Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 117 / Wednesday, June 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 33029 which we have authority to determine List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1136 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the reasonableness of rates are Administrative practice and Background extremely limited. procedure, Railroads. conjugens was described UTU–IL has not provided Decided: June 6, 1997. from specimens collected near Antioch independent grounds to maintain a By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice in Contra Costa County, requirement for justification statements Chairman Owen. (Greene 1888). Hall (1914) included the for fare increases over which we have Vernon A. Williams, taxon within Baeria fremontii, however, such limited regulatory authority. UTU– Secretary. Ferris (1958) later recognized this IL has not shown how it or its members material as B. fremontii var. conjugens. directly benefits from the filing of a PART 1136Ð[REMOVED] Ornduff (1966) submerged the genus justification statement with the Baeria under Lasthenia and recognized Governor and the relevant state or For the reasons set forth in the the specific rank of L. conjugens. county regulatory agency. Moreover, the preamble and under the authority of 49 Lasthenia conjugens is a showy spring UTU–IL assertion that the filing of U.S.C. 721(a), title 49, chapter X of the annual in the aster family () justification statements is not a burden Code of Federal Regulations is amended that grows 10 to 30 centimeters (cm) (4 on carriers is unsupported. by removing part 1136. to 12 inches (in.)) tall and is usually Moreover, we must reject the UTU–IL [FR Doc. 97–15965 Filed 6–17–97; 8:45 am] branched. The leaves are opposite, light green, and usually have a feather-like suggestion that we can require reports BILLING CODE 4915±00±P arrangement with narrow clefts from freight carriers concerning their extending more than halfway toward the participation in mass transportation for stem. The flowers are found in terminal local authorities. While the Board has DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR yellow heads. The phyllaries are one- jurisdiction over freight carriers under Fish and Wildlife Service third to one-half fused; the achenes are section 721(b), under section less than 1.5 millimeters (mm) (0.06 in.) 10501(c)(2), we do not have jurisdiction 50 CFR Part 17 long and always lack a pappus. in most cases ‘‘over mass transportation Lasthenia conjugens flowers from provided by a local governmental RIN 1018±AC96 March to June. The partially fused authority.’’ The statutory definition of phyllaries and the lack of a pappus local governmental authority ‘‘includes Endangered and Threatened Wildlife distinguish this species from L. a person or entity that contracts with the and ; Endangered Status for fremontii and L. burkei, which it local governmental authority to provide Four Plants From Vernal Pools and otherwise closely resembles. transportation services * * *.’’ 49 Mesic Areas in Northern California for Lasthenia conjugens U.S.C. 10501(c)(1)(A)(ii). Accordingly, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, consists of vernal pools in open grassy we see no basis for requiring that rail Interior. areas of woodland and valley grassland carriers provide information concerning communities. Vernal pools are a natural ACTION: their participation in mass Final rule. habitat type of the Mediterranean transportation related to local SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service climate region of the Pacific coast and governmental authority. (Service) determines endangered status the Central Valley of California. Covered Finally, we see no need to institute a pursuant to the Act by shallow water for extended periods rulemaking proceeding regarding of 1973, as amended (Act), for four during the cool season but completely disclosure of interstate passenger fares. plants—Lasthenia conjugens (Contra dry for most of the warm season As to any passenger transportation not Costa goldfields), drought, vernal pools hold water long covered by the mass transportation leucocephala ssp. pauciflora (few- enough to allow some purely aquatic exemption of section 10501(c)(2), we flowered navarretia), Navarretia organisms to grow and reproduce, but believe that the pertinent rate disclosure leucocephala ssp. plieantha (many- not long enough to permit the regulations issued at 49 CFR part 1300 flowered navarretia), and Parvisedum development of a typical pond or marsh would cover required disclosure of leiocarpum (Lake County stonecrop). ecosystem. The alternation of very wet passenger fares. These species grow in and around the and very dry conditions creates an unusual ecological situation that The Board concludes that the removal margins of vernal pools and in seasonally wet areas in northern supports a unique biota (Zedler 1987). of the rule in part 1136 would not have California. Habitat loss and degradation Lasthenia conjugens occurs at a significant effect on a substantial imperil the continued existence of these elevations up to 213 m (700 feet (ft)) number of small entities. No comments plants. This final rule implements (Ornduff 1966) although one disjunct were filed on this issue in response to protection provisions of the Act for location, which is possibly extirpated, the February notice. Moreover, listed plants. occurred at an elevation of 469 m (1540 passengers are usually individuals and ft) (California Natural Diversity Database EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 1997. not small entities within the meaning of (CNDDB) 1996). 5 U.S.C. 601 and, in any event, we do ADDRESSES: The complete file for this Historically, Lasthenia conjugens not expect that any effect on them rule is available for inspection, by grew in in seven would be significant. appointment, during normal business counties—Alameda, Contra Costa, hours at the Sacramento Field Office, This action will not significantly Mendocino, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3310 El affect either the quality of the human Napa, and Solano counties, California. Camino Ave., Suite 130, Sacramento, environment or the conservation of Currently, the species is known from a California 95821–6340. energy resources. total of 13 populations in Alameda, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contra Costa, Napa, and Solano counties providing common carriage not to increase rates Elizabeth Warne or Kirsten Tarp (see (California Native Society (CNPS) without advance notice. See Rail Disclosure and 49 ADDRESSES section) (telephone 916/979– 1978, CNDDB 1996). Eight of these CFR part 1300. 2120). populations were discovered after 33030 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 117 / Wednesday, June 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations publication of the proposed rule and are Day, California Academy of Sciences, in in the phlox family () located within the original range of the litt. 1993). Two new localities were that forms a mat 5 to 20 cm (2 to 8 in.) species near Fairfield in Solano County, found in 1989. The five extant wide. The 3 to 4 cm (1.0 to 1.6 in.) long and near Fremont in Alameda County populations occur on private lands. leaves are linear or have a few widely (CNDDB 1996, Duncan & Jones 1996). Five subspecies of Navarretia spaced linear lobes. The is One population of L. conjugens occurs leucocephala are currently recognized a head composed of 20 to 50 white or in Contra Costa County, two in Napa (Day 1993), two of which may hybridize blue flowers. Each head is 1.5 to 2 cm County, one in Alameda County, and with N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora (A. (0.6 to 0.8 in.) across and is subtended nine in Solano County. Of the nine Day, pers. comm. 1993). These two by 3 to 4 leaf-like that are simple- populations located in Solano County, subspecies, N. leucocephala ssp. bakeri pinnate or compound-pinnate and eight are clustered near the town of and N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha, extend outward 1 to 2 times the radius Fairfield and one is located at Travis Air differ from N. leucocephala ssp. of the head. The bracts within the head Force Base. The population located at pauciflora in stature, degree of are shorter. The funnel-shaped corolla is Travis Air Force Base is the only hairiness, or size, number or lobing of 5 to 6 mm (0.20 to 0.24 in.) long with population on Federal land; all other floral parts. In addition, the flower color five lobes each 2 mm (0.7 in.) long. The populations are on private lands. in ssp. plieantha differs, being bright