[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 118 (Thursday, June 19, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33383-33388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15927]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AE23


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Endangered Status for Two Larkspurs From Coastal Northern California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes endangered 
status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended 
for two plants--Delphinium bakeri (Baker's larkspur) and Delphinium 
luteum (yellow larkspur). These species grow in a variety of habitats 
including coastal prairie, coastal scrub, or chaparral in Sonoma and 
Marin counties in northern California. Habitat loss and degradation, 
sheep grazing, road maintenance activities, and overcollection imperil 
the continued existence of these plants. Random events increase the 
risk of extinction to the extremely small plant populations. This 
proposal, if made final, would implement the Federal protection and 
recovery provisions afforded by the Act for these plants.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by August 
18, 1997. Public hearing requests must be received by August 4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be 
sent to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Field Office, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130, Sacramento, 
California 95821-6340. Comments and materials received, as well as the 
supporting documentation used in preparing the rule, will be available 
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at 
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirsten Tarp, Sacramento Field Office 
(see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 916/979-2120; facsimile 916/979-
2128).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Delphinium bakeri (Baker's larkspur) and D. luteum (yellow 
larkspur) were found historically in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, or 
chaparral habitats. Urban development, agricultural land conversion, or 
livestock grazing have destroyed much of the habitat and extirpated 
numerous populations of these two plants in coastal Marin and Sonoma 
Counties in northern California. The historical range of Delphinium 
bakeri and D. luteum did not extend beyond coastal Marin and Sonoma 
counties.
    Ewan (1942) described Delphinium bakeri based on type material 
collected by Milo Baker in 1939 from ``Coleman Valley, Sonoma Co., 
California.'' In the most recent treatment, Warnock (1993) retained the 
taxon as a full species. Historically, D. bakeri was known from Coleman 
Valley in Sonoma County and from a site near Tomales in Marin County. 
Delphinium bakeri occurs on decomposed shale within the coastal scrub 
plant community from 400 to 500 feet (ft) (120 to 150 meters (m) in 
elevation (California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 1994).
    Delphinium bakeri is a perennial herb in the buttercup family 
(Ranunculaceae) that grows from a thickened, tuber-like, fleshy cluster 
of roots. The stems are hollow, erect, and grow to 65 centimeters(cm) 
(26 inches (in.)) tall. The shallowly 5-parted leaves occur primarily 
along the upper third of the stem and are green at the time the plant 
flowers. The flowers are irregularly shaped. The five sepals are 
conspicuous, bright dark blue or purplish, with the rear sepal 
elongated into a spur. The inconspicuous petals occur in two pairs. The 
lower pair is oblong and blue-purple; the upper pair is oblique and 
white. Seeds are produced in several dry, many-seeded fruits which 
split open at maturity on only one side (i.e., several follicles). 
Delphinium bakeri flowers from April through May (Warnock 1993).
    Habitat conversion to agricultural land, grazing, and/or roadside 
maintenance activities have extirpated occurrences in Marin and Sonoma 
counties (California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1994). The only 
known remaining population, with a total of about 35 individuals, is 
found on a steep road bank in Marin County that is subject to road 
work, overcollection, and sheep grazing. Because of its extreme range 
restriction and small population size, the plant also is vulnerable to 
extinction from random events, such as fire or insect outbreaks (CNDDB 
1994). California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) (1994) reported 
the trend of the species is one of decline.
    Heller (1903) described Delphinium luteum based on type material 
collected from ``grassy slopes about rocks, near Bodega Bay, along the 
road leading to the village of Bodega'' in Sonoma County. Although 
Jepson (1970) reduced D. luteum to a variety of D. nudicaule, it is 
currently recognized as

