19842 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

The agency also wishes to make it

clear that where Standard 201, or other

Federal motor vehicle safety standards,

do not address a specific test condition,

vehicles must comply in all

circumstances consistent with

anticipated use of the vehicle by

occupants. Multiple impacts to one

component are an example of a

circumstance that might be encountered

in a crash. NHTSA may therefore test

single components with multiple

impacts when performing compliance

testing under Standard 201.

The AAMA petition also requests that

the agency rectify an apparent conflict

involving the procedure for locating

CG–F by use of the ‘‘seating reference

point (SgRP).’’ The SgRP is a single

point which establishes the rearmost

normal design driving or riding

position. In Standard No. 201,

S8.12(a)(1) uses SgRP with the seat in its

rearmost normal design or driving

position to locate the rearmost CG–F

(CG–F2). The forwardmost CG–F (CG–

F1) is, according to S8.12(a)(2), located

horizontally forward of CG–F2 by the

distance equal to the fore and aft

distance of the seat track. Because

S8.12(a)(2) describes CG–F1 as the head

center of gravity with the seat in its

forwardmost adjustment position,

AAMA believes that S8.12 implies that

the reference point to be used is not

SgRP, which is a single point, but rather

the design H-point, which can occupy a

number of points according to the seat

adjustment. In its petition, AAMA

suggested that a conflict existed and

requested that it be resolved.

When the August 1995 final rule was

published, NHTSA was requested to

change the reference point from the

SgRP to the H-point. The agency

explained in the preamble of the April

1997 final rule that a change of the

reference point is not necessary. This is

because the only point used for locating

CG–F1 and CG–F2 is the single SgRP.

The agency notes that, prior to a recent

correcting amendment published on

January 2, 1998 (63 FR 27), S8.12(a)(1)

incorrectly specified that C–-F2 should

be located with the seat in its rearmost

adjustment position rather than the

rearmost normal design driving or

riding position. As the SgRP only exists

in the latter position and not the former,

AAMA and others could have

reasonably concluded that NHTSA

intended that the design H-point rather

than the SgRP be used to locate CG–F1

and CG–F2. The reference in S8.12(a)(2)

to the seat being in its forwardmost

adjustment position to assist in

describing CG–F1 may have created

further opportunities for

misunderstanding. However, the agency

believes that the correcting amendment

to S8.12(a)(1) resolved this issue and

that further rulemaking is not required.

AAMA also suggested that the

existing definition of the forehead

impact zone is in error. In its petition,

AAMA recommended that in S8.10(d),

the word ‘‘vertical’’ be replaced with

‘‘horizontal’’ as it refers to a plane along

the contour of the outer skin of the

forehead of the FMH. S8.10(d) specifies

the procedure for locating the upper

boundary of the forehead impact zone

by directing that a line be drawn along

the contour of the headform and

through a point on a vertical line in the

midsagittal plane of the FMH so that the

line is bisected by that point. This line

is described as being coincident to a

vertical plane, while the procedure for

locating the lower horizontal boundary,

found in S8.10(c), specifies that the

lower boundary line be coincident to a

horizontal plane. AAMA’s belief that

the use of the vertical plane in S8.10(d)

is in error may be premised on the use

of the horizontal plane in S8.10(c) for

locating a similar line. However, at the

point where the upper boundary of the

forehead impact zone is located, the

contours of the FMH are such that the

use of a horizontal plane for locating the

upper boundary would result in the

forehead impact zone extending along

the sides of the FMH. NHTSA has

determined that the use of a vertical

plane in describing this procedure is

more appropriate. Use of a horizontal

plane to describe the forehead impact

zone would include part of the side of

the head in the forehead impact zone.

Based on the foregoing, NHTSA

denies the AAMA and ASC petitions.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

501.8.

Issued on: April 10, 1998.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator .

[FR Doc. 98–10674 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AD35

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Determination of

Threatened Status for One Plant,

Arctostaphylos pallida (Pallid Manzanita),

From the Northern Diablo Range of

California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) determines threatened status

for Arctostaphylos pallida (pallid

manzanita) pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).

This plant species is found only in the

northern Diablo Range of California in

Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.

The primary threats to the species are

the effects of fire suppression, and

shading and competition from native

and alien plants. To a lesser extent, the

species is threatened by disease,

herbicide spraying, hybridization, and

the ongoing effects of habitat loss and

fragmentation. This rule implements the

Federal protection and recovery

provisions afforded by the Act for this

species.

DATES: Effective May 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is available for public inspection,

by appointment, during normal business

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Sacramento Field Office, 3310

El Camino, Suite 130, Sacramento, CA

95821–6340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dwight Harvey, at the above address or

by telephone (916/979–2725).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Arctostaphylos pallida (pallid

manzanita) is found only in the

northern Diablo Range of California. The

Diablo Range is part of the inner South

Coast Range of California. The Diablo

Range extends in a northwest to

southeast direction as a more or less

continuous mountain chain, 32 to 48

kilometers (km) (20 to 30 miles (mi))

wide, for approximately 300 km (190

mi) from San Pablo Bay in central

California to Polonio Pass in northeast

San Luis Obispo County. The altitude of

the Diablo Range varies from 600 to

1,280 meters (m) (2,000 to 4,200 feet (ft))

and is broken by four or five east to west

passes. These passes divide the Diablo
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 19843

Range into several distinct units: Contra

Costa Hills, Mt. Diablo, Mt. Hamilton

Range, Panoche Hills, San Carlos Range,

and Estrella Hills (Sharsmith 1982).

Arctostaphylos pallida occurs in the

Contra Costa Hills section of the Diablo

Range.

Portions of the Diablo Range are

thought to have been surrounded by

marine embayments since the middle

Miocene era, when modern flora and

fauna were developing (Sharsmith

1982). Much of the surface of the Diablo

Range is composed of rock in the

Franciscan series. The soils formed from

Franciscan rock are believed to partially

control the present distribution of plant

species in the Diablo Range (Sharsmith

1982). Arctostaphylos pallida seems to

prefer to grow in limited locations of the

East Bay Hills on north and east facing

slopes where bare, siliceous, mesic soils

with low fertility exist (Amme and

Havlik 1987a).