stigma is two-cleft. Navarretia The type specimen for Navarretia blue rather that white or pale blue as in leucocephala ssp. plieantha flowers in pauciflora was collected from a playa 8 ssp. pauciflora. As stated in the May and June. kilometers (km) (5 miles (mi)) north of Service’s proposed policy on the Navarretia leucocephala ssp. Lower Lake, Lake County, California treatment of intercrosses and intercross plieantha is found in dry meadows, (Mason 1946). Day (1993) revised the progeny (61 FR 4710; February 7, 1996), along the margins of volcanic ash treatment of Navarretia and reduced N. ‘‘intercross progeny’’ (hybrids) that are substrate vernal pools and lakes, and in pauciflora to a subspecies of N. the result of a cross involving a listed open, wet ground in forest openings. It leucocephala. More than a dozen taxon receive protection under the Act occurs over a 1,000 sq-km (390 sq-mi) species of Navarretia occur in the if the progeny more closely resemble the area at elevations of 700 to 915 m (2,300 region, including several restricted to listed parent’s taxon. This policy, if to 3,000 ft). Navarretia leucocephala vernal pools. Both N. leucocephala ssp. finalized, will primarily apply to a ssp. plieantha is historically known pauciflora and N. leucocephala ssp. population at Loch Lomond, which is a from eight locations in Lake and plieantha are restricted to northern ash- product of intercross between ssp. Sonoma counties, California. Two flow volcanic vernal pools, a pool type plieantha and ssp. pauciflora (A. Day, in historical populations in Sonoma with a very limited distribution. (CNPS litt. 1993). If the policy is finalized, the County are considered potentially 1994; Todd Keeler-Wolfe, California Loch Lomond population of N. extirpated (CNDDB 1996) and were Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), leucocephala will be treated as if it were possibly hybrids between N. pers. comm. 1996). listed because both parental taxa will be leucocephala ssp. plieantha and N. Navarretia leucocephala ssp. listed with the publication of this rule. leucocephala ssp. bakeri. All five extant pauciflora is a low-growing, spreading, The intercross policy could also apply populations are found in Lake County and much-branched annual herb in the to two historical populations in Sonoma (A. Day, in litt. 1993). Four of the extant phlox family (Polemoniaceae). This County. Day identified herbaria populations are located on private land; plant grows to a height of 1 to 4 cm (0.4 specimens of these populations as one of these is located on The Nature to 1.6 in.). The nearly hairless leaves are intermediates between ssp. plieantha Conservancy (TNC) preserve at Bogg’s linear and entire, or parted into a few and ssp. bakeri (a non-listed taxon) (A. Lake. The fifth population is an linear lobes, and 1 to 2.5 cm (0.4 to 1.0 Day, in litt. 1993). However, at least one intercross population (N. leucocephala in.) long. The inflorescence is a head of of these populations appears to be no ssp. plieantha × N. leucocephala ssp. 2 to 15 blue or white (fading to blue) longer extant (McCarten 1985, CNPS pauciflora) that occurs on State land at flowers. A few spiny, leaf-like bracts 1987). Should these populations be Loch Lomond. As discussed above, as below each head extend out 1.5 to 3 rediscovered, a morphological an intercross population resulting from times the radius of the head; bracts assessment would be required to two listed species, this population could within the head are shorter. The funnel- determine the applicability of any receive protection under the Act if the shaped corollas are 5 to 7 mm (0.2 to 0.3 intercross policy and subsequent proposed hybrid policy is finalized. in.) long with five lobes 1.5 mm (0.06 protection under the Act. This site is managed as an ecological in.) long. Each corolla lobe has a single Navarretia plieantha was described reserve by the CDFG. unbranched vein. The stigma has two from the margin of Bogg’s Lake in Lake Parvisedum leiocarpum is a low, erect minute lobes. Navarretia leucocephala County, California (Mason 1946). Day to spreading annual in the stonecrop ssp. pauciflora flowers from May to reduced the taxon to a subspecies of N. family (Crassulaceae) with reddish June. leucocephala in her revised treatment stems 3 to 5 cm (1 to 2 in.) tall. The Navarretia leucocephala ssp. (Day 1993). Navarretia leucocephala fleshy, oblong leaves are 4 to 5 mm (0.16 pauciflora is found growing in volcanic ssp. plieantha is distinguished from N. to 0.20 in.) long and fall off the stem by ash substrate, clay pan vernal pools in leucocephala ssp. pauciflora by its more flowering time. The inflorescence is a chaparral, grassland, or mixed numerous and multi-flowered heads (20 cyme of campanulate (bell-shaped) coniferous forest in southern Lake and to 60 flowers versus 2 to 15), and in yellow flowers that are crowded on Napa Counties. The subspecies occurs having three or more pairs of outer curving stems in two rows. The five over a 50 square-kilometer (sq-km) (20 bracts with the lobes being forked are 3 to 3.5 mm (0.12 to 0.14 in.) square-mile (sq-mi)) area at elevations of or three-four branched from the base. It long with large, club-shaped, red 450 to 850 m (1,400 to 2,800 ft). is distinguished from other Navarretias nectaries. The five carpels have smooth Historically, N. leucocephala ssp. in the region by stature, degree of surfaces. Parvisedum leiocarpum pauciflora was known from nine sites in hairiness, or size, number, or lobing of flowers in April and May. Napa and Lake counties. The subspecies floral parts. Parvisedum leiocarpum was has become extirpated from six Navarretia leucocephala ssp. described from an area 10.4 km (6.5 mi) historical localities (CNPS 1990a; Alva plieantha is a low growing annual herb north of Lower Lake, Lake County, Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 117 / Wednesday, June 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 33031

California, as Sedella leiocarpa by the Smithsonian Institution and the 1 species are now recognized as (Sharsmith 1940). Clausen (1946) Service in response to House Document candidates for listing purposes. subsequently placed the plant in the No. 94–51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires genus Parvisedum and gave it the Register publication. Navarretia the Secretary to make certain findings specific rank of P. leiocarpum. Two pauciflora and N. plieantha were on pending petitions within 12 months similar species occur within the range of included in the June 16, 1976, Federal of their receipt. Section 2(b)(1) further P. leiocarpum. Parvisedum pentandrum Register document. General comments requires that all petitions pending on differs in having shorter petals, top- received in relation to the 1976 proposal October 13, 1982, be treated as having shaped flowers, and carpels with were summarized in an April 26, 1978, been newly submitted on that date. This glandular bumps on the surfaces. Federal Register publication (43 FR was the case for Lasthenia conjugens, Crassula connata differs in having only 17909). Navarretia pauciflora, Navarretia one to a few, four-petaled flowers above The Endangered Species Act plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum each leaf base not arranged in definite Amendments of 1978 required that all because the 1975 Smithsonian report cymes. proposals over 2 years old be had been accepted as a petition. On Parvisedum leiocarpum is found on withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was October 13, 1982, the Service volcanic substrates in areas of impeded given to those proposals already more determined, in accordance with section drainage, such as in and along the than 2 years old. In the December 10, 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, that the margins of vernal pools and depressions 1979, Federal Register (44 FR 70796), petitioned listing of these species was in bedrock. The historical range of the the Service published a notice of warranted, but precluded by other species encompasses six collection withdrawal of the June 16, 1976, pending listing actions; notification of localities within a 16 km (10 mi) radius proposal. this finding was published on January from Siegler Springs near Lower Lake, The Service published an updated 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485). Such a finding Lake County, California (CDFG 1991b). candidate notice of review for plants on requires the petition to be recycled, Elevations of occurrences range from December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the 395 to 790 m (1,300 to 2,600 ft). notice included Lasthenia conjugens, Act. The finding was reviewed