[[Page 33384]]

a full species (Warnock 1993). Delphinium luteum occurs on rocky areas 
within coastal scrub plant community, including areas with active rock 
slides, from sea level to 300 feet (100 m) in elevation (Guerrant 
1976).
    Delphinium luteum is a perennial herb in the buttercup family 
(Ranunculaceae) that grows from fibrous roots to 55 cm (22 in.) tall. 
The leaves are mostly basal, fleshy, and green at the time of 
flowering. The flowers are cornucopia-shaped. The five conspicuous 
sepals are bright yellow, with the posterior sepal elongated into a 
spur. The inconspicuous petals occur in two pairs. The upper petals are 
narrow and unlobed; the lower petals are oblong to ovate. The fruit is 
a follicle. Delphinium luteum flowers from March to May.
    Never widely distributed, historical populations of Delphinium 
luteum have been partially or entirely extirpated by rock quarrying 
activities, over-collecting, residential development, and sheep 
grazing, resulting in the species now being even more narrowly 
distributed (Guerrant 1976; CNDDB 1994; Betty Guggolz, Milo Baker 
Chapter, California Native Plant Society (CNPS) pers. comm. 1995). The 
two remaining populations near Bodega, both on private land, total 
fewer than 50 plants. Development, overcollection, and sheep grazing in 
addition to their small isolated nature makes them susceptible to 
random events (CNDDB 1994; Betty Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995). CDFG 
(1994) reported the species is declining.

Previous Federal Action

    Federal government actions on the two plants began as a result of 
section 12 of the original Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian 
Institution to prepare a report on those plants considered to be 
endangered, threatened, or extinct in the United States. This report, 
designated as House Document No. 94-51, was presented to Congress on 
January 9, 1975, and included Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum as 
endangered species. The Service published a notice on July 1, 1975 (40 
FR 27823), of its acceptance of the report of the Smithsonian 
Institution as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) 
(petition provisions are now found in section 4(b)(3) of the Act) and 
its intention thereby to review the status of the plant taxa named 
therein. The above two taxa were included in the July 1, 1975, notice. 
On June 16, 1976, the Service published a proposal (41 FR 24523) to 
determine approximately 1,700 vascular plant species to be endangered 
species pursuant to section 4 of the Act. The list of 1,700 plant taxa 
was assembled on the basis of comments and data received by the 
Smithsonian Institution and the Service in response to House Document 
No. 94-51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication. 
Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum were included in the June 16, 1976, 
Federal Register document.
    General comments received in relation to the 1976 proposal were 
summarized in an April 26, 1978, notice (43 FR 17909). The Endangered 
Species Act Amendments of 1978 required that all proposals over 2 years 
old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to those proposals 
already more than 2 years old. In the December 10, 1979, notice (44 FR 
70796), the Service published a notice of withdrawal of the June 6, 
1976, proposal, along with four other proposals that had expired.
    The Service published an updated notice of review for plants on 
December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This notice included Delphinium bakeri 
and D. luteum as category 1 candidates for Federal listing. Category 1 
taxa were those species for which the Service had on file substantial 
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support 
preparation of listing proposals. On November 28, 1983, the Service 
published a supplement to the Notice of Review (48 FR 53640). This 
