13474 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

failures relating to environment, safety,

and health (ES&H); and make related

technical and conforming amendments.

The comment period was to end on

March 5, 2001. In response to requests

of several of DOE’s major contractors,

DOE is extending the comment period

to on or before the close of business on

April 5, 2001.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before the close of

business April 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments (3 copies) should

be addressed to: Michael L. Righi,

Department of Energy, Office of

Procurement and Assistance

Management, MA–51, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael L. Righi at

michael.l.righi@hq.doe.gov or (202)

586–8175.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on February 28,

2001.

Gwendolyn S. Cowan,

Acting Director, Office of Procurement and

Assistance Management, Department of

Energy.

[FR Doc. 01–5431 Filed 3–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 229

[FRA Docket No. FRA 2000–8545; Notice

No. 2]

RIN 2130—AB89

Locomotive Cab Sanitation Standards

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: By notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) published on

January 2, 2001 (66 FR 136), FRA

proposed safety standards for sanitation

facilities for locomotive cab employees.

This document announces a public

hearing to give interested parties an

opportunity to make comments on the

record concerning the NPRM.

DATES: FRA will host a public hearing

on April 2, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. Any

interested party who desires to

participate in the hearing must notify

the Department of Transportation

Central Docket Management Facility in

writing on or before March 27, 2001.

Written notification to the Docket Clerk

must identify the docket number, and

the participant’s name, affiliation, and

phone number.

ADDRESSES: Public Hearing: The public

hearing will take place at the Omni

Ambassador East, 1301 North State

Parkway, Chicago, Illinois 60610 (312–

787–7200).

Docket Clerk: Each notification must

be submitted to the Department’s

Central Docket located in Room PL–401

at the Plaza level of the Nassif Building,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20590. Docket hours at the Nassif

Building are Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m.

to 5:00 p.m., excluding Federal

holidays. Submissions may also be

made via the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Beyer, Office of the Chief

Counsel, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW.,

Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20950

(telephone 202–493–6027); or Brenda

Hattery, Office of Safety Assurance and

Compliance, 1120 Vermont Avenue,

NW., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC

20590 (telephone: 202–493–6326).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA

published its NPRM on locomotive cab

sanitation standards on January 2, 2001

(66 FR 136). In the NPRM, FRA

provided all interested parties the

opportunity to request a public hearing,

and the Brotherhood of Maintenance-ofWay Employes has requested a hearing.

FRA prepared the NPRM through

consultations with the Railroad Safety

Advisory Committee (RSAC). FRA

established RSAC in 1996 to provide a

forum for collaborative rulemaking and

program development. RSAC includes

representation from all of the agency’s

major customer groups, including

railroad carriers, labor organizations,

suppliers, manufacturers and other

interested parties.

FRA presented the issue of

locomotive cab working conditions to

RSAC in June 1997, and RSAC agreed to

take on the task of preparing

recommendations for any rulemaking

FRA promulgated on the subject of cab

sanitation facilities. RSAC formed the

Locomotive Cab Working Conditions

Working Group (Working Group) to

meet and discuss the nature and extent

of the problem, and to recommend a

course of action for the agency. The

Working Group included

representatives of the rail carriers,

affected labor organizations, and

manufacturers. FRA and the Working

Group met extensively over a period of

3 years, and discussed the area of cab

sanitation thoroughly. FRA’s NPRM is

based largely on the recommendations

that the Working Group prepared, and

FRA believes the input the Working

Group provided greatly enhanced the

quality of the product. FRA invited

written comments on the NPRM from all

interested parties, and looks forward to

additional oral comments at the public

hearing.

Public Hearing Procedures

The public hearing will be conducted

on the record, with a stenographer

present. Any interested party may make

a statement for the record and offer

suggestions for improving the proposed

standards. Any person wishing to

participate in the public hearing should

notify the Docket Clerk by mail or via

the Internet at the address provided in

the ADDRESSES section above, on or

before March 27, 2001. The notification

should identify the participant’s name,

affiliation and phone number.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on February

28, 2001.

S. Mark Lindsey,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–5307 Filed 3–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AG41

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposal To Delist

Eriastrum hooveri (Hoover’s WoollyStar)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to

remove Eriastrum hooveri (Hoover’s

woolly-star) from the List of Endangered

and Threatened Plants. This action is

based on a review of all available data,

which indicate that E. hooveri is more

widespread and abundant than was

documented at the time of listing, is

more resilient and less vulnerable to

certain activities than previously

thought, and is protected on Federal,

State, and private lands. The

management practices of the Bureau of

Land Management (BLM), on whose

land a significant number of new

populations have been found, afford

adequate protection to the species.