Alice Eastwood described

Arctostaphylos pallida in 1933 from

specimens collected in 1902 by W.W.

Carruth in the ‘‘East Oakland Hills,’’ an

area believed to be Huckleberry Ridge in

Alameda and Contra Costa Counties,

California. A. pallida is a member of the

A. andersonii complex, a group of

Arctostaphylos species found in central

coastal California. Though McMinn

reduced the taxon to a variety of A.

andersonii in 1939, Wells (1993) treated

it as A. pallida.

Arctostaphylos pallida is an upright,

non-burl-forming shrub in the heath

family (Ericaceae). Arctostaphylos

pallida grows from 2 to 4 m (6.5 to 13.0

ft) high or more with rough, gray or

reddish bark. The twigs are bristly. The

ovate to triangular leaves are bristly,

strongly overlapping, and clasping; they

are 2.5 to 4.5 centimeters (cm) (1.0 to 1.8

inches (in.)) long and 2 to 3 cm (0.8 to

1.2 in.) wide. The dense, white flowers

are urn-shaped and 6 to 7 millimeters

(mm) (0.2 to 0.3 in.) long. The flowering

period is from December to March.

The overall current range of

Arctostaphylos pallida is similar to that

known at the time the species was

described in 1933. The extant

populations of this species are thought

to be smaller, however, due to habitat

destruction and fragmentation by

urbanization (B. Olson, in litt. 1994).

Although A. pallida occupies most of its

historic range, local habitat destruction

due to residential development has

resulted in losses of up to 50 percent in

some locations along Manzanita Way in

the Oakland Hills (B. Olson, in litt.

1994). Only two large populations are

known, one at Huckleberry Ridge, the

presumed type locality in Alameda and

Contra Costa Counties, and the other at

Sobrante Ridge in Contra Costa County.

The remaining occurrences, all located

in Alameda or Contra Costa Counties,

are all small, and most have fewer than

ten individuals. Of the 13 documented

occurrences of A. pallida, six are

considered to be declining, while the

trend of the remaining seven is

uncertain or unknown (CNDDB 1997).

One of the latter populations has fewer

than 50 plants and was planted outside

of its native habitat, where its long-term

survival is not likely (CNDDB 1997).

Two other occurrences are considered to

have been planted (CNDDB 1997).

The species is found from 200 to 445

m (656 to 1,460 ft) in elevation,

primarily on thin soils composed of

chert and shale (Amme and Havlik

1987a). Generally, the plants are found

in Arctostaphylos dominated chaparral

that is often surrounded by oak

woodlands and coastal shrub (Amme et

al. 1986). The two largest occurrences

occupy a total area of 12 hectares (ha)

(29 acres (ac)) (Amme et al. 1986). These

two populations are found in maritime

chaparral, a habitat with mesic

environmental conditions due to a

maritime influence. The smaller of the

two, at Sobrante Ridge, has the least

human impact of all known

populations. It had an estimated 1,700

to 2,000 plants in the mid-1980s and the

status and vigor of the plants appeared

good (Amme et al. 1986, Amme and

Hovik 1987). The population remains in

good shape and, although some

management is needed, the potential for

long term viability is high (David

Amme, pers. comm. 1997, Neil Havlik,

pers. comm. 1997). The Sobrante Ridge

site has more open space than other

occurrences and recruitment of

Arctostaphylos pallida is taking place in

areas with bare and exposed gravel

(Steve Edwards, Tilden Botanic Garden,

pers. comm. 1997).

The largest known population of

Arctostaphylos pallida occurs at

Huckleberry Ridge, although an

estimated 50 percent of the original

habitat at this site has either been

developed for housing or is privately

owned. Development eliminated a large

number of A. pallida plants and

fragmented the remaining habitat at this

site (Amme and Havlik 1987b, B. Olson,

in litt. 1994). An estimated 2,400 to

2,700 plants were present in this

population during the mid 1980s

(Amme et al. 1986). A fungal infection

during the early 1980s resulted in

branch and stem dieback in over 50

percent of the plants at Huckleberry

Ridge, and the condition of the

population was described as poor

(Amme and Havlik 1987c). Disease is

discussed in further detail under factor

C in the ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting

the Species’’ section below.

Many of the smaller populations

occur in coastal scrub (Brad Olson,

California Native Plant Society, in litt.

1994). These occurrences of

Arctostaphylos pallida are all small

with few individuals and their long

term viability is questionable. The

largest is estimated to have 65

individuals, some of which were

planted (CNDDB 1997). Several other

occurrences were also planted, and

many small populations are located

along roadcuts where plants appear to

have established naturally after the soil

was disturbed (Amme et al. 1986). Some

of these occurrences have only one or

several individuals and are in poor

condition (CNDDB 1997). Many of these

smaller populations are shaded by

planted and naturalized Pinus radiata

and Cupressus spp. (Amme and Havlik

1987a). Shading and competition are

discussed in more detail under factor E

below in the ‘‘Summary of Factors

Affecting the Species’’ section below.

More than half of the remaining

habitat for the species, including both

large populations and numerous smaller

populations, occur on lands owned by

the East Bay Regional Park District

(EBRPD)(Brad Olson, EBRPD, in litt.

1997). Other small populations occur on

lands owned by the East Bay Municipal

Utility District (EBMUD), the City of

Oakland, Pacific Gas and Electric power

line easements, or on other privately

owned lands (B. Olson, in litt. 1994,

Robert Nuzum, EBMUD, in litt. 1997).

The primary threats to Arctostaphylos

pallida are the effects of fire

suppression, and shading and

competition from native and alien

plants. To a lesser extent, the species is

threatened by disease, herbicide

spraying, hybridization, and the ongoing

effects of habitat loss and fragmentation.