supplement changed Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum. from category 1 to 
category 2 candidates. Category 2 taxa were those species for which 
data in the Service's possession indicate listing is possibly 
appropriate, but for which substantial data on biological vulnerability 
and threats were not currently known or on file to support proposed 
rules.
    The plant notice was revised again on September 27, 1985 (50 FR 
39526). Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum. were again included as 
category 2 candidates. Another revision of the plant notice was 
published on February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184). In this revision 
Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum were included as category 1 candidates. 
The Service made no changes to the status of the two species in the 
plant notice published on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144). On February 
28, 1996, the Service published a Notice of Review in the Federal 
Register (61 FR 7596) that discontinued the designation of category 2 
species as candidates. Both species were listed as candidates in the 
February 28, 1996, Notice of Review.
    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to make 
certain findings on pending petitions within 12 months of their 
receipt. Section 2(b)(1) of the 1982 amendments further requires that 
all petitions pending on October 13, 1982, be treated as having been 
newly submitted on that date. This was the case for Delphinium bakeri 
and D. luteum., because the 1975 Smithsonian report had been accepted 
as a petition. On October 13, 1982, the Service found that the 
petitioned listing of these species was warranted, but precluded by 
other pending listing actions, in accordance with section 
4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act; notification of this finding was published 
on January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485). Such a finding requires the petition 
to be recycled, pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(I) of the Act. The 
finding was reviewed annually in October of 1983 through 1994. 
Publication of this proposal constitutes the final finding for the 
petitioned action. Processing of this rule is a Tier 3 activity under 
the current listing priority guidance (61 FR 64480).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (U.S.C. 1533) and regulations (50 CFR part 
424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act set 
forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. A species 
may be determined to be endangered or threatened due to one or more of 
the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their 
application to Delphinium bakeri  Ewan (Baker's larkspur) and 
Delphinium luteum Heller (yellow larkspur) are as follows:
    A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range. Historically, the habitat of 
Delphinium bakeri was eliminated by agricultural conversion to 
grainfields (Ewan 1942). Threats to the lone remaining site of D. 
bakeri are discussed under Factors B through E. Of the two remaining 
populations of Delphinium luteum, the one located at an old rock quarry 
site near Bodega has been partially destroyed and fragmented by 
historical quarry activities. The number of plants remaining at this 
site continues to decline. Population numbers were between 100 to 200 
plants in 1978 (Ed Guerrant, Berry Botanic Garden, pers. comm. 1995), 
but recent counts indicate that only 30 to 40 individuals remain (B. 
Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995). The other extant site has fewer than 10 
remaining individuals. A historical site near the town of Graton had 
been converted to residential uses by 1987 (CNDDB 1994). Urban 
development, and its associated recreational activities, continue to 
threaten both remaining populations (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995).