Occidental of Elk Hills, Inc. will manage

and monitor a 2,863 hectare (7,075 acre)

conservation area that contains E.

hooveri occurrences. Occurrences of E.

hooveri are also found on six other

preserves and natural areas managed

variously by the BLM, California

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 13475

Department of Fish and Game, and other

private entities. Consequently, E.

hooveri is not likely to become

endangered within the foreseeable

future throughout all or a significant

portion of its range. Eriastrum hooveri

populations range from the upper

Cuyama Valley in Santa Barbara County,

northward to the Panoche Hills area of

San Benito County, and include sites in

Fresno, Kings, Kern, and San Luis

Obispo Counties in California. If made

final, this rule would remove Federal

protection for E. hooveri under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by May 7,

2001. Public hearing requests must be

received by April 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on

this proposal, you may submit your

comments by any one of several

methods. You may submit written

comments by mail to the Field

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife

Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W–

2605, Sacramento, California 95825–

1888. You may send comments by

electronic mail (e-mail) to:

fw1hoovers_woolly_star@fws.gov.

Finally, you may hand-deliver

comments to our Sacramento Fish and

Wildlife Office at 2800 Cottage Way,

Suite W–2605, Sacramento, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Warne, botanist, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service at the above address or

telephone 916/414–6600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Eriastrum hooveri (Hoover’s woollystar) was evidently first collected in

1935 by Gregory Lyons near Little

Panoche Creek in Fresno County;

however, Willis Jepson (1943) described

the plant as Hugelia hooveri, citing a

1937 collection by Robert Hoover (the

namesake for the scientific and common

names) as the type. Later, Herbert

Mason (1945) transferred the species

along with the rest of the woolly-stars to

the genus Eriastrum.

Eriastrum hooveri, an annual herb of

the phlox family (Polemoniaceae),

produces many wire-like stems and tiny

white to pale blue flowers that are less

than 5 millimeters (0.2 inch (in.)) across.

The flowers are nearly hidden in tufts

of woolly hair. The leaves are threadlike and may have two narrow lobes

near the base. Standing 1–20

centimeters (cm) (0.4–8 in.) tall, the

species has grayish, fuzzy stems, which

are often branched (Munz and Keck

1959; Ellen Cypher, San Joaquin Valley

Endangered Species Recovery Planning

Program, pers. comm. 1998). The most

important characteristics for

distinguishing this species from other

Eriastrum species are the flower size

and the ratio between the length of the

corolla and the length of the lobes on

the petals (petals are highly colored

portions of the flower and collectively

are called the corolla). Characteristics of

the stamen (male reproductive organ)

can also help identify this species

(Taylor and Davilla 1986).

Eriastrum hooveri prefers areas with

lower annual plant densities and stable,

silty to sandy soils that often exhibit

cryptogamic crusting (cryptogamic

crusts are composed of a complex of

mosses, algae, bacteria, fungi, and

lichens at the soil surface) (Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) 1994). The

influence of ongoing geological

processes of the Lost Hills appears to

provide favorable conditions and habitat

for the species. Eriastrum hooveri is

found on Federal lands at Lost Hills and

in the Buena Vista Hills on alluvial

deposits adjacent to the San Joaquin

Valley (BLM 1992, 1994; EG&G Energy

Measurements, Inc. (EG&G) 1994). In the

area of the largest concentration of

plants, which occurs on both privately

and publicly owned land in the

Kettleman Hills, the species has been

found growing primarily on Cantua

coarse sandy loam (Russ Lewis, BLM,

pers. comm. 1995). Soil preferences of

this species have not been studied for

other locations.

Historically, prior to 1986, Eriastrum

hooveri was known from 19 sites in San

Luis Obispo, Kern, Fresno, and Santa

Barbara Counties in California.

Eriastrum hooveri was originally

thought to be distributed in the Temblor

Range (Kern and San Luis Obispo

Counties), Cuyama Valley (San Luis

Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties),

and in a discontinuous fashion within

valley saltbush scrub and valley sink

scrub from Fresno County south in the

San Joaquin Valley (Taylor and Davilla

1986) in California. Most of these sites

occurred on private property on the San

Joaquin and Cuyama Valley floors or on

land known as the Naval Petroleum

Reserve, which was administered by the

U.S. Department of Energy (Department

of Energy).

The Naval Petroleum Reserve-1 (NPR–

1) was established in 1912 for national

defense purposes but was largely

maintained in reserve shut-in status

until 1976. Because of oil shortages in

the early 1970s, Congress passed the

Naval Petroleum Reserve Production

Act in 1976, which provided for oil

production on NPR–1. Buena Vista Hills

Oil Field, which encompasses Naval

Petroleum Reserve-2 (NPR–2), lies to the

south of and is partially contiguous with

NPR–1. Together, NPR–1 and NPR–2

constitute what was known as the Naval

Petroleum Reserves in California

(Service 1995a).

Eriastrum hooveri was listed July 19,

1990 (55 FR 29361) as a threatened

species under the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Prior to listing, a

study of Eriastrum hooveri was

conducted in 1986 to determine the

status of the species (Davilla and Taylor

1986). This study and additional

surveys conducted between 1986 and

the time of listing revealed that 118

populations existed (55 FR 29361).

Twelve populations were known to

have been lost due to conversion of

habitat to agriculture (Taylor and

Davilla 1986; 55 FR 29361). Only two

were identified as occurring on public

land. Ninety-two percent of these sites

were considered to be threatened by

various activities, especially oil and gas

development. Threats to the species at

the time of listing were oil and gas

development, agricultural land

conversion, urbanization, and other

habitat modifications.