Previous Federal Action

Federal government actions on the

species began as a result of section 12

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),

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. This document included

Arctostaphylos pallida (as

Arctostaphylos andersonii var. pallida)

as endangered. 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
19844 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

context of section 4(c)(2) (petition

provisions are now found in section

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

thereby to review the status of the plant

taxa named therein. The above taxon

was included in the July 1, 1975, notice.

On June 16, 1976, the Service published

a proposal in the Federal Register (42

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. Arctostaphylos

pallida was included in the June 16,

1976, publication.

General comments received in

relation to the 1976 proposal were

summarized in the April 26, 1978,

Federal Register (43 FR 17909). The

Endangered Species Act Amendments

of 1978 required that all existing

proposals over 2 years old be

withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was

given to those proposals already more

than 2 years old. In a December 10,

1979, notice (44 FR 70796), the Service

withdrew the June 6, 1976, proposal

that had not been made final, along with

four other proposals that had expired.

The Service published an updated

Notice of Review for plants on

December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This

notice included Arctostaphylos pallida

as a Category 1 candidate species for

Federal listing. Category 1 were those

taxa for which the Service had on file

sufficient information to support

issuance of proposed listing rules. On

November 28, 1983, the Service

published a supplement to the Notice of

Review (48 FR 53640). This supplement

changed this taxon from Category 1 to

Category 2. Category 2 species were

those taxa for which the Service had

information indicating that listing may

be warranted but for which it lacked

sufficient information on status and

threats to support issuance of listing

rules. The plant notice was revised on

September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526).

Arctostaphylos pallida was again

included as a Category 2 candidate

species. In the revision of the plant

notice published on February 21, 1990

(55 FR 6184), A. pallida was elevated to

a Category 1 candidate species. In the

revision of the plant notice published

on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144),

this category remained unchanged.

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

the Secretary to make findings on

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 Arctostaphylos pallida because

the 1975 Smithsonian report had been

accepted as a petition. On October 13,

1983, the Service found that the

petitioned listing of this species was

warranted but precluded by other

pending listing actions, in accordance

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

notification of this finding was

published on January 20, 1984 (49 FR

2485). Such a finding requires the

petition to be recycled annually,

pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the

Act. The finding was reviewed annually

from October of 1983 through 1993.

Publication of the proposed rule to list

A. pallida as a threatened species on

August 2, 1995 (60 FR 39309)

constituted the final warranted finding

for this species.

The processing of this final rule

conforms with the Service’s listing

priority guidance published in the

Federal Register on December 5, 1996

(61 FR 64475) and the extension of the

guidance published in the Federal

Register on October 23, 1997 (62 FR

55268). The guidance clarifies the order

in which the Service will process listing

actions following two related events: (1)

The lifting, on April 26, 1996, of the

moratorium on final listings imposed on

April 10, 1995 (Pub. L. 104–6), and (2)

the restoration of funding for listing

through passage of 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

emergency situations (Tier 1) and

second highest priority (Tier 2) to

resolving the listing status of

outstanding 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 a Tier 2

action.

Summary of Comments and

Recommendations

In the August 2, 1995, proposed rule

(60 FR 39309) and associated

notifications, all interested parties were

requested to submit factual reports or

information that might contribute to the

development of a final rule. Appropriate

State and Federal agencies and

representatives, City and County

governments, scientific organizations,

and other interested parties were

contacted and requested to comment.

Newspaper notices were published in

the Daily Review (Hayward, California),

the Ledger Dispatch and the Brentwood

News (Antioch, California), and the

Oakland Tribune on August 9, 1995,

which invited public comment. No

public comments or requests were

received during this public comment

period. Work on the final rule to list

Arctostaphylos pallida as a threatened

species was suspended due to the

moratorium. After the moratorium was

lifted in April 1996, the public comment

period was reopened on February 27,

1997, for 30 days to update the

proposed listing (62 FR 8417). In

accordance with Service policy (59 FR

34270), four independent specialists

were solicited to review pertinent

scientific or commercial data and

assumptions relative to the proposed

rule. No response was received from the

four independent specialists.

In a letter dated March 25, 1997, Mr.

Brad Olsen of the East Bay Regional

Park District requested that the

comment period be reopened an

additional time because all affected and

interested parties and agencies may not

have had sufficient time to convey

important information pertaining to all

the known Arctostaphylos pallida

populations. The notice opening the

additional comment period was

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 24388) on May 5, 1997. The public

comment period closed on June 4, 1997.

Comments were solicited from an

additional eight experts pertaining to—

(1) The known or potential effects of fire

suppression and general fire

management practices on the pallid

manzanita and its habitat, (2) other

biological, commercial, or other relevant

data on any threats (or the lack thereof)

to the species; and (3) the size, number,

or distribution of populations of the

species.

During the last two comment periods,

the Service received a total of eight

comments (letters and personal phone

conversations) from seven people. One

commenter supported the listing and

the other six were neutral. Several

commenters provided additional

information that has been incorporated

into this rule. No commenters were

opposed to the rule.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

After a thorough review and

consideration of the best available

scientific and commercial information,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 19845

the Service has determined that

Arctostaphylos pallida should be

classified as a threatened species.

Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act

and regulations (50 CFR part 424)

promulgated to implement the listing

provisions of the Act set forth the

procedures to be followed for adding

species to the list of threatened and

endangered 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).

These factors and their application to

Arctostaphylos pallida Eastw. (pallid

manzanita) are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range

In its proposal to list the pallid

manzanita (60 FR 39311), the Service

identified residential development as a

threat. However, the Service no longer

considers it to be a significant threat.

Although residential development

eliminated a large number of

Arctostaphylos pallida plants on

Huckleberry Ridge, further direct habitat

destruction is not anticipated. Up to 50

percent of the original habitat of A.

pallida on Huckleberry Ridge has been

developed for housing or is privately

owned. However, most of the remaining

population at Huckleberry Ridge, as

well as the other large A. pallida

population on Sobrante Ridge, is on

lands now owned by the East Bay

Regional Park District and is protected

from further direct habitat destruction

resulting from urbanization or land use

conversion. The smaller A. pallida

populations occur either on other park

lands or on privately owned lands that

have already been developed. The

ongoing effects of prior development are

discussed in detail under factor E.

