Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 118 / Thursday, June 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 33383 the entire soil cover is now completely DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Sonoma Counties in northern California. vegetated, and there are no barren areas The historical range of remaining onsite. The Site is now Fish and Wildlife Service bakeri and D. luteum did not extend completely fenced and has a locked beyond coastal Marin and Sonoma entrance gate. A Consent Decree with 50 CFR Part 17 counties. the property owner to record the deed RIN 1018±AE23 Ewan (1942) described Delphinium restrictions has been signed, and the bakeri based on type material collected deed restrictions are attached to the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by Milo Baker in 1939 from ‘‘Coleman property deed in the Butler County and ; Proposed Endangered Valley, Sonoma Co., California.’’ In the Courthouse in Butler, Pennsylvania. Status for Two Larkspurs From most recent treatment, Warnock (1993) Coastal Northern California retained the taxon as a full species. Chester Engineers (Chester) was hired Historically, D. bakeri was known from by PPG in 1994 to perform the site AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Coleman Valley in Sonoma County and maintenance and the long-term ground Interior. from a site near Tomales in Marin water monitoring at the Site. This semi- ACTION: Proposed rule. County. occurs on annual sampling has been an important decomposed shale within the coastal part of the operation and maintenance at SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service scrub community from 400 to 500 the Site. Chester samples a number of (Service) proposes endangered status feet (ft) (120 to 150 meters (m) in locations, both on-and offsite, in the pursuant to the Endangered Species Act elevation (California Natural Diversity Spring and Fall of each year. PPG (Act) of 1973, as amended for two Database (CNDDB) 1994). submits quarterly progress reports to the plants—Delphinium bakeri (Baker’s Delphinium bakeri is a perennial herb EPA and PADEP describing the Site’s larkspur) and in the buttercup family () condition and detailing any upcoming (yellow larkspur). These species grow in that grows from a thickened, tuber-like, sampling at the Site. A separate report a variety of habitats including coastal fleshy cluster of roots. The stems are is submitted by Chester describing the prairie, coastal scrub, or chaparral in hollow, erect, and grow to 65 actual sampling results. Sonoma and Marin counties in northern centimeters(cm) (26 inches (in.)) tall. California. Habitat loss and degradation, The shallowly 5-parted leaves occur A statutory Five-Year Review of the sheep grazing, road maintenance primarily along the upper third of the selected remedy was completed on activities, and overcollection imperil the stem and are green at the time the plant April 16, 1997 to ensure that the remedy continued existence of these plants. flowers. The flowers are irregularly is still protective of the public health Random events increase the risk of shaped. The five are and the environment. The next five-year extinction to the extremely small plant conspicuous, bright dark blue or review must be completed by April 30, populations. This proposal, if made purplish, with the rear elongated 2002. Subsequent five-year reviews will final, would implement the Federal into a spur. The inconspicuous be conducted pursuant to OSWER protection and recovery provisions occur in two pairs. The lower pair is Directive 9355.7–02. ‘‘Structure and afforded by the Act for these plants. oblong and blue-purple; the upper pair Components of Five-Year Reviews,’’ or DATES: Comments from all interested is oblique and white. are other applicable guidance where it parties must be received by August 18, produced in several dry, many-seeded exists. 1997. Public hearing requests must be which split open at maturity on The remedy selected for this Site has received by August 4, 1997. only one side (i.e., several follicles). been implemented in accordance with ADDRESSES: Comments and materials Delphinium bakeri flowers from April the Record of Decision, as modified and concerning this proposal should be sent through May (Warnock 1993). expanded in the EPA-approved to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Habitat conversion to agricultural Remedial Design for Operable Unit #1. Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife land, grazing, and/or roadside This remedy has resulted in the Service, 3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite maintenance activities have extirpated significant reduction of the long-term 130, Sacramento, California 95821– occurrences in Marin and Sonoma potential for release of contaminated 6340. Comments and materials received, counties (California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1994). The only soils to the surrounding surface soils, as well as the supporting documentation known remaining population, with a the ambient air and the aquatic used in preparing the rule, will be total of about 35 individuals, is found environment. Human health threats and available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business on a steep road bank in Marin County potential environmental impacts have that is subject to road work, hours at the above address. been minimized. EPA and the State of overcollection, and sheep grazing. Pennsylvania find that the remedies FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Because of its extreme range restriction implemented continue to provide Kirsten Tarp, Sacramento Field Office and small population size, the plant also adequate protection of human health (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 916/ is vulnerable to extinction from random and the environment. 