The results of the 1986 survey,

however, did not accurately reflect the

distribution of the species because of

the poor growing conditions during this

period (EG&G 1995a). In subsequent

years, particularly 1993, abundant

spring rainfall created favorable growing

conditions for annual plants (EG&G

1994, 1995b). Since the listing, surveys

have shown Eriastrum hooveri to be

more widespread and abundant than

was previously known on public land,

especially in the foothill areas. New

locations were reported by the BLM

(BLM 1992, 1994), and additional

locations were submitted to the

California Natural Diversity Data Base

(CNDDB). Over 400 locations have been

recorded on NPR–1 since the time of

listing (Brian Cypher, Enterprise

Advisory Services, Inc., pers. comm.

1998). Eriastrum hooveri is also known

to occur on NPR–2; however, detailed

population information is not available

(B. Cypher, pers. comm., 1998).

BLM staff estimate that 1,056

Eriastrum hooveri sites occupying

approximately 982 hectares (ha) (2,426

acres (ac)) have been located during

surveys conducted on private and

public lands in 1992 and 1994 (BLM

1992, 1994). These surveys have shown

that E. hooveri populations range from

the upper Cuyama Valley near

Ventucopa, Santa Barbara County,

northward to the Panoche Hills in San

Benito County, a distance of

approximately 224 kilometers (140

13476 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

miles). This distance approximates the

historic range; however, many more

foothill sites have been found.

Eriastrum hooveri is now known to

occur in 42 U.S. Geological Survey

quadrangles within Kings, Kern, San

Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, San Benito,

and Fresno Counties. Large areas of

potential suitable habitat remain

unsurveyed, and it is likely that

additional sites remain undiscovered

throughout the range of this species

(BLM 1994).

Eriastrum hooveri occurrences are

mainly located within four areas, or

metapopulations (E. Cypher, pers.

comm. 1995; Service 1998). A

metapopulation consists of scattered

groups of plants that function as a single

population due to occasional

interbreeding. The four metapopulations

from largest to smallest are—(1) the

Kettleman Hills area in Fresno and

Kings Counties; (2) the Carrizo PlainElkhorn Plain-Temblor Range-Caliente

Mountains-Cuyama Valley-Sierra Madre

Mountains area in San Luis Obispo,

Santa Barbara, and extreme western

Kern Counties; (3) the Lokern-Elk HillsBuena Vista Hills-Coles LeveeMaricopa-Taft area in Kern County; and

(4) the Antelope Plain-Lost HillsSemitropic area in Kern County. Each of

the metapopulations occurs on both

private and public land. Additional,

more isolated populations occur

throughout the region.

The numbers of sites within the

metapopulations range from 425 sites in

the Kettleman Hills area to 112 sites in

the Antelope Plain-Lost HillsSemitropic area. The numbers of plants

present in these two areas from 1992 to

1994 ranged from 135 million plants in

Kettleman Hills to approximately

479,000 plants in the Antelope PlainLost Hills-Semitropic area. These

numbers, however, vary widely from

year to year due to changes in climatic

conditions, particularly rainfall (Service

1998). Not all sites discovered during

the 1992 and 1994 surveys constitute

individual populations. The sites vary

in area and numbers of plants and may

be sufficiently close to one or more

other sites to be considered part of a

larger population.

An estimated 25 percent of all

Eriastrum hooveri plants are on land

managed by the BLM. The U.S. Forest

Service (Forest Service) and the

Department of Energy have less than 7

percent under their management. In

addition, 23 percent of individual plants

are located on split estate lands, where

Federal mineral rights exist on private

lands. Of the remaining individuals, 18

percent occur on a combination of split

estate and private lands, and at least 27

percent occur on private lands only.

Oil and gas development on split

estate land is controlled by the Federal

Government, although the private

landowner retains control of the surface

property. Any oil and gas development

on these lands would require

environmental review by the BLM of

impacts to listed species. Activities

authorized by the BLM that may impact

Eriastrum hooveri are restricted by the

protection measures agreed upon by the

BLM through a section 7 consultation

with us, which dealt with 35 species of

animals and plants including E. hooveri

(consultation file number 1–1–97–F–

0064) (Service 1997; Susan Carter, BLM,

pers. comm. 1998). The BLM has

incorporated species-specific and

general habitat protection measures into

their resource area land use plans since

E. hooveri was listed. These measures

will provide effective protection of

natural habitat values and minimize

impacts of various activities on E.

hooveri. The BLM has agreed to

consider the species as a special status

species after delisting. This status will

provide continued protection on BLM

lands from impacts due to oil and gas

development and grazing. The BLM also

agreed to annually monitor the species

at representative sites within each of the

four metapopulations on their lands for

a period of at least 5 years following

publication of the final rule to delist the

species. See more discussion about BLM

actions in the section of this proposed

rule titled ‘‘Effects of Proposed Rule to

Delist.’’

