[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54791-54808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27924]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AD36


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Status for Nine Plants From the Grasslands or Mesic Areas of 
the Central Coast of California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines 
endangered status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) for nine plants: Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis 
(Sonoma alopecurus), Astragalus clarianus (Clara Hunt's milk-vetch), 
Carex albida (white sedge), Clarkia imbricata (Vine Hill clarkia), 
Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense (Pitkin Marsh lily), Plagiobothrys 
strictus (Calistoga allocarya), Poa napensis (Napa bluegrass), Sidalcea 
oregana ssp. valida (Kenwood Marsh checker-mallow), and Trifolium 
amoenum (showy Indian clover). These nine species grow in a variety of 
habitats including valley grasslands, meadows, freshwater marshes, 
seeps, and blue oak woodlands in Marin, Napa, and Sonoma Counties on 
the central coast of California. Habitat loss and degradation, 
competition from invasive plant species, elimination through plant 
community succession, trampling and herbivory by livestock and 
wildlife, collection for horticultural use, and hydrological 
alterations to wetland areas threaten the continued existence of these 
plants. This rule implements Federal protection and recovery provisions 
afforded by the Act for these nine species.

DATES: Effective November 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the 
Sacramento Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3310 El Camino 
Avenue, Suite 130, Sacramento, California 95821-6340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Elam or David Wright, Sacramento 
Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 916/979-2120; facsimile 
916/979-2128).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Populations of the nine plant species in this rule are found in 
Sonoma, Marin, and Napa Counties, California. Astragalus clarianus 
(Clara Hunt's milk-vetch), Plagiobothrys strictus (Calistoga 
allocarya), and Poa napensis (Napa bluegrass) are found up to 70 
kilometers (km) (32 miles (mi)) inland in a variety of habitats near 
the City of Calistoga in the Napa Valley, California. Alopecurus 
aequalis var. sonomensis (Sonoma alopecurus), Carex albida (white 
sedge), Clarkia imbricata (Vine Hill clarkia), Lilium pardalinum ssp. 
pitkinense (Pitkin Marsh lily), Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida (Kenwood 
Marsh checker-mallow), and Trifolium amoenum

[[Page 54792]]

(showy Indian clover) are found in mesic areas mostly within 33 km (15 
mi) of the central coast of California. Urbanization, road 
construction, airport construction, development of hot springs into 
commercial resorts, agricultural land conversion, hydrological 
alteration of wetlands, waste disposal, competition with invasive plant 
species, collection for horticultural use, or livestock grazing have 
eliminated or adversely impacted much of the habitat and have 
extirpated numerous populations of these plant species. Historically, 
these species have not been known to occur outside of Alameda, Marin, 
Mendocino, Napa, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.
    Willis Jepson (1925a) first described Astragalus clarianus in 1909 
from specimens collected by Clara Hunt in the Conn Valley near St. 
Helena, Napa County, California. Axel Rydberg (1929) and Jepson (1936) 
later treated this taxon as Hamosa clariana and Astragalus rattani var. 
clarianus, respectively. Rupert Barneby (1950) reestablished Astragalus 
clarianus as a full species, a treatment retained by Spellenberg 
(1993). Astragalus clarianus is a low-growing annual herb in the pea 
family (Fabaceae). It is a slender, sparsely leafed plant, sparingly 
covered with sharp, stiff, appressed hairs. The simple single or few 
basally branching, stems ascend 7 to 20 centimeters (cm) (3 to 8 inches 
(in)) in height. The leaves are alternate, 1.5 to 6.0 cm (0.5 to 2.5 
in) long, with 5 to 9 uncrowded leaflets 2 to 10 millimeters (mm) (0.1 
to 0.4 in) long. The leaflets are oblong to obovate, narrow at the 
base, and notched at the tip. Small flowers appear from March through 
April. The petals are bicolored, with the wings whitish and the banner 
and keel purple in the upper third. The keel is longer and wider than 
the wings. The horizontal to declining seed pods are narrow, linear, 
slightly curved, pointed at both ends, and are borne on a 1.5 to 2.5 mm 
(0.06 to 0.10 in) long slender stalk. Astragalus rattanii var. 
jepsonianus resembles A. clarianus, but grows 10 to 36 cm (4 to 14 in) 
tall, has larger flowers, and has seed pods that are not elevated on a 
stalk.
    Astragalus clarianus is found on thin, rocky clay soils derived 
from volcanic or serpentine substrates (Joe Callizo, California Native 
Plant Society (CNPS), in litt. 1996; Jake Ruygt, CNPS, Napa Valley 
Chapter, pers. comm. 1996, public hearing transcript) in grasslands and 
openings in whiteleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita)-blue oak 
(Quercus douglasii) woodlands (Liston 1990) over an elevation range of 
75 to 225 meters (m) (240 to 840 feet (ft)). Six historical occurrences 
were known from Napa and Sonoma counties. Two of these occurrences were 
extirpated by urbanization and viticulture (California Natural 
Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) 1996). Of the remaining four occurrences, 
three are found in northwestern Napa County and one occurs in adjacent 
Sonoma County. These four disjunct occurrences are restricted to about 
28 hectares (ha) (70 acres (ac)) (CNDDB 1996). The trend for Clara 
Hunt's milk-vetch is one of decline as a result of habitat destruction 
and modification (California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1991). 
Extant populations of A. clarianus are variously threatened by 
urbanization, recreational activities, airport maintenance, elimination 
due to plant community succession, competition from invasive weeds, a 
proposed water storage project, and random events. Populations occur on 
private, State, and municipal land.
    Edward Greene (1892) and Jepson (Abrams ex Jepson 1951) treated 
Plagiobothrys strictus as Allocarya stricta and Allocarya californica 
var. stricta, respectively, before Ivan Johnston (1923) assigned the 
name, Plagiobothrys strictus, to specimens collected on alkaline flats 
near sulphur springs at Calistoga, Napa County, California. This 
treatment was retained by Messick (1993). Plagiobothrys strictus is a 
small, erect, annual herb belonging to the borage family 
(Boraginaceae). It grows 1 to 4 decimeters (dm) (4 to 15 in) in height. 
The nearly hairless plant has either a single stem or branches from 
near the base. The linear lower leaves are 4 to 9 cm (1.5 to 4 in) 
long. Small, usually paired, white flowers appear in March to April in 
a slender, unbranched inflorescence. The fruit is an egg-shaped nutlet 
about 1.5 mm (0.6 in) long, keeled on the back, with wart-like 
projections without any prickles. Plagiobothrys greenei, P. 
lithocaryus, P. mollis var. vestitus, P. stipitatus, and P. tener have 
ranges that overlap with that of Plagiobothrys strictus and occur in 
similar habitats, but they do not resemble P. strictus and have not 
been found at the known P. strictus sites (J. Callizo, in litt. 1996).
    Plagiobothrys strictus is found in pools and swales adjacent to and 
fed by hot springs and small geysers in grasslands within an elevation 
range of 90 to 160 m (300 to 500 ft). Three historical populations 
occurred within a 3 km (2 mi) radius of Calistoga, Napa County, 
California. One population was extirpated by urbanization and 
agricultural land conversion. Of the two remaining populations of P. 
strictus, one occurs near a geyser and some undeveloped thermal hot 
springs while the other occurs at the airport in the city of Calistoga. 
The combined area of the two remaining populations is less than 80 
square meters (m2) (900 square feet (ft2)) (CNPS 
1990). The overall trend for Calistoga allocarya (Plagiobothrys 
strictus) is one of decline (CDFG 1991). The species is threatened by 
recreational activities, airport maintenance, urbanization, and random 
events. Both populations are on private land and neither is protected.
    Alan Beetle first described Poa napensis in 1946 from specimens 
that he collected in a meadow moistened by seepage from hot springs, 3 
km (2 mi) north of Calistoga at Myrtledale Hot Springs, Napa County, 
California. This treatment was retained by Soreng (1993). Poa napensis 
is an erect, tufted perennial bunchgrass in the grass family (Poaceae) 
that grows to 1 dm (4 in) in height. Leaves are folded, stiffly erect, 
1 mm (0.04 in) wide, with the basal leaves 20 cm (8 in) long and upper 
stem leaves to 15 cm (6 in) in length. A few stiff, erect flowering 
stems appear in May and grow 7 dm (27 in) in height. Flower clusters 
occur as a pale green to purple, condensed, oblong-oval panicle 10 to 
15 cm (4 to 6 in) long and 2 to 5 cm (0.8 to 2.0 in) wide. Poa napensis 
most closely resembles P. unilateralis (ocean bluff bluegrass), but 
differs in leaf and panicle form and habitat.
    Poa napensis is found in grasslands and moist, alkaline meadows fed 
by hot springs. The elevation range of this plant is 100 to 120 m (340 
to 400 ft) within a radius of 6 km (4 mi) of Calistoga. Historically, 
the range of this plant has been diminished by the development of 
recreational hot springs and the growth of the town of Calistoga. Only 
two populations of the species are known to exist, one near Myrtledale 
Hot Springs which is restricted to a 100 m2 (1,100 
ft2) area, and a second smaller population of 100 plants 
nearby (CDFG 1979). Both populations of P. napensis depend on moisture 
from adjacent hot springs or surface runoff. Any action that would 
alter the hydrology or flow from these hot springs would be detrimental 
to these populations (CDFG 1979). The trend for Napa bluegrass is one 
of decline (CDFG 1991). Poa napensis is threatened by recreational 
activities, airport maintenance, urbanization, and random events (CNPS 
1987, 1990; J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993; J. Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996). Both 
extant populations are located on private land and are not protected.
    Peter Rubtzoff (1961) described Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis 
based on a specimen collected in 1955

[[Page 54793]]