979–2120; facsimile 916/979–2128). events, such as fire or insect outbreaks EPA, with the concurrence of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (CNDDB 1994). California Department of State of Pennsylvania, believes that the Fish and Game (CDFG) (1994) reported Background criteria for deletion of this Site have the trend of the species is one of been met. Therefore, EPA is proposing Delphinium bakeri (Baker’s larkspur) decline. deletion of this Site from the NPL. and D. luteum (yellow larkspur) were Heller (1903) described Delphinium found historically in coastal prairie, luteum based on type material collected Dated: June 5, 1997. coastal scrub, or chaparral habitats. from ‘‘grassy slopes about rocks, near Stanley Laskowski, Urban development, agricultural land Bodega Bay, along the road leading to Acting Regional Administrator, USEPA conversion, or livestock grazing have the village of Bodega’’ in Sonoma Region III. destroyed much of the habitat and County. Although Jepson (1970) [FR Doc. 97–15854 Filed 6–18–97; 8:45 am] extirpated numerous populations of reduced D. luteum to a variety of D. BILLING CODE 6560±50±P these two plants in coastal Marin and nudicaule, it is currently recognized as 33384 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 118 / Thursday, June 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules a full species (Warnock 1993). plant species to be endangered species all petitions pending on October 13, Delphinium luteum occurs on rocky pursuant to section 4 of the Act. The list 1982, be treated as having been newly areas within coastal scrub plant of 1,700 plant taxa was assembled on submitted on that date. This was the community, including areas with active the basis of comments and data received case for Delphinium bakeri and D. rock slides, from sea level to 300 feet by the Smithsonian Institution and the luteum., because the 1975 Smithsonian (100 m) in elevation (Guerrant 1976). Service in response to House Document report had been accepted as a petition. Delphinium luteum is a perennial No. 94–51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal On October 13, 1982, the Service found herb in the buttercup family Register publication. Delphinium bakeri that the petitioned listing of these (Ranunculaceae) that grows from fibrous and D. luteum were included in the June species was warranted, but precluded roots to 55 cm (22 in.) tall. The leaves 16, 1976, Federal Register document. by other pending listing actions, in are mostly basal, fleshy, and green at the General comments received in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of time of flowering. The flowers are relation to the 1976 proposal were the Act; notification of this finding was cornucopia-shaped. The five summarized in an April 26, 1978, notice published on January 20, 1984 (49 FR conspicuous sepals are bright yellow, (43 FR 17909). The Endangered Species 2485). Such a finding requires the with the posterior sepal elongated into Act Amendments of 1978 required that petition to be recycled, pursuant to a spur. The inconspicuous petals occur all proposals over 2 years old be section 4(b)(3)(C)(I) of the Act. The in two pairs. The upper petals are withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was finding was reviewed annually in narrow and unlobed; the lower petals given to those proposals already more October of 1983 through 1994. are oblong to ovate. The is a than 2 years old. In the December 10, Publication of this proposal constitutes follicle. Delphinium luteum flowers 1979, notice (44 FR 70796), the Service the final finding for the petitioned from March to May. published a notice of withdrawal of the action. Processing of this rule is a Tier Never widely distributed, historical June 6, 1976, proposal, along with four 3 activity under the current listing populations of Delphinium luteum have other proposals that had expired. priority guidance (61 FR 64480). been partially or entirely extirpated by The Service published an updated rock quarrying activities, over- notice of review for plants on December Summary of Factors Affecting the collecting, residential development, and 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This notice Species sheep grazing, resulting in the species included Delphinium bakeri and D. Section 4 of the Act (U.S.C. 1533) and now being even more narrowly luteum as category 1 candidates for regulations (50 CFR part 424) distributed (Guerrant 1976; CNDDB Federal listing. Category 1 taxa were promulgated to implement the listing 1994; Betty Guggolz, Milo Baker those species for which the Service had provisions of the Act set forth the Chapter, California Native Plant Society on file substantial information on procedures for adding species to the (CNPS) pers. comm. 1995). The two biological vulnerability and