On February 5, 1998, the Department

of Energy transferred ownership and

management of one of its two reserves,

NPR–1, to the private ownership of

Occidental of Elk Hills, Inc. (Occidental)

(B. Cypher, pers. comm. 1998). The

Department of Energy agreed, through a

consultation with us (consultation file

number 1–1–95–F–102) (Service 1995a)

prior to transfer, to implement

conservation measures at Elk Hills

including the dedication of a 2,863-ha

(7,075-ac) conservation area for the

protection of Eriastrum hooveri, among

other species (LSA Associates, Inc.,

1998). Occidental has agreed to abide by

the Department of Energy agreement

(Peter Cross, Service, pers. comm. 1998).

There is no formal agreement between

us and the Department of Energy for the

specific protection of Eriastrum hooveri

on NPR–2; however, they informally

consult with us on a case-by-case basis

on projects that may affect listed species

on NPR–2. The Department of Energy

currently proposes to continue

ownership of NPR–2 (Duane Marti,

BLM, pers. comm. 1998) and has agreed

to consult with the us on the operation

of NPR–2 once the decision that they

will retain the reserve is final (P. Cross,

pers. comm. 1998).

Eriastrum hooveri also occurs on

several areas that have been acquired for

the protection of listed animals. These

areas include the Alkali Sink Ecological

Reserve and Buttonwillow Preserve,

both managed by California Department

of Fish and Game (CDFG); Carrizo Plain

Natural Area, co-managed by the BLM

and CDFG; Coles Levee Ecosystem

Preserve, owned and managed by

ARCO; Lokern Natural Area, managed

by the BLM, Center for Natural Lands

Management, Chevron, and other

private landowners; and Semitropic

Ridge Preserve, owned and managed by

the Center for Natural Lands

Management (Service 1998; Wendie

Duron, The Nature Conservancy, pers.

comm. 1998).

Considering these ownership patterns

and the protection provided to the

species by BLM management practices

(refer to Factor D ‘‘The inadequacy of

existing regulatory mechanisms’’ under

‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species’’); the number of new

occurrences found since the time of

listing; and the knowledge that the

species is more resilient and less

vulnerable to certain activities than

previously thought; it is not likely that

Eriastrum hooveri will become

endangered within the foreseeable

future throughout all or a significant

portion of its range. Eriastrum hooveri,

therefore, no longer meets the definition

of a threatened species under the Act.

Previous Federal Action

On September 27, 1985, we published

a revised notice of review for native

plants in the Federal Register (50 FR

39526). This revised notice added

Eriastrum hooveri as a category 2

candidate species. Category 2 species

were those species for which

information in our possession indicated

that listing was possibly appropriate,

but for which additional information on

biological vulnerability and threats was

needed to support a proposed rule. On

July 27, 1989, we published a proposal

to list E. hooveri as threatened (54 FR

31201). The final rule listing E. hooveri

as a threatened species was published

July 19, 1990 (55 FR 29361).

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

Section 4 of the Act and regulations

(50 CFR part 424) written to implement

the listing provisions of the Act set forth

the procedures for listing, reclassifying,

and delisting species. A species may be

listed if one or more of the five factors

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 13477

described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act

threatens the continued existence of the

species. A species may be delisted,

according to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if the

best scientific and commercial data

available substantiate that the species is

neither endangered nor threatened

because of (1) extinction, (2) recovery,

or (3) error in the original data for

classification of the species. We have

carefully assessed the best scientific and

commercial information available

regarding the past, present, and future

threats faced by Eriastrum hooveri. We

conclude that, based on more complete

survey data and information on the

biology of the species than was available

at the time of listing, E. hooveri is not

likely to become endangered within the

foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.

Therefore, we propose to remove E.

hooveri from the List of Endangered and

Threatened Plants.

The five factors affecting the species,

as described in section 4(a)(1), and their

current application to Eriastrum hooveri

(Jepson) H.L. Mason (Hoover’s woollystar) are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Oil and Gas Leasing

The predominant threat facing

Eriastrum hooveri at the time it was

listed as a threatened species was oil

and gas development, especially in the

Elk Hills area. Russ Lewis of the BLM

has conducted several surveys for E.

hooveri on public and private lands

since the time of listing (BLM 1992,

1994). Of the 1,056 new sites found by

Lewis during 1992 and 1994, oil and gas

development threats were present for

about 21 percent of the sites. Threats at

many of these sites are no longer

significant because several oil fields are

at or near their peak of development,

and the likelihood of additional habitat

loss from new activity is low.

In the Elk Hills area, oil production

areas are established on the upper flanks

of the hills on the former NPR–1.

Exploration activities generally have

failed to establish oil production in the

lower flanks (BLM 1994). The majority

(73 percent) of the Eriastrum hooveri

sites occur at lower elevations (EG&G

1995a); therefore, the majority of E.

hooveri populations in NPR–1 are in

areas not likely to be developed for

petroleum production (B. Cypher, pers.

comm. 1998).

Mobil Oil Corporation enacted

measures to protect Eriastrum hooveri

by placing protective exclosures around

all known sites on a Lost Hills leased

property (BLM 1994). Lewis also noted

that above-surface pipeline corridors

appear to be unintentionally restricting

access of off-highway vehicles to

remaining undisturbed habitat and,

consequently, are protecting many other

sites in the area (BLM 1994). The E.

hooveri Field Inventory Report (BLM

1994) documents the presence of E.

hooveri in large numbers throughout

fully developed oil fields, such as Lost

Hills, that have been in existence for

several decades.