in Guerneville Marsh, Sonoma County, California. Specimens assignable 
to this taxon were collected as early as 1880 in Sonoma and Marin 
counties, but had been identified as Alopecurus aequalis Sobol., a 
circumboreal foxtail grass found as far south as adjacent Mendocino 
County. These specimens, however, deviated considerably from typical A. 
aequalis and were identified by Rubtzoff as A. aequalis var. 
sonomensis. Although William Crins (1993) only referred to this variety 
in passing in a discussion of the species, its varietal status 
adequately reflects its morphological and ecological attributes and it 
is considered to be a distinct variety (William Crins, Ontario Ministry 
of Natural Resources, in litt. 1993).
    Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis is a tufted perennial in the 
grass family (Poaceae) that reaches 30 to 75 cm (12 to 30 in) in 
height. The stems are mostly erect and either straight or weakly bent 
near the base. The leaf blades are up to 7.5 mm (0.3 in) wide. The 
panicle is 2.5 to 9.0 cm (1.0 to 3.5 in) long and 4 to 8 mm (0.1 to 0.3 
in) wide. The spikelets are usually tinged violet-gray near the tip. 
The awn (bristlelike part) is straight, and exceeds the lemma body by 
1.0 to 2.5 mm (0.04 to 0.1 in). This variety is distinguished from A. 
aequalis var. aequalis by its more robust, upright appearance, 
generally wider panicle, violet-gray tinged spikelets, and longer awn 
(Rubtzoff 1961; William Crins, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 
in litt. 1993).
    When the proposed rule was written, Alopecurus aequalis var. 
sonomensis was known from five natural populations. Three of the sites, 
in Sonoma County, were privately owned, and two sites were on Federal 
land within Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) in Marin County (CNDDB 
1993; Virginia Norris, CNPS, Marin Chapter, in litt. 1993). Three more 
natural sites in Marin County have since been identified. Two are on 
Federal land within PRNS, and the third is a private inholding within 
the PRNS (CNDDB 1996; V. Norris, in litt. 1995; Robert Soost, CNPS, 
Marin Chapter, in litt. 1996). One of the newly discovered populations 
was initially thought to be the result of seeds washed down from a 
reintroduced population, but it is now considered a natural population 
(V. Norris, in litt. 1995). All populations occur in moist soils in 
permanent freshwater marshes between 6 and 210 m (20 and 680 ft) in 
elevation.
    Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis was known historically from 16 
populations. The historical range of the taxon was approximately 48 km 
(30 mi), extending north from Point Reyes Peninsula to Guerneville and 
east to Cunningham. Although fewer sites are now present, the range of 
the species has changed little. The numbers of populations of this 
species are declining due to competition from invasive plant species, 
trampling and grazing by cattle, and low reproductive success. Three 
attempts to reintroduce the species in the PRNS have failed (CNDDB 
1996; V. Norris, in litt. 1995). The proposed rule, published August 2, 
1995 (60 FR 39314), stated that one attempt was destroyed by a flash 
flood in 1993. It is now thought that the affected population was a 
natural population and not a reintroduction. This population 
reestablished and contained 15 plants in 1994 and 13 in 1995 (V. 
Norris, in litt. 1995).
    The number of individuals in populations of Alopecurus aequalis 
var. sonomensis may fluctuate markedly between years. The largest 
population recorded in recent years was about 600 plants in 1995; this 
population dropped to about 100 plants in 1996 (V. Norris, in litt. 
1995; R. Soost, in litt. 1996). A population in Sonoma County reported 
to have 150 individuals in 1987 had dropped to only 4 plants by 1994 
(V. Norris, in litt. 1995). Most often, populations of A. aequalis ssp. 
sonomensis have about 100 or fewer individuals (CNDDB 1996).
    Liberty Bailey (1889) described Carex albida based on a specimen 
collected by John Bigelow in 1854 on Santa Rosa Creek, Sonoma County, 
California. Specimens of the plant collected by John T. Howell and John 
W. Stacey in 1937 were described as C. sonomensis (Stacey 1937), but 
Howell (1957) later stated that the type specimen of C. albida had been 
misinterpreted by Stacey and others and that C. sonomensis is a synonym 
of C. albida. Howell's interpretation continues to be accepted 
(Mastrogiuseppe 1993).
    Carex albida is a loosely tufted perennial herb in the sedge family 
(Cyperaceae). The stems are triangular, 4 to 6 dm (1.3 to 2.0 ft) tall, 
erect, and longer than the leaves. The leaves are flat and 3 to 5 cm (1 
to 2 in) wide with closed sheaths. The inflorescence consists of 4 to 7 
ovoid or obovoid to oblong spikelets 8 to 18 mm (0.3 to 0.7 in) long. 
The achenes (fruits) are three-sided when mature. The sacs (perigynia) 
surrounding the achenes are light green to yellow-green when mature and 
3.0 to 4.5 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in) long. Several traits distinguish C. 
albida from other closely related sedges. Carex albida has 
inflorescences with staminate flowers above the pistillate flowers, 
especially on the terminal inflorescence, lateral spikelets, and leaves 
that are shorter than the stems and 3 to 5 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in) wide. 
Some individuals of Carex lemmonii resemble C. albida, but differ in 
perigynia and fruit size, or in other respects.
    Carex albida was thought to be extinct but is now known from a 
single population discovered in 1987. Carex albida was known 
historically from four other locations including the type locality on 
Santa Rosa Creek and three additional populations in two marshes, all 
in Sonoma County. The marsh containing C. albida at the Santa Rosa 
Creek site was destroyed in the 1960's by channelization and other 
alterations to Santa Rosa Creek (Betty Guggolz, CNPS, Milo Baker 
Chapter, in litt. 1993). A second marsh has been used for cannery waste 
disposal since 1971, causing the probable loss of the population (CNDDB 
1996). At the third marsh, one of the two historical populations has 
not been seen since 1951. Access to the other population has been 
denied by the landowner, and the presence of the plant has not been 
confirmed since 1976. This marsh has become drier in recent years 
because the addition of wells and other construction has altered the 
marsh hydrology, and it likely no longer supports the species (B. 
Guggolz, in litt. 1993).
    The only extant population of C. albida is found in a sphagnum bog, 
between 45 and 60 m (150 and 200 ft) in elevation. The population 
contains about 1,000 plants and occurs on private property in Sonoma 
County (CDFG 1993a, CNDDB 1996). Carex albida is threatened by 
potential alteration of hydrology from changes in land use or potential 
disturbance from a proposed wastewater treatment project, competition 
from invasive species, potential disturbance from repair or alteration 
of a nearby state highway, and random events.
    F. Harlan Lewis and Margaret Lewis (1953) described Clarkia 
imbricata from specimens they collected on July 10, 1951, along Vine 
Hill Road, Sonoma County. This treatment continues to be accepted 
(Lewis 1993). Clarkia imbricata is an erect, annual herb in the 
evening-primrose family (Onagraceae). The stems grow to 6 dm (2.5 ft) 
tall, unbranched or with numerous short branches in the upper parts. 
This plant is densely leafy, with entire, lanceolate leaves 2.0 to 2.5 
cm (0.8 to 1.0 in) long and 4 to 7 mm (0.2 to 0.3 in) broad that are 
ascending and overlapping. The showy inflorescences appear from June 
through July. The flowers are grouped closely together and each flower 
has a conspicuous funnel-shaped tube at its base. Each flower has four 
fan-shaped, lavender petals 2.0 to 2.5 cm (0.8 to 1.0

[[Page 54794]]

in) long with a V-shaped purple spot extending from the middle to the 
upper margin of the petal. Clarkia purpurea ssp. viminea is the only 
other Clarkia taxon with which C. imbricata can be confused. Clarkia 
purpurea ssp. viminea has a much shorter, funnel-shaped tube and does 
not have the relatively broad, ascending, overlapping leaves of C. 
imbricata.
    Clarkia imbricata has never been known to be common. Unsuccessful 
searches for this plant at its type locality have been made since 1974 
(B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993). This taxon is only known from two 
populations, one natural and one planted in a preserve, found in sandy 
grasslands in Sonoma County. The natural population was the source for 
cuttings that were transplanted into the 0.6 ha (1.5 ac) preserve in 
1974. The two populations are 1.2 km (0.75 mi) apart, have an elevation 
range of 60 to 75 m (200 to 250 ft), and occur on private land. The 
natural population contains 2,000 to 5,000 plants and occurs on an 
open, flat grassland surrounded by a variety of introduced trees and 
shrubs. The planted population, located in a preserve owned and managed 
by the CNPS, has fluctuated between 200 and 300 plants. Plants have 
recently expanded onto an adjacent parcel of private land to the east, 
where 70 to 100 plants were found in 1993. The planted population is 
threatened by damage associated with trespassers collecting other rare 
plants found in the preserve, while the natural population is at risk 
due to proposed land use conversion (B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993). Both 
populations are also susceptible to adverse impacts from random events.
    Lawrence Beane and Albert M. Vollmer first collected Lilium 
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense on July 20, 1954, in Sonoma County, 
California. Beane (1955) described the plant as Lilium pitkinense. Mark 
Skinner (1993) subsequently treated the plant as a subspecies of L. 
pardalinum.
    Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense is an herbaceous, rhizomatous 
(underground stem) perennial in the lily family (Liliaceae). The 
slender, erect stems reach 1 to 2 m (3 to 6 ft) in height. Leaves are 
yellow-green, up to 14 cm (5.5 in) long, and 1 to 2 cm (0.4 to 0.8 in) 
wide. The leaves are generally scattered along the stem, but in some 
plants occur in 2 or 3 whorls of 3 to 6 leaves near the middle of the 
stem. The inflorescence is a terminal raceme. The flowers are large, 
showy, and nodding. The petals, which are reflexed from the middle, are 
red at the outer edge changing to yellow at the center with small, deep 
maroon dots mostly within the yellow zone. Anthers (pollen-bearing part 
of the stamen) are purple-brown. The fruit is an elliptical capsule 
containing many rounded seeds (CDFG 1993b). The species flowers from 
June to July. Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense is distinguished from 
L. pardalinum ssp. pardalinum by generally shorter petals and anthers.
    Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense grows only in permanently 
saturated, sandy soils in freshwater marshes and wet meadows that are 
35 to 60 m (115 to 200 ft) in elevation. Only three populations of L. 
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense at two sites were recorded historically. All 
three populations are on private land within a distance of 13 km (8 mi) 
in Sonoma County. Access to one of the sites has been denied by the 
landowner since 1975 (CNPS 1988a). As a result, the status of this 
population has not been confirmed, but it is presumed to be extant. Two 
populations occur at a second site. The size of these populations has 
declined due to loss of habitat from urbanization and competition with 
blackberries (Rubus spp.) (CDFG 1993b). About 300 individual plants 
remain on these two sites (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996). Collection of 
plants, seeds, and bulbs for horticultural use, competition from 
invasive plant species, potential disturbance from a proposed 
subdivision, trampling and herbivory by livestock and wildlife and 
random events threaten this species (Lynn Lozier, The Nature 
Conservancy (TNC), in litt. 1990; CDFG 1993b; B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 
1993, 1996).
    Edward L. Greene (1897) first described Sidalcea oregana ssp. 
valida in June, 1894, based on material he collected from Knight's 
Valley, Sonoma County, California. Since then, this taxon has been 
known as S. maxima (Baker), S. oregana var. spicata (Jepson), S. eximia 
(Baker) and S. spicata ssp. valida (Wiggins) (CNPS 1988b). C. L. 
Hitchcock (1957) studied the genus Sidalcea and recognized four 
subspecies, including S. oregana ssp. valida, a treatment accepted by 
Steven Hill (1993).
    Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida is a perennial herb in the mallow 
family (Malvaceae). The plants are 1 to 2 m (3 to 6 ft) tall. The 
leaves are rounded. Lower leaves have 5 to 7 shallow lobes; upper 
leaves are generally smaller and divided into 3 to 5 entire, lanceolate 
segments. The compound inflorescence consists of densely flowered, 
spike-like racemes 2 to 5 cm (0.8 to 2.0 in) long. Petals are 1.0 to 
1.5 cm (0.4 to 0.6 in) long, notched at the apex, and deep pink-mauve. 
The flowers appear from late June to September. Sidalcea oregana ssp. 
valida differs from S. oregana ssp. eximia in having a hairless calyx.
    Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida has never been recorded as abundant 
and only two occurrences are known. These occurrences are about 29 km 
(18 mi) apart in Sonoma County, California. Both are on private land. 
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida inhabits freshwater marshes approximately 
150 m (490 ft) in elevation. One population covers less than 0.1 ha 
(0.25 ac), and was reported to have fewer than 100 plants in 1979 (CDFG 
1987) and approximately 60 plants in 1993 (Nick Wilcox, State Water 
Resources Control Board, pers. comm. 1993). The other population 
contained approximately 70 individuals in 1993 (Ann Howald, CDFG, pers. 
comm. 1993). Both populations are adversely affected by trampling and 
reduced seed set resulting from cattle grazing (CNPS 1988b). The 
potential alteration of the hydrology of one site due to urbanization 
and water withdrawal poses a threat to the species (A. Howald, pers. 
comm. 1993). The plants may also suffer from competition by common tule 
(Scirpus acutus) and yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and 
from periodic maintenance of a local aqueduct located in the marsh (A. 
Howald, pers. comm. 1993). This species is also susceptible to adverse 
impacts from random events.
    Edward L. Greene (1891) described Trifolium amoenum from specimens 
that he collected near Vanden, Solano County, California, in 1890. This 
treatment was retained by Duane Isely (1993). Historically, this 
species has been found in a variety of habitats including low, wet 
swales, grasslands, and grassy hillsides up to 310 m (1,020 ft) in 
elevation. This annual plant, which is a member of the pea family 
(Fabaceae), is hairy, erect, and grows to 1 to 6 dm (4 to 27 in) in 
height. The leaves are pinnately compound, widely obovate, and 2 to 3 
cm (0.8 to 1.2 in) long. The flowers, which are purple with white tips, 
are 12 to 16 mm (0.5 to 0.6 in) long and occur in dense, round or ovoid 
heads, 2 to 3 cm (0.8 to 1.2 in) long. Flowers appear from April to 
June. Trifolium amoenum is similar in appearance to T. macraei, but is 
generally larger and the flowers lack subtending bracts.
    The historical range of Trifolium amoenum was from the western edge 
of the Sacramento Valley in Solano County, west and north to Marin and 
Sonoma counties, where many sites were presumed extirpated by urban and 
agricultural development (CNPS 1977). Until 1993, Trifolium amoenum was 
considered extinct. However, one

[[Page 54795]]

locality was discovered in 1993 and a second in 1996. In 1993, Peter 
Connors, Bodega Marine Laboratory, discovered a single Trifolium 
amoenum plant in Sonoma County. The land on which this plant was found 
is private (CNDDB 1996), and at the time of writing of the proposed 
rule the land was for sale (Peter Connors, Bodega Marine Laboratory, 
pers. comm. 1994). No plants were found at the site in 1994 or 1995, 
and the site has now been developed (P. Connors, pers. comm. 1996). The 
only known extant population of T. amoenum is that found in 1996. This 
population consists of about 200 plants growing on two residential lots 
in Marin County. One lot has a house on it, and a house is being built 
on the other; both landowners are currently cooperating in the 
conservation of the species on their property (P. Connors, pers. comm. 
1996).
    In 1994, Dr. Connors grew 18 plants in cultivation from seed 
produced by the single plant found in 1993 (Connors 1994). These plants 
were grown to produce seed for later reintroduction efforts (P. 
Connors, pers. comm. 1994); the seed is expected to be viable for 
decades (P. Connors, pers. comm. 1996). Should additional T. amoenum be 
found, these populations would likely be threatened by urbanization, 
competition with invasive plants, land conversion to agriculture, 
livestock grazing, and random events.