threats to Federal lists. A species may be remaining populations near Bodega, support preparation of listing proposals. determined to be endangered or both on private land, total fewer than 50 On November 28, 1983, the Service threatened due to one or more of the plants. Development, overcollection, published a supplement to the Notice of five factors described in section 4(a)(1). and sheep grazing in addition to their Review (48 FR 53640). This supplement These factors and their application to small isolated nature makes them changed Delphinium bakeri and D. susceptible to random events (CNDDB luteum. from category 1 to category 2 Delphinium bakeri Ewan (Baker’s 1994; Betty Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995). candidates. Category 2 taxa were those larkspur) and Delphinium luteum Heller CDFG (1994) reported the species is species for which data in the Service’s (yellow larkspur) are as follows: declining. possession indicate listing is possibly A. The present or threatened appropriate, but for which substantial destruction, modification, or Previous Federal Action data on biological vulnerability and curtailment of its habitat or range. Federal government actions on the threats were not currently known or on Historically, the habitat of Delphinium two plants began as a result of section file to support proposed rules. bakeri was eliminated by agricultural 12 of the original Endangered Species The plant notice was revised again on conversion to grainfields (Ewan 1942). Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526). Threats to the lone remaining site of D. which directed the Secretary of the Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum. were bakeri are discussed under Factors B Smithsonian Institution to prepare a again included as category 2 candidates. through E. Of the two remaining report on those plants considered to be Another revision of the plant notice was populations of Delphinium luteum, the endangered, threatened, or extinct in the published on February 21, 1990 (55 FR one located at an old rock quarry site United States. This report, designated as 6184). In this revision Delphinium near Bodega has been partially House Document No. 94–51, was bakeri and D. luteum were included as destroyed and fragmented by historical presented to Congress on January 9, category 1 candidates. The Service made quarry activities. The number of plants 1975, and included Delphinium bakeri no changes to the status of the two remaining at this site continues to and D. luteum as endangered species. species in the plant notice published on decline. Population numbers were The Service published a notice on July September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144). On between 100 to 200 plants in 1978 (Ed 1, 1975 (40 FR 27823), of its acceptance February 28, 1996, the Service Guerrant, Berry Botanic Garden, pers. of the report of the Smithsonian published a Notice of Review in the comm. 1995), but recent counts indicate Institution as a petition within the Federal Register (61 FR 7596) that that only 30 to 40 individuals remain (B. context of section 4(c)(2) (petition discontinued the designation of category Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995). The other provisions are now found in section 2 species as candidates. Both species extant site has fewer than 10 remaining 4(b)(3) of the Act) and its intention were listed as candidates in the individuals. A historical site near the thereby to review the status of the plant February 28, 1996, Notice of Review. town of Graton had been converted to taxa named therein. The above two taxa Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires residential uses by 1987 (CNDDB 1994). were included in the July 1, 1975, the Secretary to make certain findings Urban development, and its associated notice. On June 16, 1976, the Service on pending petitions within 12 months recreational activities, continue to published a proposal (41 FR 24523) to of their receipt. Section 2(b)(1) of the threaten both remaining populations (B. determine approximately 1,700 vascular 1982 amendments further requires that Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995). Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 118 / Thursday, June 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 33385

B. Overutilization for commercial, by the owner. After CDFG notifies a road bank that is along side of a county recreational, scientific, or educational landowner that a State-listed plant road in Marin County. Some potential purposes. Overutilization is a threat for grows on his or her property, State law exists for spraying and road both species. In 1992, all the follicles requires that the land owner notify the maintenance activities that could be were collected from the plants at the agency ‘‘at least 10 days in advance of detrimental to this species due to the only known site of Delphinium bakeri changing the land use to allow salvage extremely low number of individuals (CDFG 1993). Due to its distinctive of such a plant’’ (Native Plant Protection left. The degree to which these activities yellow flowers, which is uncommon for Act, Chapter 10 section 1913). place the population at risk is uncertain. larkspurs, D. luteum is of horticultural The California Environmental Quality Because few populations and/or