Because Eriastrum hooveri reoccupies

disturbed surfaces such as well pads

and pipeline rights-of-way after a period

of non-use, the species likely will

continue to exist both on federally and

privately owned, fully developed oil

fields (BLM 1994). EG&G Energy

Measurements monitored the

reestablishment of E. hooveri (under

sponsorship by the Department of

Energy and Chevron) following two

disturbances that occurred in 1990.

Density estimates of E. hooveri 3 years

after disturbance in both cases

approached density estimates recorded

on undisturbed sites (EG&G 1995a).

Although oil and gas development does

constitute a potential surface

disturbance threat, it does not appear to

threaten the long-term survival of this

species.

Agricultural and Urban Development

Agricultural and urban development

was also cited as a threat at the time of

listing. Although sites that occur within

the San Joaquin Valley are experiencing

threats from development, the majority

of the plants are found along the hilly

margins of the Valley, usually between

90 and 910 meters (300 to 3,000 feet) in

elevation. The full extent of the historic

distribution of Eriastrum hooveri on the

San Joaquin Valley floor will never be

fully known due to widespread

agricultural development throughout

this geographic area.

The California Natural Diversity Data

Base documents that Eriastrum hooveri

sites have existed on sandy places along

the historic drainage routes running

northward from Buena Vista Lake to

Tulare Lake (R. Lewis, in litt. 1995).

There are other locations along the Kern

River drainage from Bakersfield to

Buena Vista Lake and additional sites

on the valley floor in Fresno County.

Much of the valley floor is agriculturally

developed, virtually to its fullest extent

(R. Lewis, in litt. 1995). Future

development is uncertain and would

require encroachment into hilly and

agriculturally less-desirable geographic

areas. Limited water availability for

additional agricultural and urban

development is a severely limiting

factor in the southern San Joaquin

Valley; however, urban development

along the Interstate 5 corridor could

impact remaining occupied habitat at a

few locations. The majority of the

existing locations are located on or near

hilly areas due to ongoing geological

processes that create habitat essential

for the species; therefore, agricultural

and urban threats to the continued

survival of E. hooveri appear to be

minimal.

Off-Highway Vehicles

The Eriastrum hooveri Field

Inventory Report (BLM 1994)

considered 15 percent of sites evaluated

to have potential threats from offhighway vehicles. The report stated that

the presence of a dirt road near a site

constituted a threat; however, many of

these dirt roads are very remote, seldom

traveled, and inaccessible to the public

due to locked gates. Most of the sites

documented in the report had no threats

or documented impacts because the

sites were inaccessible to vehicles.

Off-highway vehicle impacts are rare

occurrences and typically consist of tire

tracks across occupied habitat, in many

cases as a one-time occurrence by a

single vehicle. In some roads located in

the Caliente Mountains and Cuyama

Valley, the species was found growing

in the wheel treads of the road. In

addition, E. hooveri was found growing

on several inactive motorcycle paths

located in the Kettleman Hills, some of

which were approximately 46 cm (18

in.) deep. The plants appear to persist

in the absence of renewed disturbance.

The low number of documented impacts

and the recolonizing ability of E.

hooveri indicate that off-highway

vehicle use does not represent a threat

to the long-term survival of the species

(BLM 1994).

The majority of the six Eriastrum

hooveri populations in Los Padres

National Forest are located on lightly

used or abandoned roads that receive an

estimated one to ten vehicle passes per

year. This light road use appears to help

maintain the presence of the species,

although the plants do not grow in the

actual tire tracks. The populations do

not extend into areas, which apparently

have suitable habitat, that surround the

roads (Mike Foster, Forest Service, pers.

comm. 1998).

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

Overutilization is not a factor known

to affect Eriastrum hooveri.

13478 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

C. Disease or Predation

Eriastrum hooveri tends to occupy

soil surface that does not support a large

amount of vegetation. Grazing by wild

herbivores is not known to occur. And,

although cattle may trail through areas

occupied by E. hooveri en route to areas

of desirable forage (refer to Factor E

‘‘Other natural or manmade factors

affecting its continued existence.’’), they

do not appear to be grazing within the

sparsely vegetated E. hooveri occupied

habitat (BLM 1994). Furthermore,

observations of the wiry and lowgrowing E. hooveri plants have shown

that they are not desirable forage for

livestock (BLM 1994); therefore, grazing

does not constitute a serious threat to E.

hooveri.

No known diseases affect Eriastrum

hooveri.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing

Regulatory Mechanisms

The Act may incidentally afford

protection to Eriastrum hooveri where it

coexists with other federally listed

species. For example, E. hooveri

occupies a subset of the range and

habitat of the federally endangered San

Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis

mutica). The recovery plan for this

species recommends the establishment

of a system of multispecies reserves that

are within the range of E. hooveri

(Service, 1983). Lands acquired for this

reserve system will likely benefit E.

hooveri, as will the continued legal

protection afforded the fox under the

Act.

Eriastrum hooveri is not a State-listed

species under the California Endangered

Species Act.