Previous Federal Action

    Federal government actions on these nine species began as a result 
of section 12 of the Act 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 Astragalus clarianus, Carex 
albida, Clarkia imbricata, Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense (as L. 
pitkinense), Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, and Trifolium 
amoenum as endangered and Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida as threatened. 
The Service published a notice in the July 1, 1975, Federal Register 
(40 FR 27823) of its acceptance of the report of the Smithsonian 
Institution as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) 
(petition provisions are now found in section 4(b)(3) of the Act) and 
of its intent to review the status of the plant taxa named therein. The 
above eight taxa were included in the July 1, 1975, notice. On June 16, 
1976, the Service published a proposal in the Federal Register (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. 
Astragalus clarianus, Carex albida, Clarkia imbricata, Lilium 
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, Poa napensis, and Trifolium amoenum 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, Federal Register publication (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, Federal Register (44 FR 70796), the Service published a 
notice of withdrawal of the June 16, 1976, proposal, along with four 
other proposals that had expired.
    The Service published a Notice of Review for plants in the Federal 
Register on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This notice included 
Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis, Astragalus clarianus, Carex 
albida, Clarkia imbricata, Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, 
Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida, and 
Trifolium amoenum as a Candidate species. On November 28, 1983, the 
Service published a supplement to the Notice of Review (48 FR 53640). 
This supplement changed Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis, Astragalus 
clarianus, Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, Sidalcea oregana ssp. 
valida, and Trifolium amoenum to category 2. At that time, category 2 
taxa were those being considered for possible addition to the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Designation of category 2 
species was discontinued in the February 28, 1996, Federal Register 
notice (61 FR 7596).
    The plant notice was revised again on September 27, 1985 (50 FR 
39526). The candidate status of eight of the plant species remained 
unchanged in this notice. Trifolium amoenum was indicated as being 
possibly extinct. Another revision of the plant notice was published on 
February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184). In this revision, Astragalus clarianus, 
Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, and Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida 
were designated as Candidates. The Service made no changes to the 
status of any of the nine species in the plant notice published on 
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144). The Service approved Candidate status 
for Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis on August 26, 1993. However, 
the status change was inadvertently not published in the plant notice 
published on September 30, 1993. After the publication of that notice, 
the Service received information that Trifolium amoenum had been 
rediscovered (Connors 1994).
    In the August 2, 1995, Federal Register, the Service published a 
proposed rule to list the nine plant species as endangered, and invited 
public comment (60 FR 39314). Processing of the proposed rule was 
delayed by a congressional moratorium on activities associated with 
final listings from April 10, 1995, through April 26, 1996. After the 
moratorium was lifted, the Service reopened the comment period and 
scheduled a public hearing on September 11, 1996 (61 FR 47856).
    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to make 
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 Astragalus clarianus, 
Carex albida, Clarkia imbricata, Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, 
Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida, and 
Trifolium amoenum because the 1975 Smithsonian report had been accepted 
as a petition. The Service found that the petitioned listing of those 
eight species was warranted but precluded by other higher priority 
listing actions. This finding was reviewed annually in October from 
1983 through 1994. Publication of the proposed rule on August 2, 1995 
(60 FR 39314), constituted the final finding for the petitioned action 
for these species.
    The processing of this final listing rule conforms with the 
Service's final listing priority guidance made final on December 5, 
1996 (61 FR 64475). The guidance clarifies the order in which the 
Service will process rulemakings following two related events, the 
lifting, on April 26, 1996, of the moratorium on final listings imposed 
on April 10, 1995 (Pub. L. 104-6) and the restoration of significant 
funding for listing through passage of the omnibus budget 
reconciliation law on April 26, 1996, following severe funding 
constraints imposed by a number of continuing resolutions between 
November 1995 and April 1996. The guidance calls for giving highest 
priority to handling

[[Page 54796]]

emergency situations (Tier 1) and second highest priority (Tier 2) to 
resolving the status of proposed listings. A lower priority is assigned 
to resolving the conservation status of candidate species and 
processing administrative findings on petitions to add species to the 
lists or reclassify species from threatened to endangered status (Tier 
3). The lowest priority actions are in Tier 4, a category which 
includes processing critical habitat determinations, delistings, or 
other types of reclassifications. Processing of this final rule is Tier 
2 action.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the August 2, 1995, proposed rule and associated notifications, 
all interested parties were requested to submit factual reports or 
information that would contribute to the development of a final 
determination on the proposed listing. A 65-day comment period closed 
on October 9, 1995. Appropriate Federal and State agencies, county and 
city governments, scientists, and interested parties were contacted and 
requested to comment. The Service published notices in the Marin 
Independent Journal, Mill Valley Pacific Sun, Santa Rosa Press 
Democrat, Ross Valley Reporter, San Francisco Chronicle and San 
Francisco Examiner on August 9, 1995, in the Napa Register on August 
10, 1995, and in the Napa County Record and Petaluma Argus-Courier on 
August 11, 1995, inviting general public comment. In response to the 
publication of the proposed rule, the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, Santa 
Rosa, California, requested a public hearing in one of 2 letters each 
dated August 28, 1995.
    Following the lifting of the listing moratorium, the comment period 
was reopened on September 11, 1996, for 35 days, closing on October 15, 
1996. Upon the reopening of the comment period, the Service again 
contacted interested parties, and published notices--in the Petaluma 
Argus-Courier on September 17, 1996, in the Marin Scope and Mill Valley 
Pacific Sun on September 18, 1996, and in the Marin Independent 
Journal, Napa Register, and Santa Rosa Press Democrat on September 19, 
1996--inviting general public comment and announcing the scheduling of 
a public hearing. A public hearing was held at the Best Western Novato 
Oaks Inn in Novato, California, on October 3, 1996. The hearing was 
attended by approximately 20 people, of whom nine presented oral or 
written testimony.
    In accordance with Service peer review policy published on July 1, 
1994, (59 FR 34270), the Service sent copies of the proposed rule to 
one ecologist who works for a university, two plant ecologists who work 
for State agencies, eight university professors who are species 
experts, and six other species experts. The Service received one 
response, from a species expert. The comments received in this response 
did not contain any new information substantive to the listing 
determination. The remaining reviewers did not respond to the Service.
    In total, 24 individuals, groups, or agencies submitted comments, 
including the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the 
California Native Plant Society (CNPS), the Marin and the Sonoma County 
Farm Bureaus, the California Cattlemen's Association, and the 
Washington Legal Foundation. Several individuals commented more than 
once. Nine commenters supported the proposed action, eight opposed it 
or expressed reservations, and seven did not state a position. Several 
commenters provided corrections or updated information regarding one or 
more of the species proposed for listing. The Service has incorporated 
into the final rule any verifiable new information that is substantive 
to the listing decision.
    Written comments and oral statements presented at the public 
hearing and received during the comment periods are addressed in the 
following summary. Comments of a similar nature are grouped together 
into general issues. These issues and the Service's responses are 
presented below.
    Issue 1: Several commenters expressed concern that listing the 
plants would adversely affect the economies of Marin, Sonoma, and Napa 
counties, or requested the Service to consider possible economic 
impacts.
    Service Response: Under section 4(b)(1)(A), a listing determination 
must be based solely on the best scientific and commercial data 
available. The legislative history of this provision clearly states the 
intent of Congress to ``ensure'' that listing decisions are ``based 
solely on biological criteria and to prevent non-biological 
considerations from affecting such decisions,'' H. R. Rep. No. 97-835, 
97th Cong. 2d Sess. 19 (1982). As further stated in the legislative 
history, ``Applying economic criteria * * * to any phase of the species 
listing process is applying economics to the determinations made under 
section 4 of the Act and is specifically rejected by the inclusion of 
the word `solely' in this legislation,'' H.R. Rep. No. 97-835, 97th 
Cong. 2d Sess. 19 (1982). Because the Service is precluded from 
considering economic impacts in a final decision on a proposed listing, 
the Service has not examined such impacts.
    Issue 2: One commenter stated that the Service must complete a 
Taking Implications Assessment, as directed by Presidential Executive 
Order 12630, before issuing a final rule.
    Service Response: The Attorney General has issued guidelines to the 
Department of the Interior (Department) on implementing Executive Order 
12630: Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally 
Protected Property Rights. Under these guidelines, a special rule 
applies when an agency within the Department is required by law to act 
without exercising its usual discretion, that is, to act solely upon 
specified criteria that leave the agency no choice. In the present 
context, the Service's action might be subject to legal challenge if it 
considered or acted upon economic information in reaching a listing 
decision.
    In such cases, the Attorney General's guidelines state that Taking 
Implications Assessments (TIAs) shall be prepared after, rather than 
before, the agency makes the decision in which its discretion is 
restricted. The purpose of the TIAs in these special circumstances is 
to inform policy makers of areas where unavoidable taking exposures 
exist. Such TIAs must not be considered in the making of administrative 
decisions that must, by law, be made without regard to their economic 
impact. In enacting the Act, Congress required that listings be based 
solely on scientific and commercial data showing whether or not the 
species are in danger of extinction. Thus, by law and by U.S. Attorney 
General guidelines, the Service is forbidden to conduct TIAs prior to 
listing.
    Issue 3: Several commenters expressed concern that farmers and 
ranchers would be restricted in their everyday operations by listing of 
the nine plant species. One worried that farmers and ranchers would be 
subject to criminal prosecution for the accidental taking of these 
plants. Another suggested that compensation should be provided for land 
taken out of range production.
    Service Response: The Act does not restrict the taking of listed 
plants due to otherwise lawful private activities on private land. 
Listing the nine plants as endangered will not regulate farming or 
ranching operations, including cattle grazing, on private land. Other 
activities that do not violate the taking prohibitions of section 
9(a)(2) of the Act are discussed further under ``Conservation 
Measures.''