interest. Collecting is thought to have Act (CEQA) (chapter 2 section 21050 et individuals remain, both plant species extirpated at least one occurrence of seq. of the California Public Resources proposed herein likely are threatened by Delphinium luteum located southwest Code) requires a full disclosure of the genetic drift. Delphinium bakeri has one of Tomales (CNDDB 1994). potential environmental impacts of population consisting of 35 plants. Additionally, some of the historical proposed projects. The public agency Delphinium luteum has two decline to D. luteum can be attributed to with primary authority or jurisdiction populations, totaling fewer than 50 collecting. Delphinium luteum was over the project is designated as the lead plants. Small populations often are offered in horticultural trade journals agency, and is responsible for subject to increased genetic drift and (as a plant to order) during the 1940’s conducting a review of the project and inbreeding as consequences of their and 1950’s (Michael Warnock, Sam consulting with the other agencies small populations (Ellstrand and Elam Houston University, pers. comm. 1994). concerned with the resources affected 1993). A loss of genetic variability, and Plants can still be procured from a local by the project. Section 15065 of the consequent reduction in genetic fitness nursery (their source is not from CEQA Guidelines requires a finding of affords less chance of any species to the wild). Both populations of D. luteum significance if a project has the potential successfully adapt to environmental are close to residential areas and are to ‘‘reduce the number or restrict the change (Ellstrand and Elam 1993). subject to collecting. Unrestricted range of a rare or endangered plant or The combination of few, small animal.’’ Species that are eligible for collecting for scientific or horticultural populations, narrow range and listing as rare, threatened, or purposes or excessive visits by restricted habitat, make these two plant endangered are not given the same individuals interested in seeing rare species susceptible to destruction of all protection as those species that are plants could result from increased or a significant part of any population officially listed with the State or Federal publicity as a result of this proposal. from random events, such as fire, C. Disease or predation. The single governments. Once significant effects drought, disease, or other occurrences population of Delphinium bakeri which, are identified, the lead agency has the (Shaffer 1981, Primack 1993). Random unlike most other species in the genus option to require mitigation for effects events causing population fluctuations does not appear to be poisonous to through changes in the project or to or even population extirpations are not livestock (Ewan 1942), may be decide that overriding considerations threatened by sheep grazing (CNDDB make mitigation infeasible. In the latter usually a concern until the number of 1994). The few remaining individuals case, projects may be approved that individuals or geographic distribution (approximately 35) are extremely cause significant environmental becomes very limited, which is the case vulnerable to impacts that otherwise damage, such as destruction of for both these species (Primack 1993). might not be significant. Although D. endangered species. Protection of listed Once a plant population becomes so luteum has persisted at two sties with species through CEQA is therefore reduced due to habitat destruction and sheep grazing for many decades, dependent upon the discretion of the fragmentation, the remnant population because of the very low number of agency involved. In addition, revisions has a higher probability of extinction individuals in the population, any loss to CEQA guidelines have been proposed from random events. of flowers and/or seeds could which, if implemented, may weaken The Service has carefully assessed the significantly reduce chances for the long protections for threatened, endangered, best scientific and commercial term survival of this species (see Factor and other sensitive species. information available regarding the past, E). E. Other natural or manmade factors present, and future threats faced by D. The inadequacy of existing affecting its continued existence. The these two species in determining to regulatory mechanisms. The State of remaining population of Delphinium propose this rule. Habitat loss and California Fish and Game Commission luteum at the rock quarry may be degradation, sheep grazing, inadequate has listed Delphinium bakeri and threatened by users of a trail associated regulatory mechanisms, naturally Delphinium luteum as rare species with the extension of an existing golf occurring events, small plant under the California Endangered course into the current scenic easement populations, road maintenance Species Act (Chapter 1.5 sec. 2050 et that exists on this site (B. Guggolz, pers. activities, and overcollection imperil the seq. of the California Fish and Game comm. 1995). At this site, the Bodega continued existence of these plants. Code and Title 14 California Code of Harbor landowners association is Delphinium bakeri has one population Regulations section 670.2). Listing by proposing to build an equipment storage with a total of 35 plants. Delphinium the State of California