[[Page 33385]]

    B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes. Overutilization is a threat for both species. In 
1992, all the follicles were collected from the plants at the only 
known site of Delphinium bakeri  (CDFG 1993). Due to its distinctive 
yellow flowers, which is uncommon for larkspurs, D. luteum is of 
horticultural interest. Collecting is thought to have extirpated at 
least one occurrence of Delphinium luteum located southwest of Tomales 
(CNDDB 1994). Additionally, some of the historical decline to D. luteum 
can be attributed to collecting. Delphinium luteum was offered in 
horticultural trade journals (as a plant to order) during the 1940's 
and 1950's (Michael Warnock, Sam Houston University, pers. comm. 1994). 
Plants can still be procured from a local nursery (their seed source is 
not from the wild). Both populations of D. luteum are close to 
residential areas and are subject to collecting. Unrestricted 
collecting for scientific or horticultural purposes or excessive visits 
by individuals interested in seeing rare plants could result from 
increased publicity as a result of this proposal.
    C. Disease or predation. The single population of Delphinium bakeri 
 which, unlike most other species in the genus does not appear to be 
poisonous to livestock (Ewan 1942), may be threatened by sheep grazing 
(CNDDB 1994). The few remaining individuals (approximately 35) are 
extremely vulnerable to impacts that otherwise might not be 
significant. Although D. luteum has persisted at two sties with sheep 
grazing for many decades, because of the very low number of individuals 
in the population, any loss of flowers and/or seeds could significantly 
reduce chances for the long term survival of this species (see Factor 
E).
    D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The State of 
California Fish and Game Commission has listed Delphinium bakeri and 
Delphinium luteum as rare species under the California Endangered 
Species Act (Chapter 1.5 sec. 2050 et seq. of the California Fish and 
Game Code and Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 670.2). 
Listing by the State of California requires individuals to obtain a 
management agreement with the CDFG to possess or ``take'' a listed 
species. Although the ``take'' of State-listed plants is prohibited 
(California Native Plant Protection Act, Chapter 10 section 1908 and 
California Endangered Species Act, Chapter 1.5 section 2080), State law 
exempts the taking of such plants via habitat modification or land use 
changes by the owner. After CDFG notifies a landowner that a State-
listed plant grows on his or her property, State law requires that the 
land owner notify the agency ``at least 10 days in advance of changing 
the land use to allow salvage of such a plant'' (Native Plant 
Protection Act, Chapter 10 section 1913).
    The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (chapter 2 section 
21050 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code) requires a full 
disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects. 
The public agency with primary authority or jurisdiction over the 
project is designated as the lead agency, and is responsible for 
conducting a review of the project and consulting with the other 
agencies concerned with the resources affected by the project. Section 
15065 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a finding of significance if a 
project has the potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range 
of a rare or endangered plant or animal.'' Species that are eligible 
for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered are not given the same 
protection as those species that are officially listed with the State 
or Federal governments. Once significant effects are identified, the 
lead agency has the option to require mitigation for effects through 
changes in the project or to decide that overriding considerations make 
mitigation infeasible. In the latter case, projects may be approved 
that cause significant environmental damage, such as destruction of 
endangered species. Protection of listed species through CEQA is 
therefore dependent upon the discretion of the agency involved. In 
addition, revisions to CEQA guidelines have been proposed which, if 
implemented, may weaken protections for threatened, endangered, and 
other sensitive species.
    E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence. The remaining population of Delphinium luteum at the rock 
quarry may be threatened by users of a trail associated with the 
extension of an existing golf course into the current scenic easement 
that exists on this site (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995). At this site, 
the Bodega Harbor landowners association is proposing to build an 
equipment storage shed and a public trail that would be close to the 
remaining plants. Although the proposed storage equipment shed would be 
located on degraded habitat and would have no direct impact on the 
population, the public trail would run near the population. The 
proximity of the trail to the plants would increase the threat from 
collection (see Factor B).
    The remaining population of Delphinium bakeri occurs on a steep 
road bank that is along side of a county road in Marin County. Some 
potential exists for spraying and road maintenance activities that 
could be detrimental to this species due to the extremely low number of 
individuals left. The degree to which these activities place the 
population at risk is uncertain.
    Because few populations and/or individuals remain, both plant 
species proposed herein likely are threatened by genetic drift. 
Delphinium bakeri has one population consisting of 35 plants. 
Delphinium luteum has two populations, totaling fewer than 50 plants. 
Small populations often are subject to increased genetic drift and 
inbreeding as consequences of their small populations (Ellstrand and 
Elam 1993). A loss of genetic variability, and consequent reduction in 
genetic fitness affords less chance of any species to successfully 
adapt to environmental change (Ellstrand and Elam 1993).
    The combination of few, small populations, narrow range and 
restricted habitat, make these two plant species susceptible to 
destruction of all or a significant part of any population from random 
events, such as fire, drought, disease, or other occurrences (Shaffer 
1981, Primack 1993). Random events causing population fluctuations or 
even population extirpations are not usually a concern until the number 
of individuals or geographic distribution becomes very limited, which 
is the case for both these species (Primack 1993). Once a plant 
population becomes so reduced due to habitat destruction and 
fragmentation, the remnant population has a higher probability of 
extinction from random events.
    The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by these two species in determining to propose 
this rule. Habitat loss and degradation, sheep grazing, inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms, naturally occurring events, small plant 
populations, road maintenance activities, and overcollection imperil 
the continued existence of these plants. Delphinium bakeri has one 
population with a total of 35 plants. Delphinium luteum has two small 
populations with a total of fewer than 50 plants. Both plant species 
are in danger of extinction throughout all of their range, and the 
preferred action is therefore to list Delphinium bakeri and Delphinium 
luteum as endangered. Other alternatives to this action were considered 
but not preferred because not listing them or listing them as 
threatened would not provide adequate