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

Although this species is not known to

be sought after by collectors,

Arctostaphylos pallida is commercially

cultivated (Wells 1993). Many members

of this genus are considered desirable to

use for interior decoration because of

their attractive bark, leaves, and hard

wood. In addition, they are often used

in residential landscapes and local

horticulturalists sometimes collect the

seeds for cultivation (Keeley and Keeley

1992, Smith 1988). Overutilization is

not currently known to be a threat to

this species, but unrestricted collecting

for scientific or horticultural purposes

or excessive trampling of seedlings by

individuals interested in seeing rare

plants could result from increased

publicity as a result of listing this

species. Possible unauthorized cutting

of A. pallida was evident at the Sobrante

Ridge Regional Preserve population

where public access trails and

photographic displays of this species are

established throughout manzanita

habitat (Dwight Harvey and Elizabeth

Warne, USFWS, in litt. 1997).

C. Disease or Predation

Approximately 50 percent of the

Huckleberry Ridge population of

Arctostaphylos pallida was affected in

the 1980s by a fungal infection that

attacked the roots of the plants, causing

branch and stem dieback (Amme and

Havlik 1987a, CDFG 1987). The

Huckleberry Ridge population remains

in poor condition (Amme and Havlik

1987c, CNDDB 1997). If the wet, cold

weather conditions that induced the

fungal infection are repeated, another

infection could occur, resulting in

reduced vigor of the population (D.

Amme, pers. comm. 1994).

Botryosphaeia fungal infections can

cause changes in leaf pigmentation thus

affecting the plant’s photosynthetic

capabilities, destroy branches, and lead

to the eventual death of whole plants

(Smith 1985, Amme and Havlik 1987,

Wood and Parker 1988). Pale chlorotic

leaves, possibly due to Botryosphaeia

fungi, were evident at the East Ridge

population on EBMUD land, where 14

mature A. pallida plants grow under a

canopy dominated by Umbellularia

californica, Arbutus menziesii, and

introduced Pinus radiata (D. Harvey and

E. Warne, in litt. 1997, R. Nuzum, in litt.

1997). In addition, urban expansion has

resulted in the planting and subsequent

spread of many exotic and native

species of trees and shrubs (Amme and

Havlik 1987a). Many of these species

grow faster than Arctostaphylos pallida

and, in some locations, completely

shade them. Excessive shade and

overcrowding can cause a slow decline

in the plant’s overall health and vigor

that can lead to the spread of

Botryosphaeia fungi and an unknown

root fungus (Smith 1985, Amme and

Havlik 1987a).

D. The Inadequacy of Existing

Regulatory Mechanisms

The State of California Fish and Game

Commission has listed Arctostaphylos

pallida as an endangered species under

the California Endangered Species Act

(chapter 1.5 § 2050 et seq. of the

California Fish and Game Code, and

title 14 California Code of Regulations

§ 670.2). The State of California requires

that individuals obtain authorization

from the California Department of Fish

and Game (CDFG) to possess or ‘‘take’’

a listed species. Although the take of

State-listed plants is prohibited by the

California Native Plant Protection Act

and the California Endangered Species

Act (California Fish & Game Code,

chapter 10, division 2, § 1908 and

California Fish & Game Code, chapter

1.5, division 3, § 2080), State law does

not prohibit 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

requires only that the land owner notify

the agency ‘‘at least ten days in advance

of changing the land use to allow

salvage of such a plant’’ (California Fish

and Game Code, chapter 10, § 1900 et

seq.).

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

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 of requiring

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 listed or rare 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 that, if made

final, may weaken protections for

threatened, endangered, and other

sensitive species.

California Department of Fish and

Game (CDFG) and EBRPD jointly

developed the Alameda Manzanita

Management Plan in 1987. Since then,

due to limited funding, and conflicting

fire management policies, this plan has

only partially been carried out. The

mission of the plan was to determine

and implement management activities

that would improve the condition of the

species and help in its recovery (Amme
19846 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

and Havlik 1987b). EBRPD has reduced

the amount of flammable dead plant

material in the Huckleberry Ridge

population (Ed Leong, EBRPD, pers.

comm. 1994, in litt. 1997). The

reduction in plant litter, and the

pruning of some competing exotics, has

helped to stimulate germination and

growth of the species at Sobrante Ridge,

Huckleberry Ridge and two other lesser

locations (D. Amme, pers. comm. 1994,

N. Havlik, pers. comm. 1997). The

potential effects of fire management

policies on A. pallida are further

discussed under factor E below.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Affecting Their Continued Existence

Due to past and present fire

suppression policies and inactive or

ineffective fire management plans, the

long-term viability of Arctostaphylos

pallida is in doubt. In the 1800s, before

the expansion of urban areas into the

East Bay Hills, major natural or humancaused fires periodically burned

through manzanita habitat mainly from

east to west driven by dry ‘‘Diablo

Winds’’ during the late summer and fall

(EBRPD 1996, R. Nuzum, in litt. 1997).

These fires rarely threatened the lower

lying communities of Berkeley and

Oakland. Fire management practice

from about 1900 to 1940 changed from

unrestricted burning to permitted

burning only (Sampson 1944, J. Dunne

et al. 1991). The California Department

of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP)

currently has a policy of immediate

suppression of all wildfires (B.

Harrington, CDFFP, pers. comm. 1996).

Due to the expansion of homes up to

the crest of the East Bay Hills during the

1940s and 1950s, human-caused fires,

such as the Oakland Hills fire of 1991,

are now a major threat to human safety

(EBRPD 1996). Over the last 10 years,

urban development has expanded to

approach the two largest populations of

Arctostaphylos pallida at Sobrante and

Huckleberry Ridges. At Sobrante Ridge,

homes come within 30 m (100 ft) of the

population and at Huckleberry Ridge

some homes along Manzanita Drive

have A. pallida within their landscaping

(Amme and Havlik 1987a, D. Harvey

and E. Warne, in litt. 1997).

