, pers. comm. 1993).

Plant succession may be excluding or

reducing the population of Astragalus

clarianus at one site (J. Ruygt, in litt.

1993) where A. clarianus grows

sparingly in the gaps between

manzanita plants. As established plants

continue to grow, and new manzanita

seedlings become established, less space

is available for A. clarianus. Fire

suppression has reduced fire frequency

in the manzanita community. Periodic

fire reduces manzanita cover and creates

space for other plants, including A.

clarianus. This species, therefore, is

vulnerable to habitat loss from plant

succession. Another population of A.

clarianus is threatened by competition

from French broom (Genista

monospessulana), an invasive alien

shrub, and the rooting behavior of wild

pigs (CNDDB 1996; J. Ruygt, pers.

comm. 1996).

The potential for loss of the only

population of Sidalcea oregana ssp.

valida from naturally occurring events,

because of the small population size, is

exacerbated by drought and water

diversions. In addition, this population

is being encroached upon by invasive

weeds, including yellow star-thistle and

blackberry (A. Howald, pers. comm.

1993). One of the subpopulations was

damaged by an off-road vehicle during

maintenance of a local aqueduct, which

passes through the marsh. The

maintenance activity occurred late in

the season when the soil was relatively

dry, resulting in minimal damage to the

plants. If such maintenance activities

occur during a time when the soil is

saturated, they pose a threat to the

plants (A. Howald, pers. comm. 1993).

Because Lilium pardalinum ssp.

pitkinense is unlikely to be selfpollinating, single plants or widely

separated plants in sparse populations

may not set viable seed (Mark Skinner,

CNPS, pers. comm. 1994). The

remaining plants at one site are

monitored closely by CNPS volunteers

and, at the time the proposed rule was

written, had not been observed to have

set seed for several years (M. Skinner,

pers. comm. 1994). Much of the habitat

for L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense has

been invaded by blackberry vines that

compete for space, light, and nutrients

(CDFG 1993b).

Grass mowing, vehicle traffic, and

parking have impacted and continue to

threaten one population of Poa napensis

at the Calistoga airport (CNPS 1990;

Robert Soreng, Cornell Univ., in litt.

1993). Grass mowing is done at regular

intervals through the spring and

summer to reduce fire and aircraft safety

hazards. Mowing for fire control during
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55803

the reproductive cycle of Clarkia

imbricata has reduced the size of one of

its populations by a third (B. Guggolz,

in litt. 1996). Airport users include a

spray plane service, recreational gliders,

and associated tow planes. Service

vehicles for the planes and the private

vehicles of the customers impact this

population of P. napensis, especially

during the spring and summer when

airport use increases.

The extirpation of historical

populations of Trifolium amoenum may

have partially been a result of

competition with weedy, alien plant

species. A recent germination study of

other Trifolium species from historical

T. amoenum habitat in Sonoma County

suggested that some annual Trifolium

species germinate in late November,

well after many introduced species,

including redstem storkbill (Erodium

cicutarium), ripgut brome (Bromus

diandrus), and California burclover

(Medicago polymorpha) (Connors 1994).

By germinating and growing earlier, it is

likely that alien species have reduced

the numbers of T. amoenum plants by

occupying available space (Connors

1994).

The small population size of most of

these nine plant species increases the

susceptibility to extirpation from

random events. Population sizes of 100

or fewer are known for one or more

populations of Alopecurus aequalis var.

sonomensis, Astragalus clarianus,

Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense,

Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis,

and Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida. The

single extant population of Trifolium

amoenum contains about 200

individuals. These species may also be

subject to increased genetic drift and

inbreeding as a consequence of their

small population sizes (Menges 1991,

Ellstrand and Elam 1993). Increased

homozygosity resulting from genetic

drift and inbreeding may lead to a loss

of fitness (ability of individuals to

survive and reproduce) in small

populations. In addition, reduced

genetic variation in small populations

may make any species less able to

successfully adapt to future

environmental changes (Ellstrand and

Elam 1993). Thus, seven of the nine

species are threatened by potential loss

of fitness and/or genetic variability

associated with small population sizes.

Each of the species addressed in this

rule is known from few populations.