requires shed and a public trail that would be luteum has two small populations with individuals to obtain a management close to the remaining plants. Although a total of fewer than 50 plants. Both agreement with the CDFG to possess or the proposed storage equipment shed plant species are in danger of extinction ‘‘take’’ a listed species. Although the would be located on degraded habitat throughout all of their range, and the ‘‘take’’ of State-listed plants is and would have no direct impact on the preferred action is therefore to list prohibited (California Native Plant population, the public trail would run Delphinium bakeri and Delphinium Protection Act, Chapter 10 section 1908 near the population. The proximity of luteum as endangered. Other and California Endangered Species Act, the trail to the plants would increase the alternatives to this action were Chapter 1.5 section 2080), State law threat from collection (see Factor B). considered but not preferred because exempts the taking of such plants via The remaining population of not listing them or listing them as habitat modification or land use changes Delphinium bakeri occurs on a steep threatened would not provide adequate 33386 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 118 / Thursday, June 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules protection and would not be consistent designation of critical habitat therefore framework for agencies to coordinate with the Act. would not provide additional benefit for activities and cooperate with each other these species beyond the protection in conservation efforts. The plan(s) Critical Habitat afforded by listing. would set recovery priorities and Critical habitat is defined in section 3 Protection of the habitat of these estimate costs of various tasks necessary of the Act as: (i) The specific areas species will be addressed through the to accomplish them. It also would within the geographical area occupied recovery process and through section 7. describe site-specific management by a species, at the time it is listed in The Service believes that Federal actions necessary to achieve accordance with the Act, on which are involvement in the areas where these conservation and survival of the two found those physical or biological plants occur can be identified without plants. Additionally, pursuant to section features (I) Essential to the conservation the designation of critical habitat. For 6 of the Act, the Service would be able of the species and (II) that may require the reasons discussed above, the Service to grant funds to affected states for special management consideration or finds that the designation of critical management actions promoting the protection and; (ii) specific areas habitat for these plants is not prudent at protection and recovery of these species. outside the geographical area occupied this time. The Act and its implementing by a species at the time it is listed, upon regulations set forth a series of general Available Conservation Measures determination that such areas are prohibitions and exceptions that apply essential for the conservation of the Conservation measures provided to to all endangered plants. All species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use species listed as endangered or prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, of all methods and procedures needed threatened under the Endangered implemented by 50 CFR 17.61 for to bring the species to the point at Species Act include recognition, endangered plants, apply. These which listing under the Act is no longer recovery actions, requirements for prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for necessary. Federal protection, and prohibitions any person subject to the jurisdiction of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as against certain activities. Recognition the United States to import or export, amended, and implementing regulations through listing results in public transport in interstate or foreign (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the awareness and conservation actions by commerce in the course of a commercial maximum extent prudent and Federal, State, and local agencies, activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate determinable, the Secretary designate private organizations, and individuals. or foreign commerce, or remove and critical habitat at the time the species is The Act provides for possible land reduce to possession from areas under determined to be endangered or acquisition and cooperation with the Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for threatened. The Service finds that State and requires that recovery actions plants listed as endangered, the act designation of critical habitat is not be carried out for all listed species. The prohibits malicious damage or prudent for Delphinium bakeri and protection required of Federal agencies destruction on areas under Federal Delphinium luteum at this time. Service and the prohibitions against certain jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting, regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state activities involving listed plants are digging up, or damaging or destroying of that designation of critical habitat is not discussed, in part, below. such plants in knowing violation of any prudent when