Fire suppression in the East Bay Hills,

in combination with increased browsing

of tree and shrub seedlings and acorns

by deer and livestock, has led to

structural and compositional change in

habitats within the range of

Arctostaphylos pallida. Open-canopied

oak woodlands maintained historically

by frequent fire have been converted, in

the absence of fire, into closed-canopied

woodland-forests dominated by

Umbellularia californica (California

bay), other native trees, or alien conifer

or Eucalyptus forests (McBride 1974, B.

Olson, in litt. 1994 Safford 1995).

Because of their denser canopies, these

forests and woodlands create a

microclimate unsuitable for healthy A.

pallida plants. For example, the small

population of A. pallida at upper East

Ridge persists in the understory of a

closed-canopy forest of California bay

and Arbutus menziesii (madrone) (R.

Nuzum, in litt. 1997). No signs of recent

fire are present at this site (D. Harvey

and E. Warne, in litt. 1997 as per J.

Dunne) and it is estimated that the site

may not have burned in more than 100

years (R. Nuzum, in litt. 1997). Most of

the 14 adult pallid manzanita in this

population are unhealthy and show

signs of fungal infections and bark

striping. Bark striping may be a sign that

excessive canopy shading is affecting A.

pallida. Bark striping was first thought

to have a pathological origin but is now

believed to be a stress response by some

species of manzanita to the absence of

fire (Davis 1973 in Hanes 1995). On

shaded sites, such as upper East Ridge,

the ability of the shade intolerant A.

pallida plants to maintain live tissue is

thought to lessen, resulting in the partial

shutdown of growing cells and tissue

sloughing that manifests as bark striping

(Davis 1973 in Hanes 1995, Amme and

Havlik 1987a). At the Huckleberry Ridge

population, A. pallida plants are

generally wider than they are tall, a

consequence of growing away from the

overstory canopy to reach light, and all

of the A. pallida plants displayed bark

striping (Amme and Havlik 1987a).

Fire suppression can also alter the

reproductive dynamics of

Arctostaphylos pallida stands. Based on

differing survival responses of chaparral

plants to fire, manzanitas can be divided

into burl-forming and non-burl-forming

(Sampson 1944, Roof 1976, Keeley and

Keeley 1977). Burls lay at the base of the

main stem of the plant and contain

stored nutrients and shoot-forming

embryonic tissues. The burl-forming

types are capable of surviving fire by

resprouting from these burls. The

second group does not form burls.

Instead, stand persistence is based on

the establishment and maintenance of a

seed bank in the soil. This seed bank

may lay dormant within the soil for as

much as 100 years or more (Keeley

1987, 1991). When a fire passes through

an area, the seeds are scarified and thus

become capable of germinating (Amme

and Havlik 1987a). However, fire is not

the only way seeds can be scarified.

Mechanical disturbances, such as

crushing, can also crack the seed coat

and enable the seeds to germinate (S.

Edwards, pers. comm. 1997). Both types

of manzanita can also regenerate by

layering, a method that does not require

fire. Branches sprout roots at points at

which they are covered by soil and leaf

litter. This produces a clone of the

original plant (Amme and Havlik

1987b). Of the three methods of

regeneration, only seed reproduction

results in genetic recombination and it

is, therefore, important to the

maintenance of genetic diversity.

Stand regeneration in Arctostaphylos

pallida is based primarily on seed

reproduction. At the Sobrante Ridge

population, A. pallida is closely

associated with open stands of Quercus

chrysolepis (canyon live oak) and Q.

wislizenii var. fructescens (interior live

oak) and recruitment of both pallid

manzanita and oaks is occurring on bare

and exposed gravel (Amme et al. 1986,

S. Edwards, pers. comm. 1997). The

effects of fire are evident at this site and

fire may have occurred 20 to 30 years

ago (N. Havlik, pers. comm. 1997).

In contrast, the effects of fire are not

evident at the Huckleberry Ridge

population and fire may have not

occurred there for 70 years or longer (R.

Nuzum, in litt. 1997, D. Harvey and E.

Warne, in litt. 1997). The

Arctostaphylos pallida population is

unhealthy due to the negative effects of

a dense California bay-madrone canopy

and reproduction is poor (N. Havlik,

pers. comm. 1997, R. Nuzum, in litt.

1997, S. Edwards, pers. comm. 1997, D.

Harvey and E. Warne, in litt. 1997). In

a 1993 fuel management and habitat

improvement experiment at the

Huckleberry Ridge site, a small area

overgrown with a dense stand of A.

pallida was cleared, and the cut

vegetation piled and burned. Seedlings

of A. pallida were present the following

year. Hand pulling of the invasive alien,

Genista monspessulana (French broom),

was necessary during 1994 and 1995.

During a site visit in March of 1997, 40

to 50 A. pallida were present. Most were

10–15 cm (4–6 in) tall, vigorous, and

well-branched. The seedlings were

found on the barer soil areas. In

addition to continued invasion by

French broom, native Baccharis

pilularis (coyote brush) had begun to

invade the site (E. Leong, pers. comm.

1997) .

The importance of fire in relation to

this manzanita’s reproductive strategy is

uncertain, however, since seed

reproduction can also occur as a result

of site soil disturbance. Evidence exists

that mechanical scarification, such as

crushing, stimulates germination in

several manzanita species, including A.

pallida (Keeley 1987, Keeley 1991, S.

Edwards, pers. comm. 1997). New
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 19847

seedlings of A. pallida have appeared in

areas where mechanical scarification

had recently taken place including

exposed gravel clearings and fire breaks

at the Sobrante Ridge (S. Edwards, pers.

comm. 1997, N. Havlik, pers. comm.

1997), at several road cuts along Skyline

Boulevard (D. Amme, pers. comm.

1997), and at Huckleberry Ridge where

grading and removal of plants has

occurred for residential development

(N. Havlik, pers. comm. 1997).