[[Page 33386]]

protection and would not be consistent with the Act.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) The 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) Essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
consideration or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures 
needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act 
is no longer necessary.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time 
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. The Service 
finds that designation of critical habitat is not prudent for 
Delphinium bakeri and Delphinium luteum at this time. Service 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical 
habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations 
exist--(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical 
habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
    As discussed under Factors B in ``Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species'' overutilization has been documented and threatens both plant 
species. The publication of precise maps and descriptions of critical 
habitat in the Federal Register would make these plants more vulnerable 
to incidents of collection and, therefore, could contribute to the 
decline of these species and increase enforcement problems. The listing 
of these species as endangered also publicizes the rarity of these 
plants and, thus, can make these plants attractive to researchers or 
collectors of rare plants.
    Furthermore, critical habitat designation for Delphinium bakeri and 
Delphinium luteum is not prudent due to lack of benefit. Because the 
two plant species are limited to a few locations entirely on private 
land, any action that would adversely modify critical habitat also 
would jeopardize the species. The designation of critical habitat 
therefore would not provide additional benefit for these species beyond 
the protection afforded by listing.
    Protection of the habitat of these species will be addressed 
through the recovery process and through section 7. The Service 
believes that Federal involvement in the areas where these plants occur 
can be identified without the designation of critical habitat. For the 
reasons discussed above, the Service finds that the designation of 
critical habitat for these plants is not prudent at this time.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Endangered Species Act include recognition, 
recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions 
against certain activities. Recognition through listing results in 
public awareness and conservation actions by Federal, State, and local 
agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for 
possible land acquisition and cooperation with the State and requires 
that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The 
protection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against 
certain activities involving listed plants are discussed, in part, 
below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the 
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed 
subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency 
must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    Listing these two plants would provide for development of a 
recovery plan (or plans) for them. Such plan(s) would bring together 
both State and Federal efforts for conservation of the plants. The 
plan(s) would establish a framework for agencies to coordinate 
activities and cooperate with each other in conservation efforts. The 
plan(s) would set recovery priorities and estimate costs of various 
tasks necessary to accomplish them. It also would describe site-
specific management actions necessary to achieve conservation and 
survival of the two plants. Additionally, pursuant to section 6 of the 
Act, the Service would be able to grant funds to affected states for 
management actions promoting the protection and recovery of these 
species.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
plants. All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 
50 CFR 17.61 for endangered plants, apply. These prohibitions, in part, 
make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign 
commerce in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale 
in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and reduce to possession 
from areas under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for plants listed 
as endangered, the act prohibits malicious damage or destruction on 
areas under Federal jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting, digging up, 
or damaging or destroying of such plants in knowing violation of any 
State law or regulation, including state criminal trespass law. Certain 
exceptions to the prohibitions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies.
    It is the policy of the Service (59 FR 34272) to identify to the 
maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed those 
activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 
of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness 
of the effect of the listing on proposed and ongoing activities within 
a species' range. None of the occurrences of the two species occur on 
public (Federal) lands. Collection, damage or destruction of these 
species on Federal lands is prohibited, although in appropriate cases a 
Federal endangered species permit may be issued to allow collection for 
scientific or recovery purposes. Such activities on non-Federal lands 
would constitute a violation of section 9 if conducted in knowing 
violation of California State law or regulations or in violation of 
State criminal trespass law.
    Activities that are unlikely to violate section 9 include livestock 
grazing, clearing a defensible space for fire protection around one's 
personal residence, and landscaping (including irrigation), around 
one's personal

[[Page 33387]]

residence. Questions regarding whether specific activities will 
constitute a violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field 
Supervisor of the Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63 for endangered plants, and also 
provide for the issuance of permits to carry out otherwise prohibited 
activities involving endangered or threatened plants under certain 
circumstances. Such permits are available for scientific purposes and 
to enhance the propagation or survival or the species. For threatened 
plants, permits also are available for botanical or horticultural 
exhibition, educational purposes, or special purposes consistent with 
the purposes of the Act. It is anticipated few trade permits would ever 
be sought or issued for the three species because the species are not 
common in cultivation or in the wild. Requests for copies of the 
regulations regarding listed species and inquiries regarding 
prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Endangered Species Permits, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, 
Oregon 97232-4181 (phone 503/231-2063, facsimile 503/231-6243).

Public Comments Solicited

    The Service intends that any final action resulting from this 
proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, 
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. The Service 
will follow its current peer review policy (59 FR 34270) in the 
processing of this rule. Comments particularly are sought concerning:
    (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threat (or lack thereof) to Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum;
    (2) The location of any additional populations of these species and 
the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be 
critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;
    (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and 
population size of these species; and
    (4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their 
possible impacts on these species.
    Any final decision on this proposal will take into consideration 
the comments and any additional information received by the Service, 
and such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs 
from this proposal.
    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of 
publication of the proposal. Such requests must be made in writing and 
addressed to the Field Supervisor, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Sacramento Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1803, Sacramento, CA 95825-
1846.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental 
Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection 
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice 
outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in 
the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

    The Service has examined this regulation under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to contain no information collection 
requirements.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section).
    Author: The primary author of this proposed rule is Kirsten Tarp, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES 
section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17, 
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 17.12(h) is amended by adding the following, in 
alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Plants to read as follows:


Sec. 17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (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
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 33388]]

    Dated: April 28, 1997.
John G. Rogers,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-15927 Filed 6-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U