Carex albida and Trifolium amoenum

each have only one population. Clarkia

imbricata, Lilium pardalinum ssp.

pitkinense, Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa

napensis, and Sidalcea oregana ssp.

valida each have only two confirmed

populations. Astragalus clarianus is

known from four populations.

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

has eight populations. The combination

of few populations, small range, and

restricted habitat makes the nine species

highly susceptible to extinction or

extirpation from a significant portion of

their ranges due to random events, such

as flood, drought, disease, or other

occurrences (Shaffer 1981, Primack

1993). Such events are not usually a

concern until the number of populations

or geographic distribution become

severely limited, as is the case with all

of the species discussed here. Once the

number of populations, or the plant

population size, is reduced due to

habitat destruction or fragmentation, the

remnant populations, or portions of

populations, have a higher probability

of extinction from random events.

The Service has carefully assessed the

best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past,

present, and future threats faced by

these species in determining to make

this rule final. Based on this evaluation,

the preferred action is to list Alopecurus

aequalis var. sonomensis (Sonoma

alopecurus), Astragalus clarianus (Clara

Hunt’s milkvetch), Carex albida (white

sedge), Clarkia imbricata (Vine Hill

clarkia), Lilium pardalinum ssp.

pitkinense (Pitkin Marsh lily),

Plagiobothrys strictus (Calistoga

allocarya), Poa napensis (Napa

bluegrass), Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida

(Kenwood marsh checker-mallow), and

Trifolium amoenum (showy Indian

clover) as endangered. Competition with

invasive plant species or excessive

cattle grazing threatens five of the eight

remaining populations of Alopecurus

aequalis var. sonomensis. Efforts to

reintroduce this species to sites within

its range have failed. If combined, all

four populations of Astragalus clarianus

would occupy only a 0.5 ha (1 ac) area,

and are threatened variously by a

potential water storage project, an

approved subdivision, competition from

invasive plant species, recreational

activities, airport maintenance, and

elimination through plant community

succession. The single Carex albida

population, totaling approximately

1,000 plants, is located 46 m (150 ft)

from the State highway and is

threatened by potential changes in the

site’s hydrology resulting from wetland

drainage or fill, competition from

invasive plant species, changes in land

management by the owner, highway

widening or maintenance, and potential

disturbance from a proposed wastewater

treatment. The two remaining

populations of Clarkia imbricata are

threatened by changing land use,

mowing for fire control, and

unauthorized collection. The three

remaining populations of Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, totaling

approximately 300 plants, suffer from

uncontrolled collection of plants, seeds,

and bulbs for horticultural use, and

from herbivory by livestock and

wildlife. One site is potentially

threatened by a proposed wastewater

treatment project; the other site is

potentially threatened by a proposed

subdivision. Competition from invasive

plants such as blackberry also adversely

impacts this species. If combined, the

remaining populations of Plagiobothrys

strictus and Poa napensis would occupy

an area of less than 0.5 ha (1 ac) each.

These populations are surrounded by

hot springs resorts or housing.

Plagiobothrys strictus and Poa napensis

both occur at the same two sites where

they are threatened by airport activities,

including traffic and vehicle parking on

the plants, grass mowing, and land use

changes, including the construction of a

hospital at one site. Both populations of

the two species are also threatened by

potential alteration of hot springs

hydrology. The only population of

Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida is

threatened by trampling and reduced

seed set resulting from cattle grazing,

aqueduct maintenance, competition

from invasive plant species, and the

potential alteration of hydrology from

urbanization. Trifolium amoenum has

been extirpated from all 24 historical

occurrences in seven counties; the

species currently is known from one

natural population. This species is

threatened by competition with invasive

plant species, loss of habitat from

urbanization and other land use

changes. All nine species, because of

their few, small populations and very

narrow ranges are also highly

susceptible to genetic complications and

at increased risk of local extirpation or

extinction from random events.