The principal protection for Eriastrum

hooveri, if this rule is finalized, will be

through management on BLM land

where Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern, which contain occupied E.

hooveri habitat, were designated in the

Kettleman Hills, Carrizo Plain, and

Lokern areas in May 1997 (S. Carter,

pers. comm. 1998; Amy Kuritsubo,

BLM, pers. comm. 1998). Areas of

Critical Environmental Concern were

authorized in Section 202(c)(3) of the

Federal Land Policy and Management

Act of 1976. These are areas where

special management attention is needed

to protect and prevent irreparable

damage to important resources or to

protect human life from natural hazards

(BLM 1993). The management

prescriptions proposed for Areas of

Critical Environmental Concern are

included in the Caliente Resource Area

Resource Management Plan and provide

protection to the plants by minimizing

residual impacts from rights-of-way, oil

and gas leasing, and authorized grazing

(R. Lewis, pers. comm. 1995; S. Carter,

pers. comm. 1998).

The BLM’s Caliente Resource Area

Resource Management Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement

addresses future management of

Eriastrum hooveri. Eriastrum hooveri

will be designated a ‘‘sensitive species’’

by the BLM after the species is delisted

(Ed Hastey, BLM, in litt. 1995). BLM

policy will minimize impacts to the

species at all known sites that are under

their jurisdiction. Before any surface

disturbance is allowed, the BLM will

require an inventory to be conducted on

the project site as outlined in the Formal

Consultation on Oil and Gas Leasing in

the Caliente Resource Management Plan

(Service 1995b). A Limited Surface Use

Stipulation for Federally Proposed and

Listed Species will be issued for oil and

gas leases within listed species habitat

in the Caliente Resource Area (Service

1995b; BLM 1996). Impacts to the

species by oil and gas leasing on BLM

lands will be minimized by avoidance

of populations, by requiring that surface

disturbing activities take place after

seed set and prior to germination if

avoidance is not possible, and by

fencing during project activity. If

populations cannot be avoided, topsoil

may be stockpiled for a period less than

one year and replaced after project

completion (BLM 1995).

In areas where Eriastrum hooveri

overlaps the range of the federally listed

plant species Caulanthus californicus

(California jewelflower), Lembertia

congdonii (San Joaquin woolly-threads),

or Eremalche kernensis (Kern mallow),

grazing will be allowed only in

approved study areas (S. Carter, pers.

comm. 1995). In addition, where the

species overlaps the range of federally

listed animal species, certain grazing

restrictions will apply. The restrictions

include requirements for residual mulch

(dry plant material) of 50 kilograms (kg)

per ha (49 pounds (lbs) per ac), and 5

cm (2 in.) of green growth, or 318 kg per

ha (238 lbs per ac) in order for grazing

to occur. Because E. hooveri habitat is

generally sparsely vegetated, this

residual mulch requirement will protect

E. hooveri from overgrazing (S. Carter,

pers. comm. 1998). In areas where the

species occurs in saltbush scrub, the

season of use will be from December 1

to May 31, with 20 percent maximum

use of saltbush plants (S. Carter, pers.

comm. 1995).

Eriastrum hooveri population site

locations will be placed into a

Geographic Information System (GIS) to

help in the management of future

activities that may arise within the

range of the species (S. Carter, pers.

comm. 1995). The BLM will establish

monitoring locations at key sites on

public land in the four metapopulations

(see ‘‘Background’’ under

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION where oil

and gas development, grazing, offhighway vehicles, and agricultural or

urban uses pose potential threats. These

locations will be monitored annually for

a period of at least 5 years after

delisting, at which time the status of the

species on BLM land will be evaluated

for possible changes in management

strategy (E. Hastey, in litt. 1995). The

BLM will continue to report new

locations.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Affecting Its Continued Existence

Although Eriastrum hooveri is not a

desirable forage plant for livestock,

damage can occur by trampling (BLM

1994). Only 5 percent of the sites

recorded by Lewis were affected by

cattle and sheep grazing activities;

therefore, livestock trampling does not

appear to constitute a serious threat to

E. hooveri.

At the time of listing, competition

with nonnative grasses was cited as a

threat. Eriastrum hooveri requires

habitat with lower plant densities,

therefore, it does not occur in areas with

a dense cover of nonnative species (E.

Cypher, pers. comm. 1995). These areas

of lower plant densities generally have

evidence of cryptogamic crusts, which

also indicate minimal levels of past

disturbance. Dense stands of nonnative

annual vegetation can be found adjacent

to these open surface areas. In all cases,

small numbers of nonnative plants can

be found throughout E. hooveri habitat

but not in densities that would exclude

E. hooveri. This species may initially

colonize areas having low plant cover

because of disturbance, but E. hooveri

subsequently may be outcompeted by

nonnative plants in areas with sufficient

moisture (E. Cypher, pers. comm. 1995).

Considering the wide distribution and

abundance of preferred habitat areas

with relatively open surface area and

low numbers of nonnative species,

however, competition with nonnative

grasses is not a threat to the long-term

survival of E. hooveri.