[[Page 54797]]

    Issue 4: Several commenters, including representatives of the 
California Cattlemen's Association, Sonoma-Marin Cattlemen's 
Association, and the Marin County Farm Bureau, stated that grazing is 
likely to be beneficial to the nine plant species, both as a land use 
alternative to urbanization and other land uses, and in reducing 
competition from other plant species, notably nonnative grasses. One 
commenter stated that there is no verifiable evidence of a relationship 
between grazing and these plants. Another said that because there is 
public debate about the effects of grazing on land and vegetation, 
little scientific basis exists for claims that grazing is a threat. One 
commenter asserted that the Service has a strong bias against all 
grazing.
    Service Response: Some degree of grazing by cattle and other 
animals is likely to be beneficial to some or all of the nine plant 
species addressed in this rule. Evidence that heavy grazing is a threat 
to some of the species, however, is discussed under Factor C. The 
Service is not opposed to grazing, and maintains that best grazing 
management practices are compatible with many natural resource 
objectives.
    Issue 5: Two commenters believed that listing would allow the 
Service or the California Department of Fish and Game to intrude upon 
private property to search for the listed plants.
    Service Response: Listing will have no such effect. The Act does 
not give any person or government agency the right to trespass.
    Issue 6: Several commenters requested an extension of the comment 
period beyond the second deadline of October 15, 1996. One member of 
the Marin County Farm Bureau stated that their organization had not had 
adequate time to notify their membership of the public hearing 
regarding the proposed rule. Other commenters requested additional 
hearings at more convenient places and times.
    Service Response: The Service believes that the comment period 
provided was adequate. The beginning of this section reviews the 
Service's efforts to notify the public of the proposed rule regarding 
these nine plants. In addition to publication in the Federal Register 
and public notices appearing in several local and regional newspapers, 
the Service mailed separate notifications of the public hearing to 
species experts, other individuals, and Federal, State, and county 
entities, including the Marin County Farm Bureau, on September 17, 
1996. The location and time of the public hearing was selected to be 
convenient to most citizens living around populations of the proposed 
plant species.
    Issue 7: One commenter, noting certain errors in the proposed rule 
and in a Service press release on the proposed listing, requested an 
additional public hearing after corrections had been made.
    Service Response: One purpose of the public comment period is to 
seek feedback on the accuracy of the information in the proposed rule; 
correction of errors in the rule does not mandate the re-opening of 
public comment. The inaccurate information in the Service's press 
release dealt only with consequences of any listing, not with 
information or procedures relevant to this listing determination.
    Issue 8: One commenter questioned whether all appropriate public 
land has been surveyed for the nine plant species, and whether the 
species can truly be listed as threatened by extinction without such 
surveys. She requested that the listing decision be postponed and the 
comment period be extended until such surveys have been conducted. 
Another commenter asserted that the Service lacks data supporting the 
likelihood of the purported threats to the species, and that the 
Service has discussed threats that do not exist. As examples, the 
commenter stated that the water level of Lake Hennessey has not been 
raised such that it completely inundates a population of Astragalus 
clarianus and that Carex albida is not grazed, yet the Service 
considers these threats.
    Service Response: The Act requires the Service to reach its 
decision based on the best scientific and commercial information 
available. The Service believes that botanical study of the appropriate 
habitats on public and private lands in Marin, Napa, Sonoma, and nearby 
counties has been adequate to show that the nine plants are indeed 
extremely rare. The threats to the species discussed under Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species are also based on the best information 
available, and are well documented or reasonably foreseeable. With 
respect to the assertion that the Service has identified threats that 
do not exist, threats, by general definition, are descriptions of 
events that have not yet taken place but that are likely to occur in 
the foreseeable future.
    Issue 9: One commenter argued it would be safer to engage in 
conservation actions without listing the nine plants, since listing 
could provoke malicious damage.
    Service Response: Factor D presents information about the 
inadequacy of existing protections for the nine plant species. 
Additional protections that they will receive as a result of listing 
are discussed under Available Conservation Measures. The Service 
believes that listing these nine species as endangered under the Act 
will significantly reduce the threats to their continued existence. 
Although real, the Service considers the risk of malicious damage to 
most of these plants to be relatively small, especially for the species 
that are inconspicuous. The degree of risk, however, will increase 
significantly if precise maps of the locations of these species were 
published. This aspect is discussed further in the Critical Habitat 
section.
    Issue 10: One commenter asserted that the Service has not given 
proper consideration to data provided by ranchers and other landowners, 
and that the Service gives much more weight to the information provided 
by California Native Plant Society volunteers. He further stated that 
references to grazing impacts in reports to the Natural Diversity 
Database maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game are 
inaccurate and biased and that the volunteers who submit these reports 
lack experience in range management or livestock behavior.
    Service Response: The Service considers all information received 
from all sources. No group's or individual's information receives 
``more weight'' than others. Information received from all sources was 
carefully evaluated in accordance with Service policy on information 
standards under the Act, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271). 
Criteria for what information may be considered are discussed in the 
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, and in the response to Issue 
1. The Service has checked all substantive information for accuracy, 
and believes that the information included in this rule is reliable and 
credible and represents the best scientific and commercial information 
available.
    Issue 11: One commenter, representing the California Cattlemen's 
Association, commented that it is very unlikely that grazing is a 
threat to Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, in part because livestock 
prefer dry areas to the bogs and marshes in which this plant grows.
    Service Response: Although cattle prefer dryer areas, they will 
enter and graze such wet areas, especially if forage in the surrounding 
dry areas is less attractive. Evidence of cattle and other herbivores 
grazing on Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, is discussed under Factor 
C.

[[Page 54798]]

    Issue 12: One commenter suggested that the nine plants may be 
naturally rare, and may nevertheless be thriving.
    Service Response: Decisions on listing plants and animals are based 
on the threats facing the species. A species may be determined to be 
endangered or threatened due to one or more of the five factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Evidence that the nine plants 
are in danger of extinction in all or significant portions of their 
ranges is discussed under Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.
    Issue 13: One commenter noted that the proposed rule claimed that 
habitat for Trifolium amoenum has been lost due to livestock grazing 
and called for the Service to recognize that livestock grazing does not 
permanently alter the landscape.
    Service Response: The final rule has been changed to clarify that 
proper grazing generally does not cause permanent habitat loss.
    Issue 14: Two commenters suggested that the observation in the 
proposed rule that a fenced population of Lilium pardalinum ssp. 
pitkinense continued to suffer from herbivory demonstrating that 
something other than domestic livestock is causing the damage.
    Service Response: The Service maintains that domestic livestock as 
well as other vertebrate and invertebrate herbivores are capable of 
damaging these plants (see Factor C and response to Issue 11).
    Issue 15: One commenter said that Alopecurus aequalis var. 
sonomensis and Trifolium amoenum might prove to have agricultural 
value, since both are palatable to cattle. Alopecurus aequalis var. 
sonomensis appears tolerant of some grazing, and T. amoenum might renew 
soil fertility and provide valuable forage if it could be grown in 
sufficient quantity. The commenter speculated that these species could 
be seeded to improve pastures.
    Service Response: The Service will evaluate these points as it 
plans and implements the recovery of these species.
    Issue 16: One commenter argued that passive preservation of 
individual species is ecologically unsound and will not ultimately 
protect biodiversity.
    Service Response: The Service notes that habitat protection helps 
conserve other species with similar habitat needs contributing to the 
biodiversity of the ecosystem. Some species require active management 
and the Service will address this in the recovery plan.
    Issue 17: One commenter asserted that policies calling for the 
removal of nonnative species are based on outdated science, that 
nonnative plants have increased the biodiversity of California's annual 
grasslands and that these alien species do not threaten the ecological 
community of grasslands.
    Service Response: The Service has extensive information and has 
received a large number of comments from farmers, ranchers, and 
scientists, indicating that competition from invasive plants, mostly of 
nonnative origin, has played a major role in the decline of several of 
the nine plant species and is a continuing and serious threat to most 
of them. This information is summarized under Factor E.
    Issue 18: One commenter stated that, under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Service must prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this rule.
    Service Response: For the reasons set out in the NEPA section of 
this document, the Service has determined that the rules issued under 
section 4(a) of the Act do not require the preparation of an EIS. 
Courts in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 829 (6th Circuit 
1981), held that an EIS is not required for listing under the Act. The 
Sixth Circuit decision noted that preparing an EIS on listing actions 
does not further the goals of NEPA or the Act.
    Issue 19: One commenter urged the Service, in the event of listing, 
to designate critical habitat for the nine plant species with a 
consideration of economic impacts of such designation required by law.
    Service Response: The Service has determined that the designation 
of critical habitat for these nine plant species is not prudent. Please 
refer to the ``Critical Habitat'' section of this rule for a detailed 
discussion of the critical habitat determination.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    After a thorough review and consideration of all information 
available, the Service has determined that Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. 
var. sonomensis Rubtzoff (Sonoma alopecurus), Astragalus clarianus 
Jepson (Clara Hunt's milk-vetch), Carex albida Bailey (white sedge), 
Clarkia imbricata Lewis and Lewis (Vine Hill clarkia), Lilium 
pardalinum Kellogg. ssp. pitkinense (Beane and Vollmer) M. Skinner 
(Pitkin Marsh lily), Plagiobothrys strictus (Greene) I.M. Johnston 
(Calistoga allocarya), Poa napensis Beetle (Napa bluegrass), Sidalcea 
oregana (Nutt.) Gray ssp. valida (Greene) C.L. Hitchcock (Kenwood Marsh 
checker-mallow), and Trifolium amoenum Greene (showy Indian clover) 
should be classified as endangered species. The Service followed 
procedures found at section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations 
implementing the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) in 
reaching this determination. 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 
the nine species are as follows:
    A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of their habitat or range. Habitat destruction and 
modification due to urbanization, land use changes, or alterations in 
hydrology pose the most serious threats to the survival of these nine 
plant species.
    Astragalus clarianus is known currently from three populations in 
Napa County and one population in Sonoma County (CNPS 1989, CNDDB 
1996). The four populations face a variety of threats to their 
continued existence. One population in Napa County was reduced in size 
when the creation of Lake Hennessey in the 1950's inundated much of the 
site (L. Lozier, pers. comm. 1993). The City of Napa owns the lake and 
uses Lake Hennessey as a water source. Recently, the City of Napa 
conducted a feasibility study on the raising in elevation of the dam as 
part of a project to increase water storage for the city. This would 
have raised the lake level and submerged the remnant population of A. 
clarianus (J. Ruygt, CNPS, in litt. 1993). This increased water-storage 
project at Lake Hennessey is currently considered too costly (Don 
Ridenhour, Public Works Dept., City of Napa, pers. comm. 1993). 
However, any future water storage project that would involve increasing 
the height of the dam and raising the level of Lake Hennessey would 
constitute a threat to the population of A. clarianus that lies along 
the lakeshore. In December 1990, this remnant population was nearly 
destroyed when dredge spoils from the lake were placed on top of it (A. 
Howald, pers. comm. 1993). The City of Napa, in cooperation with CDFG, 
removed most of the dredge spoils and fenced the 1 ha (2 ac) area, 
placing a gate in the fence for fishing access to the lake. Ground 
disturbance caused by dredge spoil removal resulted in proliferation of 
invasive weeds that further threaten the site, as discussed below under 
Factor E. The population has not recovered well (J. Ruygt, pers. comm. 
1996). Eight plants of A. clarianus were counted at this site in 1991, 
325 plants in 1992, 156 plants in 1993 (CDFG 1989; J. Ruygt, in litt. 
1993), 9 plants in 1994 (CNDDB 1996), and 15 plants in 1996 (J. Ruygt, 
pers. comm.