These nine species are imminently

threatened by extinction throughout all

or a significant portion of their range by

the factors summarized above, and the

final action, therefore, is to list them as

endangered.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3

of the Act as: (i) 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

of the species and (II) that may require

special management consideration or

protection and; (ii) specific areas

outside the geographical area occupied
55804 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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, as

amended, and implementing regulations

(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the

maximum extent prudent and

determinable, the Secretary designate

critical habitat at the time the species is

determined to be endangered or

threatened. Critical habitat is not

determinable when one or both of the

following situations exist—(1)

Information sufficient to perform

required analyses of the impacts of the

designation is lacking, or (2) the

biological needs of the species are not

sufficiently well known to permit

identification of an area as critical

habitat (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)). Service

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state

that designation of critical habitat is not

prudent when one or both of the

following situations exist—(1) The

species is threatened by taking or other

human activity, and identification of

critical habitat can be expected to

increase the degree of threat to the

species, or (2) such designation of

critical habitat would not be beneficial

to the species.

The Service finds that designation of

critical habitat is not prudent for any of

these nine plant taxa. Designation of

critical habitat is not prudent for

Astragalus clarianus, Clarkia imbricata,

Lilium pardalinum, Carex albida,

Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis,

Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida, Trifolium

amoenum, and Alopecurus aequalis var.

sonomensis because of lack of benefit.

Moreover, designation of critical habitat

for Clarkia imbricata, Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, Carex

albida, Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida,

and some populations of Alopecurus

aequalis var. sonomensis is not prudent

because doing so would increase the

degree of threat to these species, or

another species in this rule with which

it occurs. The basis for these

conclusions, including the factors

considered in weighing the benefits

against the risks of designation, are

provided by species below.

Astragalus clarianus

None of the four known occurrences

of Astragalus clarianus, which total

about 28 ha (70 ac), are on Federal land

(CNDDB 1996). This species does not

occur in wetlands and no Federal

actions are likely to occur in its habitat.

Critical habitat designation outside of

the areas where A. clarianus occurs also

would serve no purpose because all

other historical sites have been

destroyed by urban development and

viticulture (CNDDB 1996) and have no

practical value for the survival and

recovery of the species. Designation of

critical habitat for A. clarianus,

therefore, is not prudent because it

provides no additional benefit to the

species beyond that conferred by listing.

Clarkia Imbricata and Lilium

Pardalinum ssp. Pitkinense

Clarkia imbricata and Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense are

attractive to plant collectors and

incidents of overutilization and illegal

collection of both species have occurred

in the past. Both taxa are known only

from private land. One of the two

remaining populations of C. imbricata

occurs on a CNPS preserve where,

despite attempts to not publicize the

preserve location and to discourage

unauthorized collection, trespassers

have damaged the fencing, trampled

vegetation, and collected seeds of C.

imbricata on several occasions (B.

Guggolz, in litt. 1993). Critical habitat

designation outside of the areas where

C. imbricata occurs would serve no

purpose because no other sites are

known to be essential to the

conservation of this species. At one of

the two remaining sites for L.

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, the species

was once abundant, but it has now been

nearly extirpated by the uncontrolled

collection of plants, seeds, and bulbs for

horticultural use (CDFG 1993b). No

historical sites for this taxon other than

the two where it now occurs have ever

been reported.

Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense is

a wetland species and alteration of its

habitat may be regulated by the Army

Corps of Engineers under section 404 of

the Clean Water Act. The Service

believes that activities regulated under

section 404 that could impact the

habitat of L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense

are unlikely to occur in the foreseeable

future, and that this species is primarily

threatened by overcollection,

unregulated hydrological alterations,

competition from alien plants, and

trampling and herbivory by livestock

and wildlife. Moreover, the

inadequacies of the section 404

permitting process for protecting very

small plant populations, discussed in

detail under factor D of the ‘‘Summary

of the Factors’’ section, apply to this

species. In addition to these

inadequacies, due to the small size of

the only two populations of this species

and the lack of historical habitat

elsewhere, any adverse modification of

its habitat would also likely jeopardize

its continued existence. This would also

hold true as the species recovers and its

numbers increase. Any benefits that

might result from the designation of

critical habitat for L. pardalinum ssp.

pitkinense would be outweighed by the

likely increased threat of uncontrolled

collection to this species.