in Parvisedum leiocarpum has apparently Navarretia pauciflora, Navarretia October of 1983 through 1993. disappeared at three sites within this plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum A proposed rule to list Lasthenia area (CDFG 1991b, CNPS 1990b). The as category 1 candidates for Federal conjugens, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. extant populations of P. leiocarpum listing. Category 1 candidates were pauciflora, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. collectively cover a total area of less those species for which the Service had plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum than 1.2 hectares (ha) (3 acres (ac)). All on file sufficient information to support as endangered was published on populations occur on private lands. issuance of proposed listing rules. On December 19, 1994 (59 FR 65311). The November 28, 1983, the Service proposal was based on information from Previous Federal Action published a supplement to this notice of the CNDDB and observations and Federal government actions on these review (48 FR 39526) which changed L. studies by numerous botanists. The four plants began as a result of section conjugens, N. pauciflora, N. plieantha, Service now determines L. conjugens, N. 12 of the 1973 Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et and P. leiocarpum from category 1 to leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, N. seq.), which directed the Secretary of category 2 candidates. Category 2 leucocephala ssp. plieantha, and P. the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a candidates were those species for which leiocarpum to be endangered with the report on those plants considered to be the Service had information indicating publication of this rule. endangered, threatened, or extinct in the that listing may be warranted but for The processing of this final listing United States. This report, designated as which it lacked sufficient information rule conforms with the Service’s final House Document No. 94–51, was on status and threats to support listing priority guidance published in presented to Congress on January 9, issuance of proposed listing rules. the Federal Register on December 5, 1975, and included Lasthenia conjugens When the plant notice was revised on 1996 (61 FR 64475). The guidance as threatened, and Navarretia pauciflora September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526), clarifies the order in which the Service (now known as N. leucocephala ssp. Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia will process rulemakings following two pauciflora), Navarretia plieantha (now pauciflora, Navarretia plieantha, and related events: (1) The lifting on April known as N. leucocephala ssp. Parvisedum leiocarpum were included 26, 1996, of the moratorium on final plieantha), and Parvisedum leiocarpum as category 2 candidates. When the listings imposed on April 10, 1995 (Pub. as endangered. The Service published a plant notice was again revised on L. 104–6), and (2) the restoration of notice in the July 1, 1975, Federal February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), L. significant funding for processing listing Register (40 FR 27823) of its acceptance conjugens, N. plieantha, and P. actions. The Service’s Sacramento Field of the report of the Smithsonian leiocarpum were elevated to category 1 Office has confirmed that the status of Institution as a petition within the candidates. Navarretia pauciflora was the four species in this rule has not context of section 4(c)(2) (petition retained as a category 2 candidate. Since changed since publication of the provisions are now found in section the publication of that notice, the proposed rule prior to the moratorium 4(b)(3) of the Act) and its intention to Service has received additional on final listings. review the status of the plant taxa information on the status of Navarretia named in the report. The above four leucocephala ssp. pauciflora that Summary of Comments and taxa were included in the July 1, 1975, supports the listing of this species. The Recommendations notice. On June 16, 1976, the Service September 30, 1993, plant notice of In the December 19, 1994, proposed published a proposal in the Federal review (58 FR 51144) included all four rule and associated notifications, all Register (42 FR 24523) to determine plant taxa as category 1 candidates. As interested parties were requested to approximately 1,700 announced in a notice published in the submit factual reports or information species to be endangered species February 28, 1996, Federal Register (61 that contribute to the development of a pursuant to section 4 of the Act. The list FR 7596), the designation of multiple final rule. A 60-day comment period of 1,700 plant taxa was assembled on categories of candidates has been closed on February 19, 1995, and was the basis of comments and data received discontinued, and only former category extended to April 28, 1995 (the 33032 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 117 / Wednesday, June 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations moratorium on final listings was Department of the Interior (Department) ‘‘Background’’ section of this rule. The imposed on April 10, 1995 (Public Law regarding Taking Implications Service’s two primary sources of 104–6)). Appropriate Federal and State Assessments (TIAs). The Attorney information on Navarretia leucocephala agencies, county and city governments, General’s guidelines state that TIAs ssp. plieantha, N. leucocephala ssp. scientists, and interested parties were used to analyze the potential for Fifth pauciflora, and Parvisedum leiocarpum contacted and requested to comment. In Amendment taking claims are to be are compilations of information from a accordance with its July 1, 1994, peer prepared after, rather than before, an number of inventories, and, therefore, review policy (59 FR 34270), the Service agency makes a restricted discretionary not limited in scope. solicited three independent specialists decision. In enacting the Act, Congress Issue 3: Several commenters stated to review pertinent scientific and required the Department to list a species that livestock trampling was commercial data and assumptions based solely upon scientific and unsubstantiated and had no or little relating to the proposed rule. Two of the commercial data. The Service may not adverse effect on these four vernal pool three specialists submitted comments. withhold a listing decision based upon plants. One specialist found the proposed economic concerns. Therefore, even Service Response: Documented listing to be concise and technically though a TIA may be required, a TIA for observations of detrimental effects of accurate. The other specialist a listing action is finalized only after the livestock trampling on some commented only on the discussion and final determination whether to list a populations of two of the vernal pool descriptive paragraphs about species is made. plants, Lasthenia conjugens and Navarretia. This specialist’s comments The listing of species as threatened or Navarretia leucocephala spp. have been incorporated into the endangered typically does not result in pauciflora, exist and are part of the ‘‘Background’’ section of this rule. the ‘‘taking’’ of private property. The administrative record for this rule. In The Service published notices in the determination of whether ‘‘taking’’ has addition, two populations of Lake County Record-Bee and the Napa occurred as a result of an agency’s Parvisedum leiocarpum may be County Register on December 30, 1994, action is made by a court based on the threatened by trampling by livestock which invited general public comment. specific facts of that action. (CDFG 1989a). The Service maintains Issue 2: Several commenters Twenty-two individuals or agencies, that livestock trampling, under certain questioned the accuracy of the including the CDFG, the Lake County conditions, adversely affects these supporting information. Concern was Farm Bureau, and the CNPS, submitted species (CDFG 1989a, 1989b, 1991; expressed that many areas may contain comments. Several people submitted CNPS 1987, 1990a, 1990b). Livestock potential habitat for the species and, more than one comment to the Service. trampling is one of a number of impacts therefore, the species may be more Ten commenters supported, five adversely affecting these three vernal opposed, and seven were neutral on the widespread than stated in the proposed pool plants. proposed action. rule. One commenter stated that the In response to the publication of the primary findings for Navarretia Issue 4: Two commenters were proposed rule, the Service