Eriastrum hooveri has been found in

many more locations than were

documented at the time of listing; it is

more resilient and less vulnerable to

certain activities, particularly impacts

from grazing and oil and gas

development, than was previously

thought; and is protected on Federal,

State, and private lands. BLM’s

management practices afford adequate

protection to the species. Occurrences

are also found on the 2,863-ha (7,075-ac)

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 13479

Occidental conservation area and six

other preserves and natural areas

managed variously by the BLM, CDFG,

and other private entities.

Effects of the Rule

If finalized, the proposed action

would remove Eriastrum hooveri from

the List of Endangered and Threatened

Species. The threatened designation

under the Act for this species would be

removed. The prohibitions and

conservation measures provided by the

Act would no longer apply to this

species. Therefore, taking, interstate

commerce, import, and export of E.

hooveri would no longer be prohibited

under the Act. In addition, Federal

agencies would no longer be required to

consult with us to insure that any action

they authorize, fund, or carry out is not

likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of E. hooveri. The take and use

of E. hooveri must comply with State

regulations. There is no designated

critical habitat for this species.

Monitoring

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us

to monitor a species for at least 5 years

after delisting due to recovery. Since E.

hooveri is being delisted based on new

information, rather than recovery, the

Act does not require us to monitor this

plant following its delisting. Although

this species is not being delisted due to

recovery, its level of protection has met

the recovery criteria outlined in the

Draft Recovery Plan for Upland Species

(Service 1998). The recovery strategy

states that recovery of E. hooveri can be

accomplished using public lands and

other areas already dedicated for

conservation with the goal of protecting

populations throughout the species’

range and at sites representing a variety

of topographic areas and community

types. The species is currently found on

six preserves and natural areas, three

BLM Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern, and NPR–1 and –2. These

areas contain portions of each of the

four metapopulations and occurrences

in the northernmost and the

southernmost extent of the species’

range. Monitoring will be conducted by

the BLM at representative sites within

each metapopulation to determine

trends for 5 years following delisting as

part of their agreement to protect the

species (E. Hastey, in litt. 1995).

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action

resulting from this proposal will be as

accurate and as effective as possible.

Therefore, we solicit comments or

suggestions from the public, other

concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any

other interested party concerning this

proposed rule. We particularly seek

comments concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or

other relevant data concerning any

threat (or lack thereof) to Eriastrum

hooveri;

(2) Additional information concerning

the range, distribution, location of any

additional populations, and population

size of this species; and

(3) Current or planned activities in the

subject area and their possible impacts

on this species.

Submit comments as indicated under

ADDRESSES. If you wish to submit

comments by e-mail, please submit

these comments as an ASCII file and

avoid the use of special characters and

any form of encryption. Please also

include ‘‘Attn: [RIN number] and your

name and return address in your e-mail

message. If you do not receive a

confirmation from the system that we

have received your e-mail message,

contact us directly by calling our

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at

phone number 916–414–6600. Please

note that the e-mail address

‘‘fw1hoovers_woolly_star@fws.gov’’ will

be closed at the termination of the

public comment period.

Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public review

during regular business hours.

Individual respondents may request that

we withhold their home address from

the rulemaking record, which we will

honor to the extent allowable by law.

There also may be circumstances in

which we would withhold from the

rulemaking record a respondent’s

identity, as allowable by law. If you

wish us to withhold your name and/or

address, you must state this

prominently at the beginning of your

comment. However, we will not

consider anonymous comments. We

will make all submissions from

organizations or businesses, and from

individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

Comments and materials received, as

well as supporting information used to

write this rule, will be available for

public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

above address.

In making a final decision on this

proposal, we will take into

consideration the comments and any

additional information we receive. Such

communications may lead to a final

regulation that differs from this

proposal.

The Act provides for a public hearing

on this proposal, if requested. Requests

must be received within 45 days of the

date of publication of the proposal.

Such requests must be made in writing

and addressed to the Field Supervisor,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office,

2800 Cottage Way, Suite W–2605,

Sacramento, California 95825–1888.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which

implement provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act, require that Federal

agencies obtain approval from OMB

before collecting information from the

public. Implementation of this rule does

not include any collections of

information that require approval by

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction

Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that we do not

need to prepare an Environmental

Assessment, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, in connection with

regulations adopted pursuant to section

4(a) of the Act. We published a notice

outlining our reasons for this

determination in the Federal Register

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Executive Order 12866

This rule is not subject to review by

the OMB under Executive Order 12866.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein is available upon request from

the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(see ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary author of this proposed

rule is Elizabeth Warne, Sacramento

Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES

section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we hereby propose to

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter

I, Title 50 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

13480 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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

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

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 17.12(h) is amended by

removing the entry for Eriastrum

hooveri, Hoover’s woolly star, under

‘‘Flowering Plants’’ from the List of

Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Dated: December 5, 2000.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 01–5288 Filed 3–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 300

[Docket No. 010119023-1023-01; I.D.

121900A]

RIN 0648–AO80

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch

Sharing Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed changes to catch

sharing plan and sport fishing

management; availability of draft

environmental assessment and

regulatory impact review.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes, under

authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut

Act (Halibut Act), to approve and

implement changes to the Area 2A

Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan

(Plan) to adjust the management of the

sport fisheries off Washington, and to

adjust the management of the non-treaty

commercial fisheries off Oregon and

Washington. NMFS also proposes sport

fishery regulations to implement the

Plan in 2001. A draft environmental

assessment and regulatory impact

review (EA/RIR) on this action is also

available for public comment.