Designation of critical habitat for

Clarkia imbricata and Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, therefore, is

not prudent because doing so would

increase the degree of threat to these

species. Although there may be a

Federal nexus for L. pardalinum ssp.

pitkinense through the Clean Water Act,

the designation of critical habitat for

this species would provide little or no

benefit to the protection of this species

beyond that provided by listing. The

publication of maps and precise

locations of populations that is required

for designation of critical habitat would

contribute to the further decline of this

species by facilitating trespassing,

uncontrolled collecting, and hindering

recovery efforts. Any benefit from

designation of critical habitat for these

species, therefore, would be outweighed

by the increased degree of risk to these

species due to the publication of precise

maps of their populations.

Carex Albida

The only known population of Carex

albida occupies less than 300 m2 of

private land in Sonoma County (CDFG

1993a). Critical habitat designation

outside of the areas where C. imbricata

occurs would serve no purpose. The

other four historical localities for the

species, due to hydrological alteration

and the long-term effects of effluent

discharge from a cannery (CDFG 1993a),

serve no practical value for the survival

and recovery of the species. The Service

believes that activities regulated under

section 404 that could impact the

habitat of C. albida are unlikely to occur

in the foreseeable future, and that this

species is primarily threatened by

unregulated hydrological alterations and

competition from native and alien plant

species favored by drier conditions.

Moreover, the inadequacies of the

section 404 permitting process for

protecting very small plant populations,

discussed in detail under factor D of the

‘‘Summary of the Factors’’ section

above, apply to this species. Even if a

proposed fill was larger than the

regulatory threshold and a preconstruction permit was required, any

activity that would destroy or adversely

modify the habitat of the sole remaining

population of this species would also

likely jeopardize its continued

existence. This would also hold true as
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55805

the species recovers and its numbers

increase. Because the site occurs within

45 m (150 ft) of a State highway, a

potential Federal nexus also exists

through activities of the Federal

Highway Administration. In such a

situation, however, any action that

would adversely modify the habitat of

the only known population of the

species would also likely jeopardize the

continued existence of the species. This

would also hold true as the species

recovers and its numbers increase.

Designation of critical habitat for C.

albida, therefore, is not prudent because

it provides no additional benefit to the

species beyond that conferred by listing.

In addition, C. albida occurs at the same

site as Lilium pardalinum ssp.

parkinense (see previous paragraph) and

the designation of critical habitat and

publication of detailed maps of this site

would contribute to the further decline

of the latter species by facilitating

trespassing, uncontrolled collecting, and

hindering recovery efforts for the latter

species. The plants at this site are

particularly vunerable since they are

close to a State highway and more easily

accessible to collectors.

Alopecurus Aequalis var. Sonomensis

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

is the only species in this rule that

occurs on Federal land. Four of the eight

known populations occur on Federal

land within the PRNS (CNDDB 1996).

The plant appears to have very strict

habitat requirements and suitable

habitats occur in only a few places

within the PRNS (V. Norris, in litt.

1995). Several attempts at establishing

new populations in seemingly suitable

habitat on the PRNS have been

unsuccessful. The locations of these

four populations are known to the

managers of the PRNS and each

population is closely monitored by

CNPS members, acting in an official

capacity as National Park Service (NPS)

volunteers (V. Norris, in litt. 1995; R.

Soost, in litt. 1996). This monitoring

includes annual surveys for new

populations of the species. The NPS has

also fenced a portion of one population.

The species within the exclosure

declined despite this effort. Because the

presence of this plant, and its specific

locations, are well known to the

managers of the PRNS, no modification

of its habitat is likely to occur without

consultation under section 7 of the Act.

Any action which would destroy or

adversely modify the habitat of the few

remaining populations of this species

would also likely jeopardize its

continued existence. This would also

hold true as the species recovers and its

numbers increase. Designation of

critical habitat for any of the four

populations of Alopecurus aequalis var.

sonomensis on Federal land with the

PRNS, therefore is not prudent because

it provides no additional benefit to the

species beyond that conferred by listing.

The other four populations occur on

private land and may have a Federal

nexus through the Clean Water Act.

However, the inadequacies of the

section 404 permitting process for

protecting very small plant populations,

discussed in detail under Factor D of the

‘‘Summary of the Factors’’ section,

apply to this species. In addition to

these inadequacies, due to the small size

of the only known populations of this

species any adverse modification of its

habitat would also likely jeopardize its

continued existence. This would also

hold true as the species recovers and its

numbers increase.