received leucocephala ssp. plieantha, N. concerned about whether the data on written requests for a public hearing leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, and which the rule was based were acquired from Michael Delbar, Executive Parvisedum leiocarpum were based on legally. One of these commenters asked Director, Lake County Farm Bureau, and only two sources. whether permission was given by Daniel Macon, Director of Industry Service Response: Specific landowners to the CDFG, the CNPS, or Affairs, California Cattlemen’s justification for listing the four plant any other person to enter private Association. Notice of the public species is summarized in the ‘‘Summary property in order to do the surveys on hearing was published in the Napa of Factors Affecting the Species’’ section which the listing is partially based. Register, Petaluma Argus-Courier and of this rule. The Service used Service Response: An important Santa Rosa Press Democrat on March information obtained from Federal, information source used for this rule is 20, 1995, and in the Lake County State, and local agencies, the CNDDB, the CNDDB operated by the Natural Record-Bee on March 21, 1995. A public professional botanists, and studies by Heritage Division of the CDFG. Data in hearing was held at the Napa Valley Niall McCarten (1985), Robert Ornduff this system come from a variety of Marriott Hotel in Napa on April 6, 1995, (1966), and Alva Day (1993) that were experts, including local professional from 6 pm. to 8 pm. Eight people specifically directed at determining the botanists, members of CNPS, and presented oral and written testimony. distribution or threats to the four plant botanical consultants. The Service does Written comments and oral taxa. The Service also used information not condone entering private land statements presented at the public from botanical collections of these without landowner permission. Because hearing or received during the comment plants to prepare the proposed rule. the database records make no reference period are addressed in the following Destruction and loss of habitat and to whether permission was granted to summary. Comments of a similar nature extirpation of populations of the four those collecting data, the Service has no are grouped into general issues. These plant taxa from a variety of causes have knowledge whether observers obtained issues and the Service’s response to been documented. Following landowner permission to enter private each are discussed below. publication of the proposed rule, the lands. No surveys of these species were Issue 1: Four commenters expressed Service sought comments from Federal, conducted or funded by the Service. concern that the protection afforded State, and local agencies, species Issue 5: One commenter was listed species by the Act would violate experts, and other individuals, concerned about the potential impacts private property rights, and result in a including three independent specialists. the listing would have on agricultural ‘‘taking’’ of property. Two commenters All information received during the operations in Lake County. This questioned whether they would be public comment period has been commenter stated that the effects on the monetarily reimbursed for property loss incorporated into the final rule. economic viability of agriculture on if the listed species were found on their The taxa in this rule are restricted in lands on which the species occur would land. their range. More detailed discussion of be severe. This commenter also wanted Service Response: The Attorney the historical and current distribution of to know what impact the listing would General has issued guidelines to the these four plants can be found in the have on grazing on public lands. Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 117 / Wednesday, June 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 33033

Service Response: Section 4(b)(10)(A) sheets would be helpful. Additionally, Summary of Factors Affecting the of the Act requires that listing this commenter stated that listing the Species determinations be based solely on the species as endangered will likely After a thorough review and best scientific and commercial data increase the threat of overcollection by consideration of all information available. The legislative history of this rare plant collectors. available, the Service has determined provision explains the intent of Service Response: The Service that Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia believes that publication of detailed site Congress to ‘‘ensure’’ that listing leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, Navarretia information, such as map locations or decisions are ‘‘based solely on biological leucocephala ssp. plieantha, and site descriptions, may increase the criteria and to prevent non-biological Parvisedum leiocarpum should be threat of overcollection by rare plant considerations from affecting such classified as endangered species. collectors. Because the ranges of decisions’’ (H. R. Rep. No. 97–835, 97th Procedures found at section 4 of the Act Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, Cong. 2d Sess. 19 (1982)). As further (16 U.S.C. 1533) and regulations (50 N. leucocephala ssp. plieantha and stated in the legislative history, CFR Part 424) promulgated to ‘‘Applying economic criteria * * * to Parvisedum leiocarpum are small, the implement the listing provisions of the any phase of the species listing process plant populations might easily be Act were followed. A species may be is applying economics to the located. Therefore, the Service considers determined to be endangered or determinations made under section 4 of it imprudent to publish site-specific threatened due to one or more of the the Act and is specifically rejected by information. five factors described in section 4(a)(1). the inclusion of the word ‘‘solely’’ in Issue 8: One commenter stated that These factors and their application to this legislation’’ ( H. R. Rep. No. 97–835, information on hydrological changes at Lasthenia conjugens Ornduff (Contra 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 19 (1982)). Because the vernal pool sites during the recent Costa goldfields), Navarretia the Service is precluded from droughts is needed, because the mesic leucocephala Benth. ssp. pauciflora (H. considering economic impacts in a final conditions may have disappeared before listing decision, the Service has not the alterations were made. Mason) Day (few-flowered navarretia), examined such impacts. Service Response: The Service Navarretia leucocephala Benth. ssp. The Service expects this listing to disagrees that further information on plieantha (H. Mason) Day (many- have negligible effect on grazing on hydrological changes at the sites flowered navarretia), and Parvisedum public lands. Except for one location of because of the recent drought is needed leiocarpum (H. Sharsm.) R. T. Clausen Lasthenia conjugens on Federal land (at prior to listing. These plants evolved in (Lake County stonecrop) are as follows: Travis Air Force Base), all known a climate where periodic droughts A. The present or threatened populations of these plants are on occur. As discussed under factor A in destruction, modification, or private land. No known vernal pools or the ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the curtailment of their habitat or range. habitat for these plant species are Species’’ section, the human-caused The primary threats to Lasthenia located on federally owned grazing land alterations to hydrology are the primary conjugens, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. in the counties in which these species threat. Although hydrological modeling pauciflora, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. occur (P. Bardwell, Bureau of Land may have some utility for aiding the plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum Management, pers. comm. 1996) species’ recovery, the Service does not are activities that result in the direct Issue 6: The CDFG noted the believe this information is needed to destruction of the plants and their discrepancies between the locations and support the listing justification for the habitats or hydrologic changes in their distributions of populations of each four vernal pool plants in this rule. vernal pool habitats. Such activities species in the proposed rule versus the Issue 9: The California Department of include urbanization, wetland drainage, information from the CNDDB. Transportation (CALTRANS) discussed vernal pool and pond construction, Service Response: In the preparation two highways (State Route 175 and industrial development, agricultural