However, fire is thought to have been

the primary historical process by which

seed regeneration was initiated and it

has other valuable effects beyond seed

scarification. The accumulated leaf and

bark litter, fallen fruits, and roots of

Arctostaphylos species have a selfinhibitory effect on seed germination

(Amme and Havlik 1987b). Fire is

believed to remove these toxic materials

and promote germination of

Arctostaphylos and other herbs and

shrubs (Amme et al. 1986). Fire also

recycles nutrients in the soil (Amme

and Havlik 1987b). The excessive

accumulation of dead leaf and bark

material also results in the retention of

soil moisture. Higher soil moisture

levels allows fires to conduct heat

through the soil more effectively; this

has the potential to destroy the existing

Arctostaphylos pallida seed bank.

(Wood and Parker 1988).

The fire management policy of the

CDFFP has superseded EBRPD fire

management policy on park lands (J. Di

Donato, EBRPD, pers. comm. 1996).

However, fire management can be

modified in specific areas for listed

species (B. Harrington, pers. comm.

1996). On EBRPD and EBMUD lands,

where the majority of Arctostaphylos

pallida populations occur, A. pallida

habitat has been managed by fire

suppression and brush removal (B.

Olson, in litt. 1994, J. Di Donato, pers.

comm. 1996, B. Harrington, pers. comm.

1996). Mechanical removal of exotic

plants has been the primary method

used to improve growing conditions

mostly for isolated individual plants

(Amme and Havlik 1987). Due to the

continued expansion of urbanization

adjacent to A. pallida habitat, and the

catastrophic Oakland Hills fire of 1991,

mechanical removal of highly

flammable vegetation remains the

predominant method used to reduce the

fuel load in A. pallida chaparral habitat.

A fire management plan that includes

the possibility of prescribed burns to

address the needs of A. pallida for

germination and seedling establishment

is currently being developed by the

EBRPD in cooperation with CDFG and

CDFFP (EBRPD 1996, J. Di Donato, in

litt. 1996).

The genetic integrity of

Arctostaphylos pallida is threatened by

hybridization with other species of

Arctostaphylos introduced into the

vicinity of A. pallida populations (D.

Amme, pers. comm. 1994). At least

three other species of Arctostaphylos

have been used for landscaping on

private lands along Manzanita Way, a

road that borders the Huckleberry Ridge

Preserve. Hybrids between a common

associate of A. pallida, A. tomentosa

ssp. crustacea (brittle leaf manzanita),

are known to occur in two separate

populations (Amme et al. 1986, D.

Harvey and E. Warne, in litt. 1997 as per

J. Dunne). Hybrids have also been

observed between A. pallida and A.

glauca (bigberry manzanita) in Oakland

parks (D. Amme, pers. comm. 1997 as

per S. Edwards). Arctostaphylos pallida

closely resembles A. pajaroensis (Pajaro

manzanita), a species native to the

Pajaro River area. Hybrids may be

occurring between these two species in

areas where residents have planted A.

pajaroensis along Huckleberry Ridge (D.

Amme, pers. comm. 1997).

Hybridization with any of these taxa

could result in a hybrid manzanita

swarm replacing pure A. pallida (Amme

and Havlik 1987b, Amme et al. 1986).

Herbicides have been used to

eradicate Eucalyptus associated with

Arctostaphylos pallida in many areas of

EBRPD lands in the Oakland Hills. The

exact effect herbicide spraying has on

Arctostaphylos pallida has not been

studied, however, roadside spraying has

had negative effects on regeneration of

A. pallida along Skyline Boulevard

(Amme and Havlik 1987a).

Urban development in the East Bay

Hills has fragmented the natural habitat

of Arctostaphylos pallida. Splitting the

habitat into smaller, more isolated units

can alter the physical environment by

changing the amount of incoming solar

radiation, water, wind, or nutrients for

the remnant vegetation (Saunders et al.

1991). In addition, a higher proportion

of these fragmented natural areas are

subject to external factors (e.g., invasion

of nonnative plants, foot traffic, and

increased erosion) that disrupt natural

ecosystem processes (B. Olson, in litt.

1994).

Residential development at

Huckleberry Ridge has contributed to

the introduction of exotic landscape and

weedy plant species that compete with

the remnant population (Amme and

Havlik 1987b). Small populations, in

particular, are threatened by shading

from planted Eucalyptus spp., Pinus

radiata, and Cupressus spp. (cypresses),

and by competition with other

aggressive alien plant species including

French broom, Vinca major

(periwinkle), and Senecio mikanioides

(German ivy) (Amme et al. 1986, B.

Olson, in litt. 1994, N. Havlik, pers.

comm. 1997). Eventually the taller

growing species will block necessary

light to the few scattered A. pallida

resulting in unhealthy, dying and

diseased plants as demonstrated at some

areas of the Huckleberry Ridge and East

Ridge populations (R. Nuzum, in litt.

1997, N. Havlik, pers. comm. 1997, E.

Leong, in litt. 1997). In 1985 several

large bay trees were cut at the base to

improve light conditions for some A.

pallida. As a result, many A. pallida

responded with new growth (N. Havlik,

pers. comm. 1997).

The Service has carefully assessed the

best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past,

present, and future threats faced by

Arctostaphylos pallida in determining

to make this rule final. Based on this

evaluation, the preferred action is to list

A. pallida as threatened. This species is

not now in immediate danger of

extinction throughout all or a significant

portion of its range. A. pallida exists at

two large and eleven small occurrences.

The majority of its habitat is on EBRPD

property. The two largest occurrences of

A. pallida are protected from further

direct habitat destruction resulting from

urbanization or land use conversion.

However, all occurrences of A. pallida

remain threatened by compositional and

structural changes due to fire

suppression that result in shading and

competition from native and alien plant

species, disease, the ongoing effects of

habitat fragmentation resulting from

past urbanization, and chance events

due to the small size of the few

remaining populations. Some

populations are also threatened by

hybridization, and herbicide spraying.