Moreover, two of the four populations

of Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

on private land are found in proximity

to L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense (see

previous discussion of this species).

Although A. aequalis var. sonomensis is

not collected for horticultural use,

mapping specific localities of A.

aequalis var. sonomensis could lead to

increased collection of L. pardalinum

ssp. pitkinense. The horticultural value

of the latter species makes it highly

attractive and one of its two populations

has been nearly extirpated by the

uncontrolled collection of plants, seeds,

and bulbs for horticultural use (CDFG

1993b). Designation of critical habitat

for these two populations of Alopecurus

sonomensis, therefore, would increase

the degree of threat to Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense by

facilitating trespassing and uncontrolled

collecting, and hindering recovery

efforts.

Designation of critical habitat for any

of the four populations of Alopecurus

aequalis var. sonomensis on Federal

land with the PRNS, therefore, is not

prudent because it provides no

additional benefit to the species beyond

that conferred by listing. Critical habitat

designation for known populations on

private land would also confer no

benefit beyond that provided by listing.

Because of the few small occurrences of

this species, any adverse modification of

its habitat would likely jeopardize its

continued existence. The publication of

maps and precise locations of the two

private populations at which A.

aequalis var. sonomensis occurs with

Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense

would also contribute to the further

decline of the latter species by

facilitating trespassing and uncontrolled

collecting, and hindering recovery

efforts.

Plagiobothrys strictus

Plagiobothrys strictus is known only

from two populations on private land.

The total area of these populations is

less than 80 m2 (900 ft2). The only other

historical locality has been rendered

unsuitable by urbanization and

agricultural land conversion (CNPS

1990) and has no practical value for the

survival and recovery of the species.

Thus, the establishment of critical

habitat in this unoccupied area would

serve no purpose. As with Carex albida,

the habitat for P. strictus will likely be

regulated under section 404 of the

Federal Clean Water Act, but the total

area of the population is significantly

smaller than the minimum regulatory

threshold of 0.13 ha (1⁄3 ac) for preconstruction notification. Even if a preconstruction permit was required, any

activity that would destroy or adversely

modify the habitat of the sole remaining

population of this species would also

likely jeopardize its continued

existence. This would also hold true as

the species recovers and its numbers

increase. The designation of critical

habitat for Plagiobothrys strictus,

therefore, is not prudent because it

provides no additional benefit to the

species beyond that conferred by listing.

Poa Napensis

Both extant populations of Poa

napensis occur on private land, where

they occupy slightly more than 100 m2

(1,100 ft2). Urban growth and

recreational development of hot springs

in the Calistoga area has rendered all

other historical localities unsuitable for

this species (CDFG 1979). Thus, the

establishment of critical habitat in these

unoccupied areas would serve no

purpose since these areas have no

practical value for the survival and

recovery of the species. At least some of

the suitable wetland habitat for P.

napensis may be regulated under

section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As

with Carex albida and Plagiobothrys

strictus, the total population area is

significantly smaller than the 0.13 ha (1⁄3

ac) minimum regulatory threshold for

pre-construction notification. As is also

the case with these species, even if a

pre-construction permit was required,

any activity that would destroy or

adversely modify the habitat of the Poa

napensis would also likely jeopardize

its continued existence. This would also

hold true as the species recovers and its

numbers increase. Designation of

critical habitat for P. napensis,

therefore, is not prudent because doing

so provides no additional benefit to the

species beyond that conferred by listing.
55806 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Sidalcea Oregana ssp. Valida

Both populations of Sidalcea oregana

ssp. valida occur only on private land.