[[Page 54799]]

1996, public hearing transcript). The area remains a favorite fishing 
access to the lake and receives significant use by the public (CDFG 
1989). The City of Napa has repaired damage to the fence several times 
(A. Howald, pers. comm. 1993).
    Another population of Astragalus clarianus occurs in Bothe Napa 
Valley State Park. Plant numbers have been reported as 8 plants in 
1988, 220 plants in 1992, 101 plants in 1993, and 39 plants in 1996 on 
a 1 ha (2 ac) monitoring site (J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993, pers. comm. 
1996, public hearing transcript). The larger portion of the population 
of A. clarianus outside of the monitoring zone occurs sparsely on a 6 
ha (15 ac) area. This area has been partially protected by placing 
brush piles next to a foot trail to divert people away from the 
population (William Grummer, Bothe Napa Valley State Park, California 
Dept. of Parks and Recreation, pers. comm. 1993). The general plan for 
the park indicates a campground to be placed over the larger portion of 
A. clarianus, but the Service does not consider the proposed action in 
this plan as an imminent threat because of lack of funding and possible 
revisions to the park plan (W. Grummer, pers. comm. 1993). At present, 
no specific plans to develop a campground have been made (W. Grummer, 
pers. comm. 1996). Although the campground development may be relocated 
away from the population of A. clarianus, the Service considers that 
increased recreational use from an additional campground in this park 
constitutes a potential threat.
    The third population of Astragalus clarianus occurs near the City 
of Santa Rosa in eastern Sonoma County. This population was estimated 
at 2,100 plants in 1996 scattered over 6 ha (15 ac) and appears stable 
at the present time (Saxon Holt, CNPS, Milo Baker Chapter, pers. comm. 
1996). It is on private land under a voluntary protection agreement 
with TNC. Upslope and adjacent to this population is the 454 ha (1,350 
ac) approved Saddle Mountain subdivision (J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993, S. 
Holt, pers. comm. 1996). Soil erosion from proposed road and pad 
construction for house lots potentially threatens this population of A. 
clarianus (J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993). Construction of this development 
has not yet begun (S. Holt, pers. comm. 1996).
    The fourth population of Astragalus clarianus consisted of 2,238 
plants in 1993 scattered over less than 2 ha (5 ac) of private land (J. 
Ruygt, in litt. 1993). Feral pigs uprooted a substantial number of 
plants during 1994; the number of plants at this site has declined in 
1995 and 1996, although this decline may be attributable to factors 
other than damage by pigs (J. Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996, public hearing 
transcript).
    One historical occurrence and over 70 percent of the original 
habitat of Plagiobothrys strictus have been extirpated by urbanization 
and conversion of land to vineyards (CNPS 1990). The two remaining 
populations of P. strictus are threatened by urbanization (CNDDB 1996, 
CNPS 1990). One of these populations occurs at the Calistoga Airport, 
where about 5,000 plants were counted in an area of about 180 m\2\ 
(2,000 ft\2\) in 1994 (J. Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996, public hearing 
transcript). The number of individuals in this population fluctuates 
considerably, perhaps due to variations in spring rainfall between 
years (CDFG 1988). Future development at this site could threaten this 
population (J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993), as could airport maintenance 
activities (J. Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996). The other population of P. 
strictus is scattered over a 4 ha (10 ac) area bisected by an asphalt 
road on private land near Myrtledale Hot Springs in the City of 
Calistoga. The number of individuals in this population was estimated 
to be in the hundreds (J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993). In recent years, the 
landowner has denied access to the site. The landowner has proposed to 
build a hospital on this site, but has been unsuccessful due to current 
zoning status (CDFG 1988; J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993; J. Ruygt, pers. 
comm. 1996).
    Historically, the habitat of the two remaining populations of Poa 
napensis has been reduced by the development of health spas and resorts 
in the City of Calistoga and other construction activities at the 
Calistoga Airport (CNPS 1989). The remnant population of P. napensis at 
the Calistoga Airport was thought to be extirpated as a result of 
construction activities in 1981 because no plants were found that year. 
By 1987, however, 500 plants were counted at the airport location (CDFG 
1989; J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993). In 1994 and 1996, about 150 plants were 
counted at the airport site (J. Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996). The only 
other population is near Myrtledale Hot Springs in the City of 
Calistoga, where several thousand plants were reported in a 100 m\2\ 
(1,100 ft\2\) area in the early 1980's. The landowner has denied access 
to the property in recent years. Because Poa napensis and Plagiobothrys 
strictus occur at both the Calistoga Airport site and the other site 
near Myrtledale Hot Springs, the threats from urbanization, including 
construction of a hospital, are the same for both species (CNPS 1987, 
1990; J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993; J. Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996).
    The single known population of Carex albida is located 
approximately 46 m (150 ft) from a State highway in a sphagnum bog. Any 
direct impact or change in the hydrology of the area resulting from 
highway widening or maintenance, or a change in land use would 
adversely affect the population. Draining the wetland would not only 
directly impact the species but would encourage the spread of 
blackberries (Rubus spp.), which have become dominant in other parts of 
the marsh that have been drained (CDFG 1993a; CNDDB 1996; B. Guggolz, 
in litt. 1993).
    When the proposed rule was written, a wastewater treatment project 
was proposed to be built 300 m (328 yards) from the Carex albida 
population. Potential impacts from this project, as originally 
proposed, included adverse effects from the application of recycled 
wastewater and the temporary or permanent removal of wetlands, riparian 
vegetation, and special status plants and their habitats (Environmental 
Science Associates 1993). The treatment plant has now been constructed, 
but the use of recycled wastewater has not been implemented (B. 
Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996). If implemented, from 1,200 to 4,900 cubic m 
(1 to 4 ac-ft) of wastewater per year would be applied on approximately 
14 to 27 ha (35 to 60 ac) of land. Although the population of C. albida 
would not be directly impacted, the application of this volume of 
wastewater could result in the alteration of remaining habitat within 
the historical range of C. albida through modification of surface 
hydrology (Environmental Science Associates 1993). The historical 
ranges of Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense and Alopecurus aequalis 
var. sonomensis also occur within the project boundaries.
    The type locality of Clarkia imbricata along the roadside at Pitkin 
Ranch was extirpated prior to 1974, as a probable result of changes in 
land use or roadside maintenance (B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993). Another 
population of C. imbricata in Sonoma County was extirpated as a result 
of tree farming and weed control activities (B. Guggolz, in litt. 
1993). The sole remaining natural population of C. imbricata is 
threatened by changing land use, such as conversion to agriculture, and 
inadvertent mowing of its habitat (B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993; B. 
Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996).
    One site with two populations of Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense 
was largely destroyed by urbanization in 1961; however, approximately 
300 plants remain at this site (CDFG 1993b;

[[Page 54800]]

B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996). Although a subdivision is planned for 
the area surrounding a portion of this site, the landowner agreed to 
protect a portion of the habitat of L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense 
(Allan Buckmann, CDFG, in litt. 1993; B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996). 
This agreement, if implemented, would place all sensitive natural 
resource areas in a conservation easement for long-term management, 
with CDFG as easement holder (A. Buckmann, in litt. 1993). Neither this 
easement, however, nor another easement that would protect the other 
population of L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense at this site, has been 
executed and recorded (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996). At the second 
site, wetland fills in the marsh have lowered the water table and 
resulted in drier soil conditions, which have negatively affected L. 
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense. This change in habitat quality is 
considered a significant threat to the population (CDFG 1993b), since 
only about 10 plants remain at this site (CNDDB 1996; B. Guggolz, pers. 
comm. 1996).
    One of the two remaining sites of Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida is 
threatened by permitted and unauthorized water diversions from a stream 
that flows into the marsh where two subpopulations of the species 
occur. In the past, these diversions have removed all water from the 
stream channel, eliminating a source of surface water to the marsh (A. 
Howald, pers. comm. 1993). Plant census data from 1991 indicate that 
the eastern and western subpopulations in the marsh declined by 
approximately 40 and 30 percent, respectively, compared to 1989 and 
1990 data. These figures suggest that this population may have been 
experiencing a delayed response to a drought period that began in the 
late 1980's. The adverse effects of future droughts may be exacerbated 
by increased surface water diversions and result in a further decline, 
or extinction of the species (John Turner, CDFG, in litt. 1993).
    Trifolium amoenum was known from about 20 historical occurrences in 
7 counties (Skinner and Pavlik 1994; CNDDB 1996). Loss of this habitat 
resulted primarily from urbanization and land conversion to agriculture 
(CNPS, 1977; Corelli and Chandik 1995). Two occurrences of T. amoenum 
have been recently discovered. The occurrence found in 1993 in Sonoma 
County consisted of a single plant located on private property that has 
subsequently been developed. The second, a population of about 200 
plants, is found on two residential lots in Marin County (P. Connors, 
pers. comm 1996). If this property is further developed or altered, it 
may no longer contain suitable habitat for T. amoenum. Widespread 
urbanization has occurred, and continues to occur, throughout the 
historic range of the species. The populations of Sonoma and Marin 
counties are expected to grow by 11.1 and 10.4 percent, respectively, 
by the year 2000 (California Department of Finance 1993, 1996).
    B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes. One of the remaining populations of Lilium 
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense has been nearly extirpated by uncontrolled 
collection of plants, seeds, and bulbs for horticultural use. This 
species was abundant historically at this site, but the removal of 
plants and bulbs for horticultural use reduced this population to two 
plants by 1993 (CDFG 1993b). This population of L. pardalinum ssp. 
pitkinense has since expanded slightly to approximately 10 plants (B. 
Guggolz, pers. comm. 1996). Similar activities at the remaining site, 
which contains only 300 individuals in two populations, would likely 
result in the extinction of the species (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1993, 
1996). Of the two remaining populations of Clarkia imbricata, one 
population is found in a preserve owned by the CNPS. Although CNPS has 
attempted to discourage unauthorized collection by fencing the preserve 
and by not publicizing the exact location of the site, trespassers have 
damaged the fence, trampled the vegetation, and collected seed of C. 
imbricata on several occasions (B. Guggolz, in litt. 1993).
    No evidence of over-collection of Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida by 
botanists and/or horticulturists for scientific and commercial purposes 
is known at this time, although the species is considered to have 
horticultural potential (Hill 1993). Both populations are small enough, 
however, that even limited collecting pressure would have adverse 
impacts. Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida is an attractive plant, and may 
be sought for collection once the rarity of this species becomes known 
and if current site locations become known. Wild collected seed of the 
species, S. oregana (no variety given), are available through a seed 
exchange program offered by an international gardening society (North 
American Rock Garden Society (NARGS) 1996).
    Any occurrences of Trifolium amoenum that may be discovered in the 
future also may attract collectors of plants or seed because the 
species was previously considered to be extinct. Overutilization is 
currently not known to be a factor for the remaining five species, but 
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. Little is known about any diseases that 
may affect the nine plant species considered here. None of the species 
is currently known to be threatened by disease.
    Seven of the 8 known sites of Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis 
are currently grazed or have been grazed in recent years by cattle 
(CNDDB 1996; V. Norris, in litt. 1995; R. Soost, in litt. 1996). All 
three populations in Sonoma County are currently threatened by cattle 
grazing (CNDDB 1996), as is a portion of one population outside of a 
fenced area on the PRNS where three small patches disappeared from a 
gathering place for cattle over a one week period of observation (V. 
Norris, in litt. 1995). The portion of the population inside of the 
fenced area decreased from 603 flowering culms (stems) in 1995 to 195 
flowering culms in 1996, possibly due to annual fluctuation or 
competition from other vegetation (R. Soost, in litt. 1996). Another 
population on the PRNS was fenced from cattle in 1987. The number of 
individuals of A. aequalis var. sonomensis was 0 in 1990, 14 in 1991, 
and 0 in 1993, possibly due to competition from a dense growth of other 
marsh plants (V. Norris, in litt. 1993). Since then, experiments have 
been conducted with partial opening and closing of the entry gate, but 
few cattle found their way in and no plants have been seen at this site 
since 1991 (V. Norris, in litt. 1995; R. Soost, , in litt. 1996). These 
results suggest that some grazing may be necessary to maintain 
populations of A. aequalis var. sonomensis in the face of competition 
from other plants, but that excessive grazing by cattle can adversely 
impact the species.
    Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida is adversely affected at both of its 
locations by reduced seed set resulting from cattle grazing (CNPS 
1988b). Populations of Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense have been 
enclosed with various types of wire fencing in an attempt to prevent 
grazing or browsing by cattle, horses, and deer, but most of the fences 
have failed to prevent grazing completely. The plants continue to 
suffer from herbivory by cattle, deer, and perhaps gophers and other 
herbivores, resulting in loss of flowers and seeds (L. Lozier, in litt. 
1990).
    Trifolium amoenum may have disappeared from some of its former