one or both of the Section 7(a) of the Act requires State law or regulation, including state following situations exist—(1) The Federal agencies to evaluate their criminal trespass law. Certain species is threatened by taking or other actions with respect to any species that exceptions to the prohibitions apply to human activity, and identification of is proposed or listed as endangered or agents of the Service and State critical habitat can be expected to threatened and with respect to its conservation agencies. increase the degree of threat to the critical habitat, if any is being It is the policy of the Service (59 FR species, or (2) such designation of designated. Regulations implementing 34272) to identify to the maximum critical habitat would not be beneficial this interagency cooperation provision extent practicable at the time a species to the species. of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part is listed those activities that would or As discussed under Factors B in 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires would not constitute a violation of ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the Federal agencies to confer with the section 9 of the Act. The intent of this Species’’ overutilization has been Service on any action that is likely to policy is to increase public awareness of documented and threatens both plant jeopardize the continued existence of a the effect of the listing on proposed and species. The publication of precise maps proposed species or result in ongoing activities within a species’ and descriptions of critical habitat in destruction or adverse modification of range. None of the occurrences of the the Federal Register would make these proposed critical habitat. If a species is two species occur on public (Federal) plants more vulnerable to incidents of listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) lands. Collection, damage or destruction collection and, therefore, could requires Federal agencies to ensure that of these species on Federal lands is contribute to the decline of these activities they authorize, fund, or carry prohibited, although in appropriate species and increase enforcement out are not likely to jeopardize the cases a Federal endangered species problems. The listing of these species as continued existence of such a species or permit may be issued to allow collection endangered also publicizes the rarity of to destroy or adversely modify its for scientific or recovery purposes. Such these plants and, thus, can make these critical habitat. If a Federal action may activities on non-Federal lands would plants attractive to researchers or affect a listed species or its critical constitute a violation of section 9 if collectors of rare plants. habitat, the responsible Federal agency conducted in knowing violation of Furthermore, critical habitat must enter into formal consultation with California State law or regulations or in designation for Delphinium bakeri and the Service. violation of State criminal trespass law. Delphinium luteum is not prudent due Listing these two plants would Activities that are unlikely to violate to lack of benefit. Because the two plant provide for development of a recovery section 9 include livestock grazing, species are limited to a few locations plan (or plans) for them. Such plan(s) clearing a defensible space for fire entirely on private land, any action that would bring together both State and protection around one’s personal would adversely modify critical habitat Federal efforts for conservation of the residence, and landscaping (including also would jeopardize the species. The plants. The plan(s) would establish a irrigation), around one’s personal Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 118 / Thursday, June 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 33387 residence. Questions regarding whether (1) Biological, commercial trade, or Required Determinations specific activities will constitute a other relevant data concerning any The Service has examined this violation of section 9 should be directed threat (or lack thereof) to Delphinium regulation under the Paperwork to the Field Supervisor of the bakeri and D. luteum; Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES (2) The location of any additional contain no information collection section). populations of these species and the requirements. The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63 reasons why any habitat should or for endangered plants, and also provide should not be determined to be critical References Cited for the issuance of permits to carry out habitat as provided by section 4 of the otherwise prohibited activities Act; A complete list of all references cited involving endangered or threatened (3) Additional information concerning herein is available upon request from plants under certain circumstances. the range, distribution, and population the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Field Such permits are available for scientific size of these species; and Office (see ADDRESSES section). purposes and to enhance the (4) Current or planned activities in the Author: The primary author of this propagation or survival or the species. subject area and their possible impacts proposed rule is Kirsten Tarp, U.S. Fish For threatened plants, permits also