There is no evidence that the species

was ever present at any other localities

(CNPS 1988b, CDFG 1987). It grows in

a habitat which is likely to be regulated

under the Clean Water Act but, as with

the other wetland species discussed

above, the small populations occupy

less than the 0.13 ha (1/3 ac) minimum

regulatory threshold for preconstruction notification. Moreover, due

to the small size of the only two extant

populations, any activity that would

destroy or adversely modify the habitat

of either of the two remaining

populations of this species would also

likely jeopardize its continued

existence. This would also hold true as

the species recovers and its numbers

increase. The species is also of

recognized horticultural value (Hill

1993), and wild-collected seeds of this

species (no variety given) are available

through a seed exchange program

offered by a international gardening

society (NARGS 1996). Both

populations are small enough that even

limited collecting pressure would have

adverse impacts. Designation of critical

habitat for S. oregana ssp. valida,

therefore, is not prudent because it

provides no additional benefit to the

species beyond that conferred by listing

and because doing so would increase

the degree of threat to this species. The

publication of maps and precise

locations of the populations that is

required for designation of critical

habitat, therefore, would contribute to

the further decline of this species by

facilitating trespassing and uncontrolled

collecting, and hindering recovery

efforts.

Trifolium Amoenum

Only a single population of Trifolium

amoenum is known to be extant.

Although the species was widespread

north and east of San Francisco Bay

historically, it had last been seen in

1969 and presumed extinct until its

rediscovery in 1992 after years of

searching (Connors 1994). Because it is

a large, attractive plant, it is highly

likely that it has been extirpated from its

historical localities (Connors 1994). The

sole population is on private land with

little probability of any Federal activity.

No other suitable habitat on Federal

land, or where any Federal action is

likely to occur, is known to exist. The

species has probably been eliminated at

its other historical localities by

competition with alien species of

annual plants and because of the

prevalance of alien species throughout

the historical range of T. amoenum,

(Connors 1994). Although historically

the plant was known from ‘‘wet

swales,’’ the current site is not a

regulated wetland. Even if a Federal

nexus were identified, any activity that

would destroy or adversely modify the

habitat of the sole remaining population

of this species would also likely

jeopardize its continued existence. This

would also hold true as the species

recovers and its numbers increase.

Designation of critical habitat for

Trifolium amoenum at this site,

therefore, is not prudent because it

provides no additional benefit to the

species beyond that conferred by listing.

Although collection is not currently

thought to be a threat to the species, the

plant is large with showy flowers and its

populations are small enough that even

limited collecting pressure would have

adverse impacts. Designation of critical

habitat for T. amoenum anywhere

within its historical range, therefore, is

not prudent because doing so would

increase the degree of threat to this

species. The publication of maps and

precise locations of involved plant

populations that is required for

designation of critical habitat would

contribute to the further decline of this

species by facilitating trespassing and

uncontrolled collecting, and hindering

recovery efforts.

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 practices.

Recognition through listing results in

public awareness and conservation

actions by Federal, State, and local

agencies, private organizations, and

individuals. The Act provides for

possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the State, and requires

that recovery plans be developed for all

listed species. 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, as amended,

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. Regulations

implementing 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

species proposed for listing 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 the species or

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.

To the extent that six of the nine taxa

proposed herein are currently known to

inhabit marshes, wet meadows,

perennial streams, or thermal hot

springs, the Service anticipates that the

Corps will enter into section 7

consultations regarding these species if

it regulates fill of these wetlands under

section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Because of the small area covered by

these populations, however, actions

which could impact their habitats may

not be subject to pre-construction

notification. The inadequacies of

current regulations for NWP 26

processing under the Clean Water Act

are discussed in detail under factor D in

the ‘‘Summary of Factors’’ section

above. The National Park Service may

participate in section 7 consultation

because of potential grazing effects on

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis at

the PRNS, and concerning park

management plans that directly or

indirectly affect this species.

Listing Alopecurus aequalis var.

sonomensis, Astragalus clarianus, Carex

albida, Clarkia imbricata, Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense,

Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis,

Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida, and

Trifolium amoenum would provide for

development of a recovery plan (or

plans) for them. Such plan(s) would

bring together both State and Federal

efforts for conservation of the plants.

The plan(s) would establish a

framework for agencies to coordinate

activities and cooperate with each other

in conservation efforts, set recovery

priorities, and estimate costs of various

tasks necessary to accomplish them. The

plan(s) also would describe site-specific

management actions necessary to

achieve conservation and survival of the

nine plant species. Additionally,

pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the

Service would be more likely to grant

funds to affected states for management

actions promoting the protection and

recovery of these species.