[[Page 54801]]

locations due to grazing (Connors 1994). This species is a large clover 
that blooms when many grassland plants have already turned brown, 
likely making it more attractive to grazing herbivores. Most recent 
sightings of the plant were located outside of fences along roadsides, 
suggesting that the species survived for a period where it was 
protected from grazing (Connors 1994). Threats due to herbivory on the 
one natural population of this species, which occurs on portions of two 
residential lots, are unknown, but livestock grazing is unlikely. 
Grazing may, however, pose a threat to any undiscovered sites for the 
species.
    D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The California 
Fish and Game Commission has listed Carex albida, Clarkia imbricata, 
Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, Poa napensis, and Sidalcea oregana 
ssp. valida as endangered species under the California Endangered 
Species Act (Division 3, Chapter 1.5 section 2050 et seq. of the 
California Fish and Game Code and Title 14 California Code of 
Regulations 670.2). The California Fish and Game Commission has also 
listed Astragalus clarianus and Plagiobothrys strictus as threatened 
species. Listing by the State of California requires individuals to 
obtain authorization from CDFG to possess or ``take'' a listed species. 
Although the ``take'' of State-listed plants is prohibited (California 
Native Plant Protection Act, Division 2, Chapter 10, section 1908 and 
California Endangered Species Act, Division 3, 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, the 
California Native Plant Protection Act only requires that the landowner 
notify the agency ``at least 10 days in advance of changing the land 
use to allow salvage of such a plant'' (Division 2, Chapter 10, section 
1913 of the California Fish and Game Code).
    The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a full 
disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects. 
The public agency with primary authority or jurisdiction over the 
project is designated as the lead agency and is responsible for 
conducting a review of the project and consulting with the other 
agencies concerned with the resources affected by the project. Section 
15065 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a finding of significance if a 
project has the potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range 
of a rare or endangered plant or animal.'' Species that are eligible 
for State listing as rare, threatened, or endangered, but are not so 
listed, are given the same protection as those species that are 
officially listed with the State or Federal governments. Once 
significant effects are identified, the lead agency has the option 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, CEQA guidelines 
recently have been revised in ways which, if made final, may weaken 
protections for threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species.
    Hot spring areas and perennial freshwater emergent marshes are 
generally small and scattered, and treated as isolated wetlands or 
waters of the United States for regulatory purposes by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 
However, the Clean Water Act, alone, does not provide adequate 
protection for Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis, Carex albida, 
Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, Poa napensis, Plagiobothrys 
strictus, Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida, and Trifolium amoenum. For 
example, Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 26 (33 CFR part 330 Appendix B 
(26)) was established by the Corps to facilitate issuance of permits 
for discharge of fill into wetlands. Under current regulations, NWPs 
may be issued for fills up to 1.2 ha (3.0 ac); fills greater than 1.2 
ha require an individual permit. For project proposals falling under 
NWP 26, the Corps seldom withholds authorization unless a listed 
threatened or endangered species' continued existence would be 
jeopardized by the proposed action, regardless of the significance of 
other wetland resources. Moreover, for fills less than 0.13 ha (\1/3\ 
ac) only an after-the-fact report is required by the Corps. This report 
must be submitted within 30 days of completion of the work and include 
only the name, address, and telephone number of the permittee; location 
and description of the work; and the type and acreage of the loss. All 
of the populations of the seven species in this rule that occur in 
wetlands are significantly smaller than 0.13 ha (\1/3\ ac). Although 
General Condition 11 of the NWP states that ``no activity is authorized 
under any NWP which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
a threatened or endangered species or which is likely to destroy or 
modify the critical habitat of such species,'' the after-the-fact 
nature of the reporting requirement is inadequate to ensure the 
protection of populations that occur in areas smaller than the 0.13 ha 
(\1/3\ ac) threshold. Four of the seven plant species in this rule that 
occur in wetlands are known from only two populations, and two of the 
seven species are known only from a single population. Thus, for six of 
the seven species, the post facto reporting requirement may be 
inadequate to prevent their extinction.
    Additionally and equally important, the upland watersheds that 
contribute significantly to the hydrology of marshes are not provided 
any direct protection under section 404. Disturbance to, or loss of, 
seep or marsh habitat and alteration of hydrology have damaged 
populations and habitat, as discussed previously under Factor A. 
Reductions in water volume or inundation of the sites have the 
potential to adversely affect the seven plant taxa listed above. Thus, 
as a consequence of the small size of these marsh, meadow, and hot 
spring areas and lack of protection of associated uplands, these types 
of habitats receive insufficient protection under section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act.
    The Sonoma County Department of Planning has designated several 
marshes where some of these plants occur as ``critical habitat'' 
(Sonoma County 1989). The streams within these marshes are designated 
as ``riparian corridors.'' It is not likely that these designations 
will adequately protect the species involved. County policies for 
``critical habitat'' include 15 m (50 ft) setbacks of construction from 
wetland boundaries and preparation of biotic resource assessments for 
development of mitigation measures, if the planning director determines 
that a ``critical habitat'' area will be impacted (Sonoma County 1989). 
A setback may be waived, however, if the setback is determined to make 
the parcel unsuitable for construction. The single population of Carex 
albida and the larger population of Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense 
occur within 15 m (50 ft) of streams in Sonoma County (CNDDB 1996). The 
Sonoma County policy for ``riparian corridors'' allows the removal of 
riparian vegetation as part of a pest management program administered 
by the County Agricultural Commissioner, as well as construction of 
roads and summer dams (Sonoma County 1989). In addition, agricultural 
projects that may involve removal of native vegetation, including the 
species in this

[[Page 54802]]

rule and their habitats, are considered in Sonoma County to be 
``ministerial'' (Ken Ellison, Sonoma County Department of Planning, 
pers. comm. 1993). Ministerial projects are those projects that the 
public agency must approve after the applicant shows compliance with 
certain legal requirements. They may be approved or carried out without 
undertaking CEQA review.
    Only a few measures have been taken to protect some of the species 
in this rule. In 1989, the landowners of the two confirmed populations 
of Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense entered into voluntary protection 
agreements with TNC (CDFG 1993b). Since that time, TNC and the 
California Conservation Corps have jointly built and maintained cattle 
exclosures in an attempt to protect the plants at both sites. Some 
plants, however, continue to suffer herbivory from livestock and 
wildlife, resulting in loss of flowers and seeds (L. Lozier, in litt. 
1990). A memorandum of understanding is currently in effect between 
CDFG and the Berry Botanic Garden, Portland, Oregon, for research on 
germination and recovery of this species (CDFG 1993b). TNC also 
obtained a voluntary agreement with private landowners in 1990 to 
protect one population of Astragalus clarianus.
    CDFG has proposed to purchase approximately 37 ha (90 ac) of the 
marsh where Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida occurs to create an ecological 
preserve (A. Howald, pers. comm. 1993). Acquisition of the preserve, 
however, is dependent on the cooperation of the current landowners. The 
owner of one parcel with about half of the population has declined to 
sell her property to the State (N. Wilcox, pers. comm. 1994). Purchase 
of the land as a preserve would ensure appropriate grazing practices on 
the site and would allow direct management of the plant population with 
possible opportunities to expand the population (A. Howald, pers. comm. 
1993). The preserve would include only a small portion of the 
watershed, however, limiting the protection that the preserve would 
afford to the hydrology of the marsh (N. Wilcox, pers. comm. 1994).
    TNC also has entered into a verbal conservation agreement with a 
landowner for the protection of the one natural population of Clarkia 
imbricata. However, this population of C. imbricata was inadvertently 
mowed before seed set in 1989 and 1991, reducing the seed production 
and number of plants in the years following mowing (B. Guggolz, in 
litt. 1993).
    Seed from cultivated Trifolium amoenum plants is currently being 
collected for future reintroduction efforts (P. Connors, pers. comm. 
1994, 1996). In addition, half of the seed that was recovered from the 
single plant in 1993 was deposited for long-term storage at the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture National Seed Storage Laboratory in Fort 
Collins, Colorado (Connors 1994).
    Although the PRNS is part of the National Park system, 17 cattle 
and dairy ranches are contained within its boundaries. Grazing and 
ranching, which have occurred on the peninsula for more than a century, 
have been determined to be ``consistent with the purpose for which the 
Seashore was authorized'' (Clark and Fellers 1987). Clark and Fellers 
(1986) state that grazing has been a serious threat to Alopecurus 
aequalis var. sonomensis occurrences located on the Seashore, but more 
recent reports indicate concerns about both too much and too little 
grazing (CNDDB 1996; V. Norris, in litt. 1995; R. Soost, in litt. 
1996).
    E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued 
existence. Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis suffers from competition 
from invasive emergent wetland species, including rushes (Juncus spp.) 
and nutsedges (Cyperus spp.) at one location. These wetland plants have 
nearly extirpated A. aequalis var. sonomensis from that site (V. 
Norris, in litt. 1993; CNDDB 1996). Additionally, A. aequalis var. 
sonomensis is not readily propagated. Three attempts to reintroduce the 
species from seed to suitable habitat within its range have failed, as 
has an attempt to start a population in the East Bay Botanic Garden in 
Tilden Park. Naturally occurring floods also may be an ongoing threat. 
One population was damaged by a flash flood in 1993 (V. Norris, in 
litt. 1995; R. Soost, in litt. 1996).
    The population of Astragalus clarianus located along the north 
shore of Lake Hennessey has an infestation of the invasive and 
dominating alien weed, yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) (A. 
Howald, pers. comm. 1993; J. Ruygt, hearing transcript). This 
infestation was a direct result of ground disturbance associated with 
the removal of dredge spoils that were placed on top of this population 
as discussed under Factor A (A. Howald, pers. comm. 1993). Competition 
from this alien annual weed is also considered a threat to the 
population of A. clarianus at the Bothe Napa Valley State Park (J. 
Ruygt, in litt. 1993). A proposed application to build two small 
agricultural water storage reservoirs along a creek in Napa County 
would avoid direct impacts to another population of A. clarianus, but 
ground disturbance would most likely introduce this same alien invasive 
weed (A. Howald, pers. comm. 1993).
    Plant succession may be excluding or reducing the population of 
Astragalus clarianus at one site (J. Ruygt, in litt. 1993) where A. 
clarianus grows sparingly in the gaps between manzanita plants. As 
established plants continue to grow, and new manzanita seedlings become 
established, less space is available for A. clarianus. Fire suppression 
has reduced fire frequency in the manzanita community. Periodic fire 
reduces manzanita cover and creates space for other plants, including 
A. clarianus. This species, therefore, is vulnerable to habitat loss 
from plant succession. Another population of A. clarianus is threatened 
by competition from French broom (Genista monospessulana), an invasive 
alien shrub, and the rooting behavior of wild pigs (CNDDB 1996; J. 
Ruygt, pers. comm. 1996).
    The potential for loss of the only population of Sidalcea oregana 
ssp. valida from naturally occurring events, because of the small 
population size, is exacerbated by drought and water diversions. In 
addition, this population is being encroached upon by invasive weeds, 
including yellow star-thistle and blackberry (A. Howald, pers. comm. 
1993). One of the subpopulations was damaged by an off-road vehicle 
during maintenance of a local aqueduct, which passes through the marsh. 
The maintenance activity occurred late in the season when the soil was 
relatively dry, resulting in minimal damage to the plants. If such 
maintenance activities occur during a time when the soil is saturated, 
they pose a threat to the plants (A. Howald, pers. comm. 1993).
    Because Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense is unlikely to be self-
pollinating, single plants or widely separated plants in sparse 
populations may not set viable seed (Mark Skinner, CNPS, pers. comm. 
1994). The remaining plants at one site are monitored closely by CNPS 
volunteers and, at the time the proposed rule was written, had not been 
observed to have set seed for several years (M. Skinner, pers. comm. 
1994). Much of the habitat for L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense has been 
invaded by blackberry vines that compete for space, light, and 
nutrients (CDFG 1993b).
    Grass mowing, vehicle traffic, and parking have impacted and 
continue to threaten one population of Poa napensis at the Calistoga 
airport (CNPS 1990; Robert Soreng, Cornell Univ., in litt. 1993). Grass 
mowing is done at regular intervals through the spring and summer to 
reduce fire and aircraft safety hazards. Mowing for fire control during