of both the proposed and final rules, the State Route 29) that are adjacent to land conversion, ditch construction, off- Service used information provided by populations of the proposed plants. The highway vehicle use, road widening, Dr. Alva Day for the number and agency stated that the current horseback riding, and trampling by locations of Navarretia leucocephala maintenance activities along State Route cattle. Damage or destruction of vernal ssp. pauciflora and N. leucocephala ssp. 175 and State Route 29 are not likely to pool habitat happens quickly and easily plieantha. Dr. Day’s population affect the long-term survival of these due to the extremely crumbly nature of information matched the taxonomic species. Additionally, CALTRANS the soil and the dependency of the pool circumscriptions in her revised stated that no major construction upon an intact durapan or impermeable treatment for Navarretia (Day 1993), projects were planned for these subsurface soil layer. which the Service considers to be the segments of highway. Lasthenia conjugens is no longer best available information and most Service Response: The Service found in three of the seven counties in recent treatment. The Service has also acknowledges CALTRANS’ support of which it historically occurred— incorporated the most recent this listing action, but remains Mendocino, Santa Clara, and Santa information for Lasthenia conjugens concerned about the potential loss of Barbara counties. Agricultural land into the rule. Some of this information Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora conversion, urbanization, and is not contained in the CNDDB; and Parvisedum leiocarpum adjacent to associated developments have therefore, location and distribution State Route 29 and the hybrid extirpated populations of this species in figures in this rule will not exactly population of Navarretia leucocephala Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and match those in the CNDDB. ssp. plieantha X ssp. pauciflora adjacent Santa Barbara counties (CNDDB 1993, Issue 7: One commenter requested to State Route 175. As discussed further 1996; CNPS 1978). Agricultural land that the proposed rule be amended to under factor A in the ‘‘Summary of conversion extirpated one additional give complete descriptions of all sites Factors Affecting the Species’’ section of population of L. conjugens in Napa and their watersheds. This commenter this rule, the Service believes highway County (CNDDB 1993). Widening and also stated that the delineation of the maintenance activities along State straightening of Ledgewood Creek north potential range of the species on U.S. routes 29 and 175 may be a threat to of Cordelia Road in Solano County by Geological Survey (1:24,000) quadrangle these species. the Corps eliminated a large amount of 33034 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 117 / Wednesday, June 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations habitat and a large number of plants of by highway maintenance. The intercross one population of P. leiocarpum, L. conjugens (Ann Howald, CDFG, pers. population of N. leucocephala ssp. trampling may pose a threat to this comm. 1993). plieantha × N. leucocephala ssp. population (CNDDB 1996, CDFG 1989a). The largest known concentration of pauciflora at Loch Lomond is also Livestock grazing threatens four Lasthenia conjugens populations occurs adjacent to a highway, State Route 175 populations of L. conjugens (CNDDB in Solano County near the City of (H. Sarasohn, in litt. 1995), where 1996). The single extant occurrence of L. Fairfield. The General Plan for the City maintenance activities could result in conjugens in Napa County occurs in a of Fairfield indicates that all of these the loss of plants. Off-highway vehicle grazed field. Nutrient enrichment of the populations are found in areas that will use has damaged several population vernal pool caused by cattle has led to be included within the Fairfield urban sites in Lake County (CDFG 1989b, algal ‘‘blooms’’ and possibly other biotic boundary (Jones & Stokes Assoc. 1992). CNDDB 1996). Conversion of land to a changes in the pool that adversely affect The implementation of this plan would rice field adversely affected another N. the growth of L. conjugens (Robert result in the conversion of leucocephala ssp. pauciflora population Ornduff, University of California, approximately 3912 ha (9,668 ac) of in Lake County (CDFG 1989b). Berkeley, in litt. 1995). Eighty percent of existing habitat and open space to urban Construction of a stock pond for cattle one population of Navarretia use by 2020 (Jones & Stokes 1992). This partially destroyed the population of N. leucocephala ssp. pauciflora in Napa would include approximately 1376 ha leucocephala ssp. pauciflora at Ely Flat County was adversely affected by the (3400 ac) within the Travis/Northeast in Lake County and severely altered the rooting of feral pigs (John Hoffnagle, growth center where the greatest hydrology of its habitat (CDFG 1989b, Napa County Land Trust, pers. comm. concentrations of L. conjugens occur. 1996). Agricultural land conversion 1995). Horse grazing threatens two Two proposed residential development threatens this same population (CDFG populations and cattle grazing threatens projects threaten the three largest 1989b; CNPS 1990a). Attempted one population of N. leucocephala ssp. populations of L. conjugens which drainage of a pool in Lake County pauciflora (CNDDB 1996). contain over 70 percent of all individual containing N. leucocephala ssp. Three of the species, Parvisedum plants of this species (Lafer and plieantha has resulted in the invasion of leiocarpum, Navarretia leucocephala Associates 1994, Holland 1995). One of two competitive weeds, Centaurea ssp. pauciflora, and N. leucocephala these populations is also threatened by solstitialis and Taeniatherum caput- ssp. plieantha, occur in restricted landfill construction activities (LSA medusa (CNDDB 1996). Although the habitats primarily within 2 to 6 miles of Associates, Inc. 1992). This population intercross population of N. Clear Lake in Lake County. The area may also be threatened by a ditch leucocephala ssp. plieantha × N. surrounding Clear Lake is the most construction project proposed by the leucocephala ssp. pauciflora at Loch densely populated area in the county California Department of Water Lomond occurs in an ecological reserve (California State Department of Finance Resources (R. Preston, in litt. 1995). managed by the CDFG, the site is 1992), and is subject to residential Urbanization threatens the largest potentially threatened by timber development (CDFG 1989a, CDFG population of Lasthenia conjugens in harvesting within the watershed. ‘‘Such 1989b, CNPS 1990a). While the rate of Napa County (CNDDB 1993; Jake Ruygt, harvesting could have significant this development is moderate when CNPS, in litt. 1993). Off-highway detrimental effects on the vernal pool compared to other areas of the region, vehicle traffic has adversely impacted and its flora.’’ (B. Gibbons, CDFG, in litt. the limited habitat of these species this same population (CNDDB 1993). In 1995). makes them vulnerable to even small Contra Costa County, the primary Attempted drainage has altered the increases in development. transportation corridor, State Route 4, hydrology of two of the three remaining Off-highway vehicle use has resulted will be relocated to approximately 80 to vernal pools containing populations of and continues to result in the 100 feet from the only remaining Parvisedum leiocarpum (CNPS 1990b). destruction of plants and habitat of population in the county (Woodward- Drainage attempts at one of the sites Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha Clyde Consultants et al. 1995; J. Gan, resulted in severe erosion and a at four population sites in Lake County. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. reduction of habitat and plant numbers The CDFG has provided fencing at the comm. 1996). Six of the eight newly (CNPS 1990b). Maintenance of Highway Loch Lomond site to prevent off- discovered populations of L. conjugens 29 by CALTRANS also threatens to highway vehicle entry into the area in Solano and Alameda counties are impact individuals of this population, (CDFG 1991a). imminently threatened by development which is found within the highway B. Overutilization for commercial, projects (Steve Lafer and Associates right-of-way (CNPS 1990b). Discing has recreational, scientific, or educational 1994, CNDDB 1996, Duncan & Jones occurred at the third population site purposes. Due to the limited 1996). (CNDDB 1996). All populations occur distribution of Lasthenia conjugens, One population of Navarretia on privately owned land next to major Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, leucocephala ssp. pauciflora has been roads. Off-highway vehicle use has Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha, adversely affected by drainage, and one occurred at two of the three P. and Parvisedum leiocarpum, population has been adversely affected leiocarpum population sites (CNPS indiscriminate collecting of plants could by an attempt to create a more 1990b). Within the range of P. seriously affect these species. permanent water source (CDFG 1989b). leiocarpum, habitat continues to be Overutilization is not known to occur at One site, Manning Flat in Lake County, converted to vineyards and orchards this time. has significantly eroded as a result of (CDFG 1989a). C. Disease or predation. Disease and excavation of drainage ditches; this Some populations of three of the four predation are not known to be a threat erosion has reduced the population and species are impacted by trampling by to these plants. the habitat (McCarten 1985, CDFG livestock or rooting by feral pigs. D. The inadequacy of existing 1989b), CNDDB 1996). This population Because they are small and delicate, regulatory mechanisms. The State of is also within the right-of-way of State Parvisedum leiocarpum plants would California Fish and Game Commission Route 29 (H. Sarasohn, CALTRANS, in likely be severely damaged if trampled has listed Parvisedum leiocarpum and litt. 1995), and the Service is concerned by livestock. Because cattle grazing Navarretia plieantha (now known as that individual plants may be impacted occurs in the area surrounding at least Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha) Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 117 / Wednesday, June 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 33035 as endangered species under the addresses the discharge of fill material species as endangered. Based on this California Endangered Species Act into waters of the United States evaluation, the preferred action is to list (Chapter 1.5 Section 2050 et seq. of the including wetlands but does not itself Lasthenia conjugens, Navarretia California Fish and Game Code and protect the plants. The recently revised leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, Navarretia Title 14 California Code of Regulations Nationwide Permit No. 26 dated leucocephala ssp. plieantha, and section 670.2 ). The California Fish and December 13, 1996 (61 FR 65874), was Parvisedum leiocarpum as endangered. Game Commission also has listed established by the Corps to streamline Endangered status is appropriate for Navarretia pauciflora (now known as authorization for the discharge of fill these four species due to the Navarretia leucocephala ssp. causing the loss of 1.25 ha (3 ac) of vulnerability of their restricted habitats pauciflora) as threatened. Listing by the headwater or isolated waters. For to threats posed by urbanization, State of California requires individuals project proposals falling under agricultural land conversion, drainage, to obtain management authorization Nationwide Permit No. 26, the Corps vernal pool and pond construction, from CDFG to possess or ‘‘take’’ a listed historically has been reluctant to ditch construction, off-highway vehicle species. Although the ‘‘take’’ of State- withhold authorization unless the use, road maintenance, or random listed plants is prohibited (California project is likely to cause jeopardy to a natural events. Critical habitat is not Native Plant Protection Act, Chapter 10 federally threatened or endangered designated for these species for reasons Section 1908 and California Endangered species. The section 404 regulations discussed below. Species Act, Chapter 1.5 Section 2080), require an applicant to obtain an Critical Habitat State law exempts the taking of such individual permit to discharge fill into plants via habitat modification or land greater than 1.25 ha (3 ac) of headwater Critical habitat is defined in section 3 use changes by the owner. After CDFG or isolated wetlands. A project of the Act as: (i) The specific areas notifies a landowner that a State-listed proponent proposing to discharge fill within the geographical area occupied plant grows on his or her property, State that would cause the loss of less than by a species, at the time it is listed in law requires that the land owner notify one-third acre of headwater or isolated accordance with the Act, on which are the agency ‘‘at least 10 days in advance waters is only required to notify the found those physical or biological of changing the land use to allow Corps; the Corps generally does not features (I) essential to the conservation salvage of such a plant’’ (California require compensatory mitigation in of the species and (II) that may require Native Plant Protection Act, Chapter 10 these cases. Regardless of the size of the special management considerations or Section 1913). discharge of fill, candidate species protection; and (ii) specific areas The California Environmental Quality within the project area receive no outside the geographical area occupied Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources special consideration. Equally by a species at the time it is listed, upon Code section 21000–21177) requires a important, upland areas adjacent to a determination that such areas are full disclosure of the potential vernal pools or other wetlands are not essential for the conservation of the environmental impacts of proposed provided any protection through this species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use projects. The public agency with process. of all methods and procedures needed primary authority or jurisdiction over E. Other natural or manmade factors to bring the species to the point at the project is designated as the lead affecting their continued existence. which listing under the Act is no longer agency, and is responsible for Three of the four plant species have necessary. conducting a review of the project and restricted ranges and few populations. Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as consulting with the other agencies Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora amended, and implementing regulations concerned with the resources affected is known from five sites, N. (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the by the project. Section 15065 of the leucocephala ssp. plieantha from four maximum extent prudent and CEQA Guidelines, as amended, requires sites, and Parvisedum leiocarpum from determinable, the Secretary designate a finding of significance if a project has three sites. These three species occupy critical habitat at the time the species is the potential to ‘‘reduce the number or highly specific and vulnerable habitats. determined to be endangered or restrict the range of a rare or endangered The combination of restricted ranges, threatened. The Service finds that, for plant or animal.’’ Species eligible for few populations, and highly specific the four taxa discussed in this rule, listing as rare, threatened, or and vulnerable habitats make these designation of critical habitat is not endangered, but not so listed, are given plants susceptible to destruction of all, prudent at this time. Service regulations the same protection as those species that or a significant part, of any population (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that are officially listed with the State or from random, natural events such as designation of critical habitat is not Federal governments. Once significant floods or droughts. Severe erosion prudent when one or both of the effects are identified, the lead agency threatens one of the three remaining following situations exist—(1) the has the option to require mitigation for populations of P. leiocarpum (CNPS species is threatened by taking or other effects through changes in the project or 1990b). Low population numbers and human activity, and identification of to decide that overriding considerations sizes make these three species critical habitat can be expected to make mitigation infeasible (CEQA vulnerable to changes in gene increase the degree of such threat to the section 21002). In the latter case, frequency, inbreeding, and genetic drift. species; or (2) such designation of projects may be approved that cause Several historical occurrences of N. critical habitat would not be beneficial significant environmental damage, such leucocephala pauciflora may have been to the species. as destruction of endangered species. lost to hybridization with and genetic As discussed under factor B in the Protection of listed species through dilution (swamping) by