are on these species. and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field available for botanical or horticultural Any final decision on this proposal Office (see ADDRESSES section). exhibition, educational purposes, or will take into consideration the List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 special purposes consistent with the comments and any additional purposes of the Act. It is anticipated few information received by the Service, and Endangered and threatened species, trade permits would ever be sought or such communications may lead to a Exports, Imports, Reporting and issued for the three species because the final regulation that differs from this recordkeeping requirements, species are not common in cultivation proposal. Transportation. or in the wild. Requests for copies of the The Act provides for one or more Proposed Regulation Promulgation regulations regarding listed species and public hearings on this proposal, if inquiries regarding prohibitions and requested. Requests must be received Accordingly, the Service hereby permits may be addressed to the U.S. within 45 days of the date of publication proposes to amend part 17, subchapter Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered of the proposal. Such requests must be B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Species Permits, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, made in writing and addressed to the Federal Regulations, as set forth below: Portland, Oregon 97232–4181 (phone Field Supervisor, U. S. Fish and PART 17Ð[AMENDED] 503/231–2063, facsimile 503/231–6243). Wildlife Service, Sacramento Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room E–1803, Public Comments Solicited 1. The authority citation for part 17 Sacramento, CA 95825–1846. continues to read as follows: The Service intends that any final action resulting from this proposal will National Environmental Policy Act Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. be as accurate and as effective as The Fish and Wildlife Service has 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– possible. Therefore, comments or determined that an Environmental 625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted. suggestions from the public, other Assessment, as defined under the 2. Section 17.12(h) is amended by concerned governmental agencies, the authority of the National Environmental adding the following, in alphabetical scientific community, industry, or any Policy Act of 1969, need not be order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to other interested party concerning this prepared in connection with regulations the List of Endangered and Threatened proposed rule are hereby solicited. The adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Plants to read as follows: Service will follow its current peer Act. A notice outlining the Service’s review policy (59 FR 34270) in the reasons for this determination was § 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. processing of this rule. Comments published in the Federal Register on * * * * * particularly are sought concerning: October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). (h) * * *

Species Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special Scientific name Common name habitat rules

FLOWERING PLANTS

******* Delphinium bakeri .... Baker's larkspur ...... U.S.A. (CA) ...... Ranunculaceae ...... E ...... NA NA Delphinium luteum ... yellow larkspur ...... U.S.A. (CA) ...... Ranunculaceae ...... E ...... NA NA

******* 33388 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 118 / Thursday, June 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Dated: April 28, 1997. Roof (1967) followed Eastwood’s Finding and Withdrawal John G. Rogers, treatment and acknowledged A. The proposed rule to list Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife imbricata as a distinct species. Wells Arctostaphylos imbricata as threatened Service. (1988) recognized A. montariensis as a (October 4, 1994; 59 FR 50550), stated [FR Doc. 97–15927 Filed 6–18–97; 8:45 am] subspecies of A. imbricata which, under that the San Bruno Mountain HCP, a BILLING CODE 4310±55±U the rules of botanical nomenclature, planning effort under management and automatically created the name implementation by San Mateo County (autonym) A. imbricata ssp. imbricata. and their consultant, Thomas Reid and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR He has since revised his treatment of Associates, identifies A. imbricata as a California Arctostaphylos to recognize Fish and Wildlife Service ‘‘species of concern’’ but that the HCP A. imbricata as a distinct species (Wells does not identify any species-specific 1993). 50 CFR Part 17 management actions for this species. Arctostaphylos imbricata is a low, Since publication of the proposed rule, RIN: 1018±AC98 spreading, evergreen shrub of the heath provisions of the HCP pertaining to family (Ericaceae) that lacks a basal management for the conservation of A. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife burl. Attaining a height of 20 imbricata have been clarified. The HCP and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed centimeters (8 inches), this highly preserves most of the mountain and Rule to List Arctostaphylos Imbricata provides monitoring and management (San Bruno Mountain Manzanita) as branched shrub forms mats up to about for a number of rare plant and animal Threatened 6 meters (m) (6 yards) in diameter. The bright green, oblong to ovate leaves are species, including A. imbricata. In AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, hairless, except on the midrib, and addition, threats identified in the Interior. densely overlapping. Small, white, urn- proposed rule pertaining to fire ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. shaped flowers appearing from February frequency and overutilization for to May are densely clustered at the end horticultural purposes are no longer SUMMARY: The U. S. Fish and Wildlife of branchlets. After fire, A. imbricata considered to pose a significant risk to Service (Service) withdraws the regenerates from seed instead of the survival of the species. For these proposal to list Arctostaphylos resprouting from a basal burl. reasons, the Service now believes the imbricata (San Bruno Mountain Arctostaphylos imbricata can be plant is adequately conserved. manzanita) as a threatened species distinguished from other members of Previous Federal Action under the Endangered Species Act of the genus by its prostrate form, its 1973, as amended (Act). This shorter, densely arranged leaves, and its On December 15, 1980, the Service determination is based on evaluation of compact flower clusters (Roof 1967). published in the Federal Register an comments and additional information updated Notice of Review for plants Arctostaphylos imbricata is restricted (45 FR 82480) which included received subsequent to publication of to San Bruno Mountain in northern San the proposed rule. Provisions of the San Arctostaphylos imbricata as a category 1 Mateo County. On San Bruno Mountain, Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation candidate for Federal listing. Category 1 six small colonies comprise one Plan (HCP) pertaining to management taxa were formerly defined as taxa for population which covers approximately for the conservation of A. imbricata which the Service had on file sufficient 2.3 hectares (5.6 acres) (V. Harris, have been clarified. Other threats information on status and threats to Thomas Reid Associates, in litt. 1993; R. identified in the proposed rule support issuance of a listing proposal. Gankin, San Mateo County Planning pertaining to fire frequency and Arctostaphylos imbricata retained Department, in litt. 1994). The most overutilization for horticultural category 1 status in revised plant notices abundant colony has 400 to 500 plants; purposes are no longer considered to published on September 27, 1985 (50 FR other colonies have as few as 3 plants pose a significant risk to the survival of 39526), February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), (R. Gankin, pers. comm. 1993; R. the species. Thus, protection under the and September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144). Act is unnecessary at this time. Gankin, in litt. 1994). The plant grows A proposal to list Arctostaphylos on rocky, exposed areas such as open ADDRESSES: The complete file for this imbricata as threatened and Lessingia ridges within coastal scrub or manzanita germanorum as endangered was rule is available for public inspection, scrub vegetation at an elevation range of by appointment, during normal business published in the Federal Register on 275 to 365 m (900 to 1,200 feet). Where October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50550). This hours at the Sacramento Field Office, it occurs, it is the dominant plant U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3310 El notice of withdrawal of the proposal to species, and may be associated with list A. imbricata is published Camino Ave., Sacramento, California Baccharis pilularis (coyote brush), 95821–6340. concurrently in the Federal Register Vaccinium ovatum (huckleberry), with the final rule listing L. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhamnus californica (coffeeberry), and germanorum as endangered in order to Diane Windham, at the above address or Arctostaphylos uva-ursi var. resolve the listing status of both species. by telephone at (916) 979–2725. suborbiculata (bearberry) (California Processing the final listing decisions on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Department of Fish and Game 1988). these two species follows the Service’s Arctostaphylos imbricata has never listing priority guidance published in Background been known from more than the single the Federal Register on December 5, Alice Eastwood (1931) originally population of six colonies that occurs 1996 (61 FR 64475). described Arctostaphylos imbricata in today. Five of the six colonies occur on 1931, based on material collected from land owned by the San Mateo County Summary of Comments and the San Bruno Hills in 1915. Until 1967, Department of Parks and Recreation; the Recommendations various authors either synonymized A. sixth colony is privately owned In the October 4, 1994, proposed rule imbricata with A. andersonii (Jepson (Thomas Reid Associates 1991). All and associated notifications, all 1939), or considered it to be a variety of colonies are located within the San interested parties were requested to A. andersonii (Adams in McMinn 1935). Bruno Mountain HCP boundaries. submit factual reports or information