[[Page 54803]]

the reproductive cycle of Clarkia imbricata has reduced the size of one 
of its populations by a third (B. Guggolz, in litt. 1996). Airport 
users include a spray plane service, recreational gliders, and 
associated tow planes. Service vehicles for the planes and the private 
vehicles of the customers impact this population of P. napensis, 
especially during the spring and summer when airport use increases.
    The extirpation of historical populations of Trifolium amoenum may 
have partially been a result of competition with weedy, alien plant 
species. A recent germination study of other Trifolium species from 
historical T. amoenum habitat in Sonoma County suggested that some 
annual Trifolium species germinate in late November, well after many 
introduced species, including redstem storkbill (Erodium cicutarium), 
ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and California burclover (Medicago 
polymorpha) (Connors 1994). By germinating and growing earlier, it is 
likely that alien species have reduced the numbers of T. amoenum plants 
by occupying available space (Connors 1994).
    The small population size of most of these nine plant species 
increases the susceptibility to extirpation from random events. 
Population sizes of 100 or fewer are known for one or more populations 
of Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis, Astragalus clarianus, Lilium 
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, and 
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida. The single extant population of Trifolium 
amoenum contains about 200 individuals. These species may also be 
subject to increased genetic drift and inbreeding as a consequence of 
their small population sizes (Menges 1991, Ellstrand and Elam 1993). 
Increased homozygosity resulting from genetic drift and inbreeding may 
lead to a loss of fitness (ability of individuals to survive and 
reproduce) in small populations. In addition, reduced genetic variation 
in small populations may make any species less able to successfully 
adapt to future environmental changes (Ellstrand and Elam 1993). Thus, 
seven of the nine species are threatened by potential loss of fitness 
and/or genetic variability associated with small population sizes.
    Each of the species addressed in this rule is known from few 
populations. Carex albida and Trifolium amoenum each have only one 
population. Clarkia imbricata, Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, 
Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, and Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida 
each have only two confirmed populations. Astragalus clarianus is known 
from four populations. Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis has eight 
populations. The combination of few populations, small range, and 
restricted habitat makes the nine species highly susceptible to 
extinction or extirpation from a significant portion of their ranges 
due to random events, such as flood, drought, disease, or other 
occurrences (Shaffer 1981, Primack 1993). Such events are not usually a 
concern until the number of populations or geographic distribution 
become severely limited, as is the case with all of the species 
discussed here. Once the number of populations, or the plant population 
size, is reduced due to habitat destruction or fragmentation, the 
remnant populations, or portions of populations, have 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 species in determining to make this rule 
final. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list 
Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis (Sonoma alopecurus), Astragalus 
clarianus (Clara Hunt's milkvetch), Carex albida (white sedge), Clarkia 
imbricata (Vine Hill clarkia), Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense 
(Pitkin Marsh lily), Plagiobothrys strictus (Calistoga allocarya), Poa 
napensis (Napa bluegrass), Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida (Kenwood marsh 
checker-mallow), and Trifolium amoenum (showy Indian clover) as 
endangered. Competition with invasive plant species or excessive cattle 
grazing threatens five of the eight remaining populations of Alopecurus 
aequalis var. sonomensis. Efforts to reintroduce this species to sites 
within its range have failed. If combined, all four populations of 
Astragalus clarianus would occupy only a 0.5 ha (1 ac) area, and are 
threatened variously by a potential water storage project, an approved 
subdivision, competition from invasive plant species, recreational 
activities, airport maintenance, and elimination through plant 
community succession. The single Carex albida population, totaling 
approximately 1,000 plants, is located 46 m (150 ft) from the State 
highway and is threatened by potential changes in the site's hydrology 
resulting from wetland drainage or fill, competition from invasive 
plant species, changes in land management by the owner, highway 
widening or maintenance, and potential disturbance from a proposed 
wastewater treatment. The two remaining populations of Clarkia 
imbricata are threatened by changing land use, mowing for fire control, 
and unauthorized collection. The three remaining populations of Lilium 
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, totaling approximately 300 plants, suffer 
from uncontrolled collection of plants, seeds, and bulbs for 
horticultural use, and from herbivory by livestock and wildlife. One 
site is potentially threatened by a proposed wastewater treatment 
project; the other site is potentially threatened by a proposed 
subdivision. Competition from invasive plants such as blackberry also 
adversely impacts this species. If combined, the remaining populations 
of Plagiobothrys strictus and Poa napensis would occupy an area of less 
than 0.5 ha (1 ac) each. These populations are surrounded by hot 
springs resorts or housing. Plagiobothrys strictus and Poa napensis 
both occur at the same two sites where they are threatened by airport 
activities, including traffic and vehicle parking on the plants, grass 
mowing, and land use changes, including the construction of a hospital 
at one site. Both populations of the two species are also threatened by 
potential alteration of hot springs hydrology. The only population of 
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida is threatened by trampling and reduced 
seed set resulting from cattle grazing, aqueduct maintenance, 
competition from invasive plant species, and the potential alteration 
of hydrology from urbanization. Trifolium amoenum has been extirpated 
from all 24 historical occurrences in seven counties; the species 
currently is known from one natural population. This species is 
threatened by competition with invasive plant species, loss of habitat 
from urbanization and other land use changes. All nine species, because 
of their few, small populations and very narrow ranges are also highly 
susceptible to genetic complications and at increased risk of local 
extirpation or extinction from random events.
    These nine species are imminently threatened by extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of their range by the factors 
summarized above, and the final action, therefore, is to list them as 
endangered.

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

[[Page 54804]]

by a species at the time it is listed, upon a 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. Critical 
habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following 
situations exist--(1) Information sufficient to perform required 
analyses of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or (2) the 
biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to 
permit identification of an area as critical habitat (50 CFR 
424.12(a)(2)). Service regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that 
designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the 
following situations exist--(1) The species is threatened by taking or 
other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be 
expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such 
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
    The Service finds that designation of critical habitat is not 
prudent for any of these nine plant taxa. Designation of critical 
habitat is not prudent for Astragalus clarianus, Clarkia imbricata, 
Lilium pardalinum, Carex albida, Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, 
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida, Trifolium amoenum, and Alopecurus 
aequalis var. sonomensis because of lack of benefit. Moreover, 
designation of critical habitat for Clarkia imbricata, Lilium 
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, Carex albida, Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida, 
and some populations of Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis is not 
prudent because doing so would increase the degree of threat to these 
species, or another species in this rule with which it occurs. The 
basis for these conclusions, including the factors considered in 
weighing the benefits against the risks of designation, are provided by 
species below.

Astragalus clarianus

    None of the four known occurrences of Astragalus clarianus, which 
total about 28 ha (70 ac), are on Federal land (CNDDB 1996). This 
species does not occur in wetlands and no Federal actions are likely to 
occur in its habitat. Critical habitat designation outside of the areas 
where A. clarianus occurs also would serve no purpose because all other 
historical sites have been destroyed by urban development and 
viticulture (CNDDB 1996) and have no practical value for the survival 
and recovery of the species. Designation of critical habitat for A. 
clarianus, therefore, is not prudent because it provides no additional 
benefit to the species beyond that conferred by listing.

Clarkia Imbricata and Lilium Pardalinum ssp. Pitkinense

    Clarkia imbricata and Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense are 
attractive to plant collectors and incidents of overutilization and 
illegal collection of both species have occurred in the past. Both taxa 
are known only from private land. One of the two remaining populations 
of C. imbricata occurs on a CNPS preserve where, despite attempts to 
not publicize the preserve location and to discourage unauthorized 
collection, trespassers have damaged the fencing, trampled vegetation, 
and collected seeds of C. imbricata on several occasions (B. Guggolz, 
in litt. 1993). Critical habitat designation outside of the areas where 
C. imbricata occurs would serve no purpose because no other sites are 
known to be essential to the conservation of this species. At one of 
the two remaining sites for L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, the species 
was once abundant, but it has now been nearly extirpated by the 
uncontrolled collection of plants, seeds, and bulbs for horticultural 
use (CDFG 1993b). No historical sites for this taxon other than the two 
where it now occurs have ever been reported.
    Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense is a wetland species and 
alteration of its habitat may be regulated by the Army Corps of 
Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Service 
believes that activities regulated under section 404 that could impact 
the habitat of L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense are unlikely to occur in 
the foreseeable future, and that this species is primarily threatened 
by overcollection, unregulated hydrological alterations, competition 
from alien plants, and trampling and herbivory by livestock and 
wildlife. Moreover, the inadequacies of the section 404 permitting 
process for protecting very small plant populations, discussed in 
detail under factor D of the ``Summary of the Factors'' section, apply 
to this species. In addition to these inadequacies, due to the small 
size of the only two populations of this species and the lack of 
historical habitat elsewhere, any adverse modification of its habitat 
would also likely jeopardize its continued existence. This would also 
hold true as the species recovers and its numbers increase. Any 
benefits that might result from the designation of critical habitat for 
L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense would be outweighed by the likely 
increased threat of uncontrolled collection to this species.
    Designation of critical habitat for Clarkia imbricata and Lilium 
pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, therefore, is not prudent because doing so 
would increase the degree of threat to these species. Although there 
may be a Federal nexus for L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense through the 
Clean Water Act, the designation of critical habitat for this species 
would provide little or no benefit to the protection of this species 
beyond that provided by listing. The publication of maps and precise 
locations of populations that is required for designation of critical 
habitat would contribute to the further decline of this species by 
facilitating trespassing, uncontrolled collecting, and hindering 
recovery efforts. Any benefit from designation of critical habitat for 
these species, therefore, would be outweighed by the increased degree 
of risk to these species due to the publication of precise maps of 
their populations.

Carex Albida

    The only known population of Carex albida occupies less than 300 
m\2\ of private land in Sonoma County (CDFG 1993a). Critical habitat 
designation outside of the areas where C. imbricata occurs would serve 
no purpose. The other four historical localities for the species, due 
to hydrological alteration and the long-term effects of effluent 
discharge from a cannery (CDFG 1993a), serve no practical value for the 
survival and recovery of the species. The Service believes that 
activities regulated under section 404 that could impact the habitat of 
C. albida are unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future, and that 
this species is primarily threatened by unregulated hydrological 
alterations and competition from native and alien plant species favored 
by drier conditions. Moreover, the inadequacies of the section 404 
permitting process for protecting very small plant populations, 
discussed in detail under factor D of the ``Summary of the Factors'' 
section above, apply to this species. Even if a proposed fill was 
larger than the regulatory threshold and a pre-construction permit was 
required, any activity that would destroy or adversely modify the 
habitat of the sole remaining population of this species would also 
likely jeopardize its continued existence. This would also hold true as

[[Page 54805]]

the species recovers and its numbers increase. Because the site occurs 
within 45 m (150 ft) of a State highway, a potential Federal nexus also 
exists through activities of the Federal Highway Administration. In 
such a situation, however, any action that would adversely modify the 
habitat of the only known population of the species would also likely 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species. This would also hold 
true as the species recovers and its numbers increase. Designation of 
critical habitat for C. albida, therefore, is not prudent because it 
provides no additional benefit to the species beyond that conferred by 
listing. In addition, C. albida occurs at the same site as Lilium 
pardalinum ssp. parkinense (see previous paragraph) and the designation 
of critical habitat and publication of detailed maps of this site would 
contribute to the further decline of the latter species by facilitating 
trespassing, uncontrolled collecting, and hindering recovery efforts 
for the latter species. The plants at this site are particularly 
vunerable since they are close to a State highway and more easily 
accessible to collectors.