larger, adjacent ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the CEQA, therefore, is dependent upon the populations of N. leucocephala Species’’ section of this rule, due to the discretion of the agency involved. plieantha (CDFG 1989b, CNPS 1990a). limited distribution of Lasthenia Because vernal pools are generally The Service has carefully assessed the conjugens, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. small and scattered, they are treated as best scientific and commercial pauciflora, Navarretia leucocephala ssp. isolated wetlands for regulatory information available regarding the past, plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum, purposes by the Corps under section present, and future threats faced by any indiscriminate collecting of plants 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 these species in determining to list these could seriously affect these species. The 33036 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 117 / Wednesday, June 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations publication of precise maps and Section 7(a) of the Act requires on privately owned land. Many of the descriptions of critical habitat in the Federal agencies to evaluate their threats to these species, such as habitat Federal Register would make these actions with respect to any species that alteration by large-scale urban plants more vulnerable to overcollection is proposed or listed as endangered or development projects and off-highway and, therefore, could contribute to the threatened and with respect to its vehicle use, are not easily prevented decline of these species and increase critical habitat, if any is being through the development of enforcement difficulties. Several designated. Regulations implementing conservation agreements. Only three of populations of these plants are near this interagency cooperation provision the total 26 populations comprising the roads or in other areas easily accessible of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part four species receive some level of by the public. The listing of these 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires protection. One population of species as endangered also publicizes Federal agencies to confer with the Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha the rarity of these plants making them Service on any action that is likely to is found within the Bogg’s Lake Preserve attractive to researchers or collectors of jeopardize the continued existence of a and managed by TNC, and a second rare plants. This concern was also species proposed for listing or result in (intercrossed with N. leucocephala ssp. addressed under Issue 7 in the destruction or adverse modification of pauciflora) is located within an ‘‘Summary of Comments and proposed critical habitat. If a species is ecological reserve managed by the Recommendations’’ section of this rule. listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) CDFG. One population of Navarretia Furthermore, critical habitat requires Federal agencies to ensure that leucocephala ssp. pauciflora is located designation for these four species is not activities they authorize, fund, or carry on privately owned land within a prudent due to lack of benefit. Critical out are not likely to jeopardize the conservation easement (CNDDB 1996). habitat designation provides protection continued existence of such a species or However, even these three protected only on Federal lands or on private to destroy or adversely modify its populations are impacted by lands when there is Federal critical habitat. If a Federal action may competition from nonnative species, involvement through authorization or affect a listed species or its critical adjacent land management practices, funding of, or participation in, a project habitat, the responsible Federal agency and feral pigs, respectively (CNDDB or activity. Of the taxa presented herein must enter into formal consultation with 1996). for listing, only one population of the Service. The Act and its implementing Federal agency actions or programs Lasthenia conjugens is known to occur regulations set forth a series of general that may affect populations of these on Federal lands. Although the prohibitions and exceptions that apply plant taxa include mortgage programs regulatory mechanisms of section 404 of to all endangered plants. With respect to administered by the Veterans the Clean Water Act provide a Federal the four plants from the five counties in Administration and the Department of nexus to certain activities in privately northern California, all prohibitions of Housing and Urban Development section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented owned wetland areas, because the four (Federal Home Administration loans), by 50 CFR 17.61 for endangered plants, plant species occur at very few Federal Highway Administration apply. These prohibitions, in part, make locations, any federally regulated funding of bridge and road construction, it illegal for any person subject to the activity that would adversely modify Army Corps of Engineers authorization jurisdiction of the United States to critical habitat also would jeopardize of projects affecting wetlands and other import or export, transport in interstate the species. The designation of critical waters under section 404 of the Clean habitat therefore would not provide Water Act, Environmental Protection or foreign commerce in the course of a additional benefit for these species Agency registration of pesticides and commercial activity, sell or offer for sale beyond the protection afforded by authorization of pollutant discharges, in interstate or foreign commerce, or listing. The Service believes that Federal and activities on Travis Air Force Base. remove and reduce to possession involvement in the areas where these Listing Lasthenia conjugens, federally listed plant species from areas plants occur can be identified without Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora, under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, the designation of critical habitat. For Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha, for plants listed as endangered, the Act these reasons, the Service finds that the and Parvisedum leiocarpum as prohibits the malicious damage or designation of critical habitat for these endangered provides for development of destruction on areas under Federal plants is not prudent at this time. a recovery plan (or plans) for the taxa. jurisdiction and the removal, cutting, digging up, damaging, or destroying of Available Conservation Measures Such a plan would bring together both State and Federal efforts for such plants in knowing violation of any Conservation measures provided to conservation of the plants. The recovery State law or regulation, including State species listed as endangered or plan would establish a framework for criminal trespass law. Certain threatened under the Act include agencies to coordinate activities and to exceptions apply to agents of the recognition, recovery actions, cooperate with each other in Service and State conservation agencies. requirements for Federal protection, and conservation efforts. The plan would set The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63 prohibitions against certain activities. recovery priorities and describe site- also provide for the issuance of permits Recognition through listing encourages specific management actions necessary to carry out otherwise prohibited and results in conservation actions by to achieve the conservation of these four activities involving endangered plant Federal, State, and local agencies, plants. Additionally, pursuant to section species under certain circumstances. private organizations, and individuals. 6 of the Act, the Service is more likely Such permits are available for scientific The Act provides for possible land to grant funds to affected States for purposes and to enhance the acquisition and cooperation with the management actions promoting the propagation or survival of the species. States and requires that recovery actions protection, monitoring, and recovery of Requests for copies of the regulations on be carried out for all listed species. The these species after a recovery program listed plants and inquiries regarding protection required of Federal agencies has been developed. them may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and the prohibitions against certain The Service has not pursued and Wildlife Service, Ecological activities involving listed plants are conservation agreements for these four Services, Endangered Species Permits, discussed, in part, below. species. These species occur primarily 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 117 / Wednesday, June 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 33037