Furthermore, the existing regulatory

mechanisms do not provide A. pallida

adequate protection from these threats.

Arctostaphylos pallida, therefore, fits

the definition of a threatened species.

For the reasons discussed below, critical

habitat has not been designated.

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

by a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are

essential for conservation of the species.
19848 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

‘‘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 a 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.

Critical habitat designation for this

species is not prudent due to lack of

benefit. Critical habitat only applies to

Federal actions on Federal lands or

federally-permitted actions on private

lands. All known populations occur on

non-Federal land, and no Federal lands

are known to occur within the historical

range of the species. No Federal actions,

authorizations, or licensing currently

occurs, or is likely to occur, on lands

where the species occurs. Therefore,

designation of critical habitat is not

likely to benefit A. pallida.

Moreover, such designation could

increase the degree of threat to the

species. The publication of precise maps

and descriptions of critical habitat in

the Federal Register would make this

plant vulnerable to incidents of

vandalism or collection and, therefore,

could contribute to the decline of the

species. All of the 13 occurrences of A.

pallida are located near or adjacent to

residential areas and public roads where

they are easily accessible. A. pallida is

commercially cultivated (Wells 1993).

Many members of this genus, including

numerous San Francisco Bay area taxa,

are considered desirable for interior

decoration and landscape plantings and

are collected for cultivation for these

purposes (Roof 1976, Smith 1985, 1988).

The desirability and accessibility of the

species, therefore, could make the

plants subject to collection if their

precise location was publicized. Most of

the populations have so few individuals

that even limited collection could

contribute significantly to their decline.

Designation of critical habitat for A.

pallida could, therefore, interfere with

recovery efforts for the species.

The Service finds, therefore, that the

designation of critical habitat for

Arctostaphylos pallida is not prudent at

this time, because such designation

would likely provide no conservation

benefit beyond that the species would

receive by virtue of its designation as a

threatened species. This finding is based

on the fact that the species does not

occur on Federal lands, nor does it

occur on non-Federal lands where there

is likely to be any Federal agency

involvement. Moreover, designation of

critical habitat would facilitate

trespassing and increased collection or

damage to the species or its habitat, and

thereby interfere with recovery efforts.

Any minor, unforeseen benefits that

might derive from designation of critical

habitat would be outweighed by the

increased threat to the species that

would result from such designation.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include

recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and

prohibitions against certain activities.

Recognition through listing encourages

and results in conservation actions by

Federal, State, and private agencies,

groups, and individuals. The Act

provides for 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 requires

Federal agencies to evaluate their

actions with respect to any species that

is proposed or listed as endangered or

threatened and with respect to its

critical habitat, if any is being

designated. Regulations implementing

this interagency cooperation provision

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part

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

Federal agencies to confer with the

Service on any action that is likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of a

proposed species or result in

destruction or adverse modification of

proposed critical habitat. If a species is

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2)

requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry

out are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of such a species or

to destroy or adversely modify its

critical habitat. If a Federal action may

affect a listed species or its critical

habitat, the responsible Federal agency

must enter into consultation with the

Service. None of the populations of

Arctostaphylos pallida occur on Federal

lands and no Federal actions have been

identified that are likely to occur on

non-Federal lands with populations of

the species.

Some populations occur on nonFederal lands protected from

development. EBRPD owns the sites of

both major populations of A. pallida.

The EBRPD and CDFG jointly developed

the Alameda Manzanita Management

Plan in 1987. Although this plan was

not adopted by Alameda or Contra Costa

County governments, portions of the

plan are in use by the EBRPD (D. Amme,

pers. comm. 1994, E. Leong, pers.

comm. 1994, in litt 1997). A specific

management plan does not exist for the

small population on EBMUD land at

upper East Ridge. The Service has not

pursued any conservation agreements

on public or private land regarding this

species.

Listing this plant species necessitates

the development of a recovery plan.

Such a plan would bring together both

State and Federal efforts for

conservation of the plant. The plan

would establish a framework for

agencies to coordinate activities and

cooperate with each other in

conservation efforts. The plan would set

recovery priorities and estimate costs of

various tasks necessary to accomplish

them. It also would describe sitespecific management actions necessary

to achieve conservation and survival of

the plant species. Additionally,

pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the

Service would be able to grant funds to

the State for management actions

promoting the protection and recovery

of the species.

The Act and its implementing

regulations set forth a series of general

prohibitions and exceptions that apply

to all threatened species. All

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

implemented by 50 CFR 17.71, apply.

These prohibitions, in part, make it

illegal for any person subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States to

import or export, transport in interstate

or foreign commerce in the course of a

commercial activity, sell or offer for sale

in interstate or foreign commerce, or

remove and reduce the species to

possession from areas under Federal

jurisdiction. In addition, for plants

listed as endangered, the Act prohibits

the malicious damage or destruction on

areas under Federal jurisdiction and the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 19849

removal, cutting, digging up, or

damaging or destroying of such plants

in knowing violation of any State law or

regulation, including State criminal

trespass law. Section 4(d) of the Act

allows for the provision of such

protection to threatened species through

regulation. This protection may apply to

this species in the future if regulations

are promulgated. Seeds from cultivated

specimens of threatened plants are

exempt from these prohibitions

provided that their containers are

marked ‘‘Of Cultivated Origin.’’ Certain

exceptions to the prohibitions apply to

agents of the Service and State

conservation agencies.

The Act and 50 CFR 17.72 also

provide for the issuance of permits to

carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving threatened plants under

certain circumstances. Such permits are

available for scientific purposes and to

enhance the propagation or survival of

the species. For threatened plants,

permits are also available for botanical

or horticultural exhibition, education

purposes, or special purposes consistent

with the purposes of the Act. It is

anticipated that some trade permits may

be sought or issued for cultivated

specimens to enhance the propagation

and survival of the species.

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 this listing on proposed and ongoing

activities within the species’ range.