Alopecurus Aequalis var. Sonomensis

    Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis is the only species in this 
rule that occurs on Federal land. Four of the eight known populations 
occur on Federal land within the PRNS (CNDDB 1996). The plant appears 
to have very strict habitat requirements and suitable habitats occur in 
only a few places within the PRNS (V. Norris, in litt. 1995). Several 
attempts at establishing new populations in seemingly suitable habitat 
on the PRNS have been unsuccessful. The locations of these four 
populations are known to the managers of the PRNS and each population 
is closely monitored by CNPS members, acting in an official capacity as 
National Park Service (NPS) volunteers (V. Norris, in litt. 1995; R. 
Soost, in litt. 1996). This monitoring includes annual surveys for new 
populations of the species. The NPS has also fenced a portion of one 
population. The species within the exclosure declined despite this 
effort. Because the presence of this plant, and its specific locations, 
are well known to the managers of the PRNS, no modification of its 
habitat is likely to occur without consultation under section 7 of the 
Act. Any action which would destroy or adversely modify the habitat of 
the few remaining populations of this species would also likely 
jeopardize its continued existence. This would also hold true as the 
species recovers and its numbers increase. Designation of critical 
habitat for any of the four populations of Alopecurus aequalis var. 
sonomensis on Federal land with the PRNS, therefore is not prudent 
because it provides no additional benefit to the species beyond that 
conferred by listing.
    The other four populations occur on private land and may have a 
Federal nexus through the Clean Water Act. However, the inadequacies of 
the section 404 permitting process for protecting very small plant 
populations, discussed in detail under Factor D of the ``Summary of the 
Factors'' section, apply to this species. In addition to these 
inadequacies, due to the small size of the only known populations of 
this species any adverse modification of its habitat would also likely 
jeopardize its continued existence. This would also hold true as the 
species recovers and its numbers increase.
    Moreover, two of the four populations of Alopecurus aequalis var. 
sonomensis on private land are found in proximity to L. pardalinum ssp. 
pitkinense (see previous discussion of this species). Although A. 
aequalis var. sonomensis is not collected for horticultural use, 
mapping specific localities of A. aequalis var. sonomensis could lead 
to increased collection of L. pardalinum ssp. pitkinense. The 
horticultural value of the latter species makes it highly attractive 
and one of its two populations has been nearly extirpated by the 
uncontrolled collection of plants, seeds, and bulbs for horticultural 
use (CDFG 1993b). Designation of critical habitat for these two 
populations of Alopecurus sonomensis, therefore, would increase the 
degree of threat to Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense by facilitating 
trespassing and uncontrolled collecting, and hindering recovery 
efforts.
    Designation of critical habitat for any of the four populations of 
Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis on Federal land with the PRNS, 
therefore, is not prudent because it provides no additional benefit to 
the species beyond that conferred by listing. Critical habitat 
designation for known populations on private land would also confer no 
benefit beyond that provided by listing. Because of the few small 
occurrences of this species, any adverse modification of its habitat 
would likely jeopardize its continued existence. The publication of 
maps and precise locations of the two private populations at which A. 
aequalis var. sonomensis occurs with Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense 
would also contribute to the further decline of the latter species by 
facilitating trespassing and uncontrolled collecting, and hindering 
recovery efforts.

Plagiobothrys strictus

    Plagiobothrys strictus is known only from two populations on 
private land. The total area of these populations is less than 80 
m2 (900 ft2). The only other historical locality 
has been rendered unsuitable by urbanization and agricultural land 
conversion (CNPS 1990) and has no practical value for the survival and 
recovery of the species. Thus, the establishment of critical habitat in 
this unoccupied area would serve no purpose. As with Carex albida, the 
habitat for P. strictus will likely be regulated under section 404 of 
the Federal Clean Water Act, but the total area of the population is 
significantly smaller than the minimum regulatory threshold of 0.13 ha 
(\1/3\ ac) for pre-construction notification. Even if a pre-
construction permit was required, any activity that would destroy or 
adversely modify the habitat of the sole remaining population of this 
species would also likely jeopardize its continued existence. This 
would also hold true as the species recovers and its numbers increase. 
The designation of critical habitat for Plagiobothrys strictus, 
therefore, is not prudent because it provides no additional benefit to 
the species beyond that conferred by listing.

Poa Napensis

    Both extant populations of Poa napensis occur on private land, 
where they occupy slightly more than 100 m2 (1,100 
ft2). Urban growth and recreational development of hot 
springs in the Calistoga area has rendered all other historical 
localities unsuitable for this species (CDFG 1979). Thus, the 
establishment of critical habitat in these unoccupied areas would serve 
no purpose since these areas have no practical value for the survival 
and recovery of the species. At least some of the suitable wetland 
habitat for P. napensis may be regulated under section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act. As with Carex albida and Plagiobothrys strictus, the total 
population area is significantly smaller than the 0.13 ha (\1/3\ ac) 
minimum regulatory threshold for pre-construction notification. As is 
also the case with these species, even if a pre-construction permit was 
required, any activity that would destroy or adversely modify the 
habitat of the Poa napensis would also likely jeopardize its continued 
existence. This would also hold true as the species recovers and its 
numbers increase. Designation of critical habitat for P. napensis, 
therefore, is not prudent because doing so provides no additional 
benefit to the species beyond that conferred by listing.

[[Page 54806]]

Sidalcea Oregana ssp. Valida

    Both populations of Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida occur only on 
private land. There is no evidence that the species was ever present at 
any other localities (CNPS 1988b, CDFG 1987). It grows in a habitat 
which is likely to be regulated under the Clean Water Act but, as with 
the other wetland species discussed above, the small populations occupy 
less than the 0.13 ha (1/3 ac) minimum regulatory threshold for pre-
construction notification. Moreover, due to the small size of the only 
two extant populations, any activity that would destroy or adversely 
modify the habitat of either of the two remaining populations of this 
species would also likely jeopardize its continued existence. This 
would also hold true as the species recovers and its numbers increase. 
The species is also of recognized horticultural value (Hill 1993), and 
wild-collected seeds of this species (no variety given) are available 
through a seed exchange program offered by a international gardening 
society (NARGS 1996). Both populations are small enough that even 
limited collecting pressure would have adverse impacts. Designation of 
critical habitat for S. oregana ssp. valida, therefore, is not prudent 
because it provides no additional benefit to the species beyond that 
conferred by listing and because doing so would increase the degree of 
threat to this species. The publication of maps and precise locations 
of the populations that is required for designation of critical 
habitat, therefore, would contribute to the further decline of this 
species by facilitating trespassing and uncontrolled collecting, and 
hindering recovery efforts.

Trifolium Amoenum

    Only a single population of Trifolium amoenum is known to be 
extant. Although the species was widespread north and east of San 
Francisco Bay historically, it had last been seen in 1969 and presumed 
extinct until its rediscovery in 1992 after years of searching (Connors 
1994). Because it is a large, attractive plant, it is highly likely 
that it has been extirpated from its historical localities (Connors 
1994). The sole population is on private land with little probability 
of any Federal activity. No other suitable habitat on Federal land, or 
where any Federal action is likely to occur, is known to exist. The 
species has probably been eliminated at its other historical localities 
by competition with alien species of annual plants and because of the 
prevalance of alien species throughout the historical range of T. 
amoenum, (Connors 1994). Although historically the plant was known from 
``wet swales,'' the current site is not a regulated wetland. Even if a 
Federal nexus were identified, any activity that would destroy or 
adversely modify the habitat of the sole remaining population of this 
species would also likely jeopardize its continued existence. This 
would also hold true as the species recovers and its numbers increase. 
Designation of critical habitat for Trifolium amoenum at this site, 
therefore, is not prudent because it provides no additional benefit to 
the species beyond that conferred by listing. Although collection is 
not currently thought to be a threat to the species, the plant is large 
with showy flowers and its populations are small enough that even 
limited collecting pressure would have adverse impacts. Designation of 
critical habitat for T. amoenum anywhere within its historical range, 
therefore, is not prudent because doing so would increase the degree of 
threat to this species. The publication of maps and precise locations 
of involved plant populations that is required for designation of 
critical habitat would contribute to the further decline of this 
species by facilitating trespassing and uncontrolled collecting, and 
hindering recovery efforts.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. 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 
plans be developed for all listed species. The protection required of 
Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities 
involving listed plants are discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, 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. 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 species proposed for listing 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 the species or 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.
    To the extent that six of the nine taxa proposed herein are 
currently known to inhabit marshes, wet meadows, perennial streams, or 
thermal hot springs, the Service anticipates that the Corps will enter 
into section 7 consultations regarding these species if it regulates 
fill of these wetlands under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 
Because of the small area covered by these populations, however, 
actions which could impact their habitats may not be subject to pre-
construction notification. The inadequacies of current regulations for 
NWP 26 processing under the Clean Water Act are discussed in detail 
under factor D in the ``Summary of Factors'' section above. The 
National Park Service may participate in section 7 consultation because 
of potential grazing effects on Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis at 
the PRNS, and concerning park management plans that directly or 
indirectly affect this species.
    Listing Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis, Astragalus clarianus, 
Carex albida, Clarkia imbricata, Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense, 
Plagiobothrys strictus, Poa napensis, Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida, and 
Trifolium amoenum 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, set recovery 
priorities, and estimate costs of various tasks necessary to accomplish 
them. The plan(s) also would describe site-specific management actions 
necessary to achieve conservation and survival of the nine plant 
species. Additionally, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the Service 
would be more likely 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,

[[Page 54807]]

implemented by 50 CFR 17.61, apply. These prohibitions, in part, make 
it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States to import or export any of the plants, transport them in 
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, 
sell or offer them for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or 
remove and reduce any of the plants to possession from areas under 
Federal jurisdiction. In addition, the Act prohibits the malicious 
damage or destruction of endangered plants on areas under Federal 
jurisdiction, as well as the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging 
or destroying of such plant species 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.
    The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63 also provide for the issuance of 
permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving 
endangered plant species under certain circumstances. Such permits are 
available for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or 
survival of the species. The Service anticipates that few permits would 
ever be sought or issued for most of the species because they are 
typically not sought for cultivation and are uncommon in the wild. 
Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense and Clarkia imbricata, however, are 
collected for horticultural use.
    It is the policy of the Service, published in the Federal Register 
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent 
practicable at the time a species is listed those activities that would 
or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent 
of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of the 
listing of the nine plant species on proposed and ongoing activities 
within the species' range. Collection, damage or destruction of these 
species on Federal lands is prohibited, although in appropriate cases a 
Federal permit may be issued to allow collection for scientific or 
recovery purposes. Such activities on non-Federal (private) lands would 
constitute a violation of section 9 when conducted in knowing violation 
of California State law or regulations or in violation of State 
criminal trespass law. See Factor D. for a discussion of California's 
law protecting plants.
    As noted above, Federal listing of plant species protects plants 
occurring on Federal lands and when Federal activities may affect the 
species. Thus, activities on private lands such as landscape 
maintenance, clearing vegetation for firebreaks, and livestock grazing, 
are not prohibited or regulated unless they are conducted in knowing 
violation of State law or are federally funded or authorized. Questions 
regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of 
section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of the Service's 
Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of 
the regulations regarding listed plants and inquiries about 
prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Ecological Services, Endangered Species Permits, 911 NE 11th 
Ave., Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (phone 503/231-2063, facsimile 503/
231-6243).

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental 
Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the 
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be 
prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 
4(a) of the 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 authors of this final rule are Diane Elam and David 
Wright, Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, the Service amends as follows:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Amend Section 17.12(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical 
order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Plants 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                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Alopecurus aequalis var.           Sonoma alopecurus...  U.S.A. (CA)........  Poaceae............  E                       625           NA           NA
 sonomensis.                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Astragalus clarianus.............  Clara Hunt's milk-    U.S.A. (CA)........  Fabaceae...........  E                       625           NA           NA
                                    vetch.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Carex albida.....................  white sedge.........  U.S.A. (CA)........  Cyperaceae.........  E                       625           NA           NA
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Clarkia imbricata................  Vine Hill clarkia...  U.S.A. (CA)........  Onagraceae.........  E                       625           NA           NA
                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page 54808]]

                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense  Pitkin Marsh lily...  U.S.A. (CA)........  Liliaceae..........  E                       625           NA           NA
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Plagiobothrys strictus...........  Calistoga allocarya.  U.S.A. (CA)........  Boraginaceae.......  E                       625           NA           NA
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Poa napensis.....................  Napa bluegrass......  U.S.A. (CA)........  Poaceae............  E                       625           NA           NA
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida.....  Kenwood Marsh         U.S.A. (CA)........  Malvaceae..........  E                       625           NA           NA
                                    checker-mallow.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Trifolium amoenum................  showy Indian clover.  U.S.A. (CA)........  Fabaceae...........  E                       625           NA           NA
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: September 29, 1997.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-27924 Filed 10-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P