97232–4181 (503/231–6241; FAX 503/ The Service is unaware at this time of Author: The primary authors of this 231–6243). any other activities affected by this final rule are Elizabeth Warne and It is the policy of the Service, listing. Questions regarding whether Kirsten Tarp, U.S. Fish and Wildlife published in the Federal Register on specific activities will constitute a Service, Sacramento Field Office (see violation of section 9 should be directed ADDRESSES July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34272) to identify section). to the Field Supervisor of the Service’s to the maximum extent practicable at List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES the time of listing those activities that section). would or would not constitute a Endangered and threatened species, violation of section 9 of the Act. The National Environmental Policy Act Exports, Imports, Reporting and intent of this policy is to increase public recordkeeping requirements, The Fish and Wildlife Service has Transportation. awareness of the effect of the listing on determined that Environmental proposed or on-going activities. Assessments and Environmental Impact Regulation Promulgation Activities that are unlikely to violate Statements, as defined under the section 9 include landscape Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of authority of the National Environmental chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal maintenance, clearing vegetation for Policy Act of 1969, need not be firebreaks, and livestock grazing on Regulations, is amended as set forth prepared in connection with regulations below: privately owned land not under Federal adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the funding or authorization and not in Act. A notice outlining the Service’s PART 17Ð[AMENDED] violation of any State law or regulation. reasons for this determination was Only one of the populations of these published in the Federal Register on 1. The authority citation for part 17 four species occurs on Federal lands. October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). continues to read as follows: Collection, damage, or destruction of the single population of Lasthenia Required Determinations Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– conjugens located on Travis Air Force The Service has examined this 625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted. Base is prohibited, although in regulation under the Paperwork appropriate cases a Federal endangered Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to 2. Section 17.12(h) is amended by species permit may be issued to allow contain no information collection adding the following, in alphabetical collection. Removal, cutting, digging up, requirements. order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to damaging, or destroying endangered the List of Endangered and Threatened plants on non-Federal lands would References Cited Plants: constitute a violation of section 9 only A complete list of all references cited if conducted in knowing violation of is available upon request from the Field § 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. State law or regulations, including Supervisor, Sacramento Field Office * * * * * violation of State criminal trespass law. (see ADDRESSES section). (h) * * *

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

FLOWERING PLANTS

******* Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa gold- U.S.A. (CA) ...... Asteraceae ...... E 619 NA NA fields.

******* Navarretia Few-flowered U.S.A. (CA) ...... Plemoniaceae ...... E 619 NA NA leucocephala ssp. navarretia. pauciflora (=Navarretia pauciflora).

******* Navarretia many-flowered U.S.A. (CA) ...... Polemoniaceae ...... E 619 NA NA leucocephala ssp. navarretia. plicantha.

******* Parvisedum Lake County U.S.A. (CA) ...... Crassulaceae ...... E 619 NA NA leiocarpum. stonecrop.

******* 33038 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 117 / Wednesday, June 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: May 30, 1997. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 1997. National Environmental Policy Act John G. Rogers, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E. The Service has determined that an Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. LaVerne Smith, Chief, Division of Environmental Assessment, as defined [FR Doc. 97–15924 Filed 6–17–97; 8:45 am] Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and under the authority of the National BILLING CODE 4310±55±P Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need Mail Stop 452, Arlington, Virginia not be prepared in connection with 22203 (703/358-2171). regulations adopted pursuant to section DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Fish and Wildlife Service accordance with the Act and the Service’s reasons for this determination Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, was published in the Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17 NMFS has jurisdiction over the coho on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). salmon. Under section 4(a)(2) of the Act, Required Determinations RIN 1018±AE28 NMFS must decide whether a species The Service has examined this Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under its jurisdiction should be classified as endangered or threatened. regulation under the Paperwork and Plants; Threatened Status for the Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to Southern Oregon/Northern California The Service is responsible for the actual amendment of the List in 50 CFR contain no information collection Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of requirements. Coho Salmon 17.11(h). On July 25, 1995, NMFS published a List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, proposed rule to list as threatened three Interior. ESUs or distinct vertebrate population Endangered and threatened species, Export, Import, Reporting and ACTION: Final rule. segments of the coho salmon in California and Oregon, including the recordkeeping requirements, SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service Southern Oregon/Northern California Transportation. (Service) is adding the Southern Coast ESU (60 FR 38011). The proposed Regulation Promulgation Oregon/Northern California Coast rule solicited comments from peer Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of reviewers, the public, and all other PART 17Ð[AMENDED] coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) to interested parties. On May 6, 1997, the List of Endangered and Threatened NMFS published a final rule to list the Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of Wildlife (List) as a threatened species in Southern Oregon/Northern California chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal accordance with the Endangered Coast ESU of the coho salmon as Regulations, is amended as set forth Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). threatened (62 FR 24588). The final rule below: This amendment to the List includes all addressed the comments received in 1. The authority citation for part 17 coho salmon naturally reproduced in response to the proposed rule. Because continues to read as follows: streams between Cape Blanco in Curry NMFS provided a public comment Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. County, Oregon and Punta Gorda in period on the proposed rule, and 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– Humboldt County, California. This because this action of the Service to 625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted. amendment is based on a determination amend the List in accordance with the by the National Marine Fisheries determination by NMFS is § 17.11 [Amended] Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and nondiscretionary, the Service has 2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by Atmospheric Administration, omitted the notice and public comment adding the following, in alphabetical Department of Commerce, which has procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) for this order under FISHES, to the List of jurisdiction for this species. action. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules

******* FISHES

******* Salmon, coho ...... Oncorhynchus North Pacific Basin U.S.A. (natural pop- T 618 NA NA kisutch. from U.S.A. (CA ulations in river to AK) to Russia basins between to Japan. Cape Blanco in Curry County, OR and Punta Gorda in Humboldt County, CA).