Collection, damage, or destruction of

listed species on Federal lands is

prohibited, although in appropriate

cases a Federal endangered species

permit may be issued to allow

collection. However, Arctostaphylos

pallida is not known to occur on any

Federal lands. Such activities on nonFederal lands would constitute a

violation of section 9, however, if

conducted in knowing violation of State

law or regulations or in violation of

State criminal trespass law. Interstate or

foreign commerce, or offering for sale in

interstate or foreign commerce, or

importing or exporting pallid manzanita

without a threatened species permit

would be a violation of section 9.

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

concerning listed plants and general

inquiries regarding prohibitions and

permits may be addressed to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological

Services, Endangered Species Permits,

911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon

97232–4181 (telephone 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

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended. 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

This rule does not require collection

of information that requires approval by

the Office of Management and Budget

under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein is available upon request from

the Field Supervisor of the Service’s

Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Author

The primary author of this final rule

is Dwight Harvey, 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, the Service amends part

17 subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of

the Code of Federal Regulations, 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:

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range Family Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Scientific name Common name

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * *

Arctostaphylos

pallida.

pallid manzanita ...... U.S.A. (CA) ............. Ericaceae—heath ... T 635 NA NA

* * * * * * *
19850 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Dated: March 4, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98–10662 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 980318066-8066-01; I.D.

022698A]

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Northeast Multispecies

Fishery; Framework Adjustment 25;

Correction

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects two

portions of the regulatory text in the

final rule for Framework Adjustment 25

to the Fishery Management Plan for the

Northeast Multispecies Fishery (FMP)

published Tuesday, March 31, 1998.

DATES: Effective May 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Tokarcik, 978-281-9326.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The interim final rule for the Atlantic

sea scallop fishery and the final rule to

implement measures contained in

Framework Adjustment 25 to the FMP

were published on Tuesday, March 31,

1998 (63 FR 15324 and 63 FR 15326,

respectively). Both rules added a

provision to the same paragraph

designation of the prohibitions section

of 50 CFR part 648. Because the Atlantic

Sea scallop interim final rule became

effective on April 3, 1998, and

Framework Adjustment 25 to the FMP

is not effective until May 1, 1998, this

document is correcting Framework

Adjustment 25 by changing its

paragraph designation of (a)(110) to

paragraph (a)(112) for its addition to

§ 648.14. The regulatory text as

published for the Atlantic sea scallop

interim final rule remains unchanged.

Also, Framework Adjustment 25

inadvertently included the time frame

May 10 through May 30 as a period of

time in which gillnet vessels would be

prohibited from fishing in the Mid-coast

Closure Area. This document is

correcting § 648.87(a)(1)(i) by removing

the reference to May 10 through May 30.

Correction

Accordingly, the publication on

March 31, 1998, of the final regulations

to implement Framework Adjustment

25 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP

(I.D. 022698A), which was the subject of

FR Doc. 98-8288, is corrected as follows:

1. On page 15330, in the first column,

amendatory instruction 3, line 5, correct

‘‘(a)(110)’’ to read ‘‘(a)(112)’’, and in line

15 to the regulatory text to § 648.14,

correct ‘‘(110)’’ to read ‘‘(112)’’.

2. On page 15333, in the second

column, in line 2 to the regulatory text

to § 648.87(a)(1)(i), remove ‘‘May 10

through May 30’’.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: April 15, 1998.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 98–10731 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 971208297-8054-02; I.D.

041498A]

Fisheries of the Economic Exclusive

Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Fisheries

by Vessels Using Hook-and-Line Gear

in the Gulf of Alaska

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed

fishing for groundfish by vessels using

hook-and-line gear in the Gulf of Alaska

(GOA), except for sablefish or demersal

shelf rockfish. This action is necessary

because the first seasonal bycatch

allowance of Pacific halibut apportioned

to hook-and-line gear targeting

groundfish other than sablefish or

demersal shelf rockfish in the GOA has

been caught.

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local

time (A.l.t.), April 18, 1998, through

1200 hrs, A.l.t., May 18, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Pearson, 907-486-6919.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive

economic zone is managed by NMFS

according to the Fishery Management

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act. Fishing by U.S.

vessels is governed by regulations

implementing the FMP at subpart H of

50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The prohibited species bycatch

mortality allowance of Pacific halibut

for groundfish other than demersal shelf

rockfish, which is defined at

§ 679.21(d)(4)(iii)(C), was established by

the Final 1998 Harvest Specifications of

Groundfish for the GOA (63 FR 12027,

March 12, 1998) for the first season, the

period January 1, 1998, through May 17,

1998, as 250 mt.

In accordance with § 679.21(d)(7)(ii),

the Administrator, Alaska Region,

NMFS (Regional Administrator), has

determined that the first seasonal

apportionment of the 1998 Pacific

halibut bycatch mortality allowance

specified for the hook-and-line

groundfish fisheries other than sablefish

or demersal shelf rockfish in the GOA

has been caught. Consequently, NMFS

is prohibiting directed fishing for

groundfish other than sablefish or

demersal shelf rockfish by vessels using

hook-and-line gear in the GOA.

Maximum retainable bycatch amounts

may be found at § 679.20(e) and (f).

Classification

This action responds to the best

available information recently obtained

from the fishery. It must be

implemented immediately in order to

prevent overharvesting the first seasonal

apportionment of the 1998 Pacific

halibut bycatch mortality allowance

specified for the groundfish fisheries

other than sablefish or demersal shelf

rockfish by vessels using hook-and- line

gear in the GOA. A delay in the effective

date is impracticable and contrary to the

public interest. The first seasonal

bycatch allowance of Pacific halibut

apportioned to hook-and-line gear

targeting groundfish other than sablefish

or demersal shelf rockfish in the GOA

has been caught. Further delay would

only result in overharvest which would

disrupt the FMP’s objective of

apportioning Pacific halibut bycatch

allowances throughout the year. NMFS

finds for good cause that the

implementation of this action can not be

delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under

5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective

date is hereby waived.

This action is required by § 679.21

and is exempt from review under E.O.

12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.