DATES: Comments on the proposed

changes to the Plan and the proposed

sport fishery regulations must be

received by March 9, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments or requests

for a copy of the Plan and/or the EA/RIR

to Donna Darm, Acting Regional

Administrator, Northwest Region,

NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, Seattle,

WA 98115. Electronic copies of the

Plan, including proposed changes for

2001, and of the draft EA/RIR are also

available at the NMFS Northwest Region

website: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov,

under ‘‘Halibut Management.’’

Comments will not be accepted if

submitted via e-a-mail or the Internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yvonne deReynier, 206–526–6140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Halibut Act, at 16 U.S.C. 773c, gives the

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)

general responsibility for carrying out

the Halibut Convention between the

United States and Canada. It requires

the Secretary to adopt such regulations

as may be necessary to carry out the

purposes and objectives of the

Convention and the Halibut Act. Section

773c(c) of the Halibut Act authorizes the

Regional Fishery Management Councils

to develop regulations that are not in

conflict with regulations adopted by the

International Pacific Halibut

Commission (IPHC) to govern the

Pacific halibut catch that occurs in their

regions. Each year since 1988, the

Pacific Fishery Management Council

(Council) has developed a catch sharing

plan in accordance with the Halibut Act

to allocate the total allowable catch

(TAC) of Pacific halibut between treaty

Indian and non-treaty harvesters and

among non-treaty commercial and sport

fisheries in IPHC statistical Area 2A (off

Washington, Oregon, and California). In 1995, upon the recommendation of

the Council, NMFS implemented the

Plan (60 FR 14651, March 20, 1995). In

each of the intervening years between

1995 and the present, minor revisions to

the Plan have been made to adjust for

the changing needs of the fisheries. The

Plan allocates 35 percent of the Area 2A

TAC to Washington treaty Indian tribes

in Subarea 2A-1 and 65 percent to nonIndian fisheries in Area 2A. The

allocation to non-Indian fisheries is

divided into three shares, with the

Washington sport fishery (north of the

Columbia River) receiving 36.6 percent,

the Oregon/California sport fishery

receiving 31.7 percent, and the

commercial fishery receiving 31.7

percent. The commercial fishery is

further divided into a directed

commercial fishery that is allocated 85

percent of the commercial allocation

and an incidental catch in the salmon

troll fishery that is allocated 15 percent

of the commercial allocation. The

directed commercial fishery in Area 2A

is confined to southern Washington

(south of 46°53’18′′ N. lat.), Oregon, and

California. The Plan also divides the

sport fisheries into seven geographic

subareas, each with separate allocations,

seasons, and bag limits.

Council Recommended Changes to the

Plan

At its September 2000 meeting, the

Council adopted, for public comment,

the following proposed changes to the

plan: (1) separating the directed

commercial fishery sub-quota from the

incidental salmon fishery allowance and

permitting the salmon troll fishery to

retain incidentally caught halibut from

May 1 until its sub-quota is estimated to

have been achieved; (2) allowing the

setting of sport fishery season start dates

in the Washington North Coast and

South Coast sub-areas following the

IPHC annual meeting, rather than

before; (3) removing the 1,000 lb (0.45

mt) nearshore set-aside in the

Washington South Coast sub-area; and

(4) eliminating the Washington South

Coast closed ‘‘hot spot.’’

At its November 2000 public meeting,

the Council considered the results of

state-sponsored workshops on the

proposed changes to the Plan and public

comments, and made final

recommendations for three

modifications to the Plan as follows:

(1) Set a halibut sub-quota for the

salmon troll fishery that is distinct from

the directed commercial fishery subquota. The salmon troll fishery would

be permitted to retain halibut taken

incidentally in that fishery, beginning

May 1 until the sub-quota is estimated

to have been achieved. The directed

commercial fishery would no longer

have access to the salmon troll fishery

sub-quota in July.

(2) Revise the season guidance for the

Washington South Coast sport fishery to

remove the 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) nearshore

halibut set-aside. Nearshore fishing for

halibut would be permitted during the

all-depth season. If the all-depth season

closes with halibut remaining in its

quota, additional nearshore fishing

would also be permitted after the alldepth season.

(3) Eliminate the closed ‘‘hot spot’’ for

the Washington South Coast sport

fishery.

The Council also recommended a

minor change to update the plan to

reflect the elimination of the Halibut

Managers Group, and to clarify which

Salmon Advisory Subpanel member

should be consulted regarding inseason

halibut actions.

Proposed Changes to the Catch Sharing

Plan

NMFS is proposing to approve and to

make the following changes to the Plan:

In section (e) of the Plan, Non-Indian

Commercial Fisheries, add a new

sentence to the end of sub-paragraph

(e)(1) to read as follows:

The primary management objective

for this fishery is to harvest the troll

quota as incidental catch during the

May/June salmon troll fishery. The

secondary management objective is to