The Act and its implementing

regulations set forth a series of general

prohibitions and exceptions that apply

to all endangered plants. All

prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 55807

implemented by 50 CFR 17.61, apply.

These prohibitions, in part, make it

illegal for any person subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States to

import or export any of the plants,

transport them in interstate or foreign

commerce in the course of a commercial

activity, sell or offer them for sale in

interstate or foreign commerce, or

remove and reduce any of the plants to

possession from areas under Federal

jurisdiction. In addition, the Act

prohibits the malicious damage or

destruction of endangered plants on

areas under Federal jurisdiction, as well

as the removal, cutting, digging up, or

damaging or destroying of such plant

species in knowing violation of any

State law or regulation, including State

criminal trespass law. Certain

exceptions to the prohibitions apply to

agents of the Service and State

conservation agencies.

The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63

also provide for the issuance of permits

to carry out otherwise prohibited

activities involving endangered plant

species under certain circumstances.

Such permits are available for scientific

purposes and to enhance the

propagation or survival of the species.

The Service anticipates that few permits

would ever be sought or issued for most

of the species because they are typically

not sought for cultivation and are

uncommon in the wild. Lilium

pardalinum ssp. pitkinense and Clarkia

imbricata, however, are collected for

horticultural use.

It is the policy of the Service,

published in the Federal Register on

July 1, 1994 (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 of the nine plant species

on proposed and ongoing activities

within the species’ range. Collection,

damage or destruction of these species

on Federal lands is prohibited, although

in appropriate cases a Federal permit

may be issued to allow collection for

scientific or recovery purposes. Such

activities on non-Federal (private) lands

would constitute a violation of section

9 when conducted in knowing violation

of California State law or regulations or

in violation of State criminal trespass

law. See Factor D. for a discussion of

California’s law protecting plants.

As noted above, Federal listing of

plant species protects plants occurring

on Federal lands and when Federal

activities may affect the species. Thus,

activities on private lands such as

landscape maintenance, clearing

vegetation for firebreaks, and livestock

grazing, are not prohibited or regulated

unless they are conducted in knowing

violation of State law or are federally

funded or authorized. Questions

regarding whether specific activities

would constitute a violation of section

9 should be directed to the Field

Supervisor of the Service’s Sacramento

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Requests for copies of the regulations

regarding listed plants and inquiries

about prohibitions and permits may be

addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Ecological Services,

Endangered Species Permits, 911 NE

11th Ave., 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 and 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.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein is available upon request from

the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Field

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary authors of this final rule

are Diane Elam and David Wright,

Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of

chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, the Service amends as

follows:

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. Amend Section 17.12(h) by adding

the following, in alphabetical order

under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List

of Endangered and Threatened Plants to

read as follows:

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic Range Family Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Scientific name Common Name

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * *

Alopecurus aequalis

var. sonomensis.

Sonoma alopecurus U.S.A. (CA) ............. Poaceae .................. E 625 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Astragalus clarianus Clara Hunt’s milkvetch.U.S.A. (CA) ............. Fabaceae ................ E 625 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Carex albida ............ white sedge ............. U.S.A. (CA) ............. Cyperaceae ............. E 625 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Clarkia imbricata ...... Vine Hill clarkia ....... U.S.A. (CA) ............. Onagraceae ............ E 625 NA NA
55808 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Species

Historic Range Family Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Scientific name Common Name

* * * * * * *

Lilium pardalinum

ssp. pitkinense.

Pitkin Marsh lily ....... U.S.A. (CA) ............. Liliaceae .................. E 625 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Plagiobothrys strictus Calistoga allocarya U.S.A. (CA) ............. Boraginaceae .......... E 625 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Poa napensis ........... Napa bluegrass ....... U.S.A. (CA) ............. Poaceae .................. E 625 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Sidalcea oregana

ssp. valida.

Kenwood Marsh

checker-mallow.

U.S.A. (CA) ............. Malvaceae ............... E 625 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Trifolium amoenum .. showy Indian clover U.S.A. (CA) ............. Fabaceae ................ E 625 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Dated: September 29, 1997.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 97–27924 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P