[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 177 (Monday, September 14, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49022-49035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24500]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC99


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Threatened Status for Four Plants From the Foothills of the Sierra 
Nevada Mountains in California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determines threatened 
status for Brodiaea pallida (Chinese Camp brodiaea), Calyptridium 
puchellum (Mariposa pussypaws), Clarkia springvillensis (Springville 
clarkia), and Verbena californica (California vervain) pursuant to the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). These four plants are 
known from serpentine, clay, or granitic soils in the southwestern 
foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in central California. These 
plants are variously threatened by one or more of the following: 
urbanization, roadway maintenance activities, off-highway vehicle use, 
recreational placer gold mining, heavy livestock grazing and/or 
trampling, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms. These species are also 
vulnerable to extirpations from random events due to small number and 
size of populations, and/or small range of the species. A notice of 
withdrawal of the proposal to list Allium tuolumnense (Rawhide Hill 
onion), Carpenteria californica (carpenteria), Fritillaria striata 
(Greenhorn adobe lily), Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus (Mariposa 
lupine), Mimulus shevockii (Kelso Creek monkeyflower) and Navarretia 
setiloba (Piute Mountain navarretia) is being published concurrently 
with this final rule.

DATES: This rule becomes effective October 14, 1998.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Fuller or Dwight Harvey (see 
ADDRESSES section) telephone number 916/979-2725; facsimile 916/979-
2128.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published a proposed 
rule (59 FR 50540) to list Brodiaea pallida (Chinese Camp brodiaea) and 
Calyptridium puchellum (Mariposa pussypaws) as endangered, and Clarkia 
springvillensis (Springville clarkia), and Verbena californica 
(California vervain) as threatened on October 4, 1994. Also included in 
the proposed rule were Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus (Mariposa lupine) 
and Mimulus shevockii (Kelso Creek monkeyflower) as endangered, and 
Allium tuolumnense (Rawhide Hill onion), Carpenteria californica 
(carpenteria), Fritillaria striata (Greenhorn adobe lily), and 
Navarretia setiloba (Puite Mountain navarretia) to be listed as 
threatened. The Service has determined that the threats to the latter 
six taxa are insufficient to warrant listing, and is publishing a 
withdrawal notice for these six taxa concurrently with this final rule. 
This final rule discusses the final determination to list four species 
as threatened.
    Robert Hoover (1938) first described Brodiaea pallida based on 
specimens collected near Chinese Camp in Tuolumne County. Brodiaea 
pallida is an erect, herbaceous perennial plant belonging to the lily 
family (Liliaceae). Brodiaea pallida grows from underground bulbs to a 
height of 1 to 3 decimeters (dm) (4 to 12 inches (in)), and has long, 
narrow, thick, succulent leaves. Several to many rose-pink flowers 
appear in an umbrella-like cluster at the top of a leafless stem in 
late May to early June. Brodiaea pallida grows in association with, and 
can hybridize with, B. elegans ssp. elegans (Skinner and Pavlick 1994). 
Brodiaea pallida can be distinguished from B. elegans ssp. elegans by 
the corolla being constricted mid-way to form a strongly recurved 
waist, the color of the corolla, and the non-pollen bearing stamens 
(staminodia) being held close to the stamens. Brodiaea pallida grows in 
overflow channels and seeps and springs in clays derived from 
serpentine soils. The Service is not listing hybrids of B. pallida and 
B. elegans ssp. elegans. The entire range of B. pallida is a 3 to 6 
meter (m) (10 to 20 feet (ft)) wide and 0.8 kilometer (km) (0.5 mile 
(mi)) long stretch of an intermittent stream channel at an elevation of 
385 m (1,260 ft). The entire population of B. pallida is scattered over 
an estimated 26 hectares (ha) (65 acres (ac)) (California Natural 
Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) 1997), all of which is privately owned. 
Because of the complex nature of B. pallida reproduction (spreading via 
shoots and suckers), the number of individuals in the population is 
unknown. Despite purposeful surveys for this species in other nearby 
areas, the species has been found only at this

[[Page 49023]]

site. The sole population is threatened by urbanization and inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms, however the immediacy of these threats has 
remained unchanged for the last 10-12 years. This species is also 
vulnerable to extirpation from random events due to the small range of 
the species.
    Joseph Congdon collected the type specimen of Calyptridium 
pulchellum on ``Pea Ridge''' in Mariposa County in 1901. Alice Eastwood 
(1902) first described this plant as Spraguea pulchella. Robert Hoover 
(1940) revised the genera Spraguea and Calyptridium and renamed this 
plant Calyptridium pulchellum based upon vegetative organization and 
habitat. Calyptridium pulchellum is a small, compact, rosette forming, 
annual herb belonging to the purslane family (Portulacaceae). The 
smooth, slender, prostrate stems are 1 to 2 dm (4 to 8 in) long. The 
spatula-shaped leaves have smooth surfaces. Rose-colored, four-petaled 
flowers appear in loose panicles between May and August. This fibrous 
rooted plant grows in small, barren areas on decomposed granitic sands, 
between 460 and 1,090 m (1,500 to 3,600 ft) in the annual grasslands 
and woodlands in the southwestern foothills of the Sierra Nevada 
Mountains. The seven populations in six locations are estimated to 
occupy a total of only 6 ha (14 ac) in Fresno, Madera, and Mariposa 
counties over a range of about 64 km (40 mi) (CNDDB 1997). Six of the 
seven populations occur on private land. Five of these populations are 
marginal in quality and contain fewer than 300 plants (Ann 
Mendershausen, Mariposa Resource Conservation District, pers. comm. 
1997; CNDDB 1997). The sixth population on private land has about 900 
plants (CNDDB 1997). The seventh population of C. pulchellum, occurs on 
lands administered by the Sierra National Forest and is fenced to 
protect it from livestock trampling and grazing (James Boynton and 
Joanna Clines Sierra National Forest, in litt., 1993). Calyptridium 
pulchellum is threatened with urbanization. Due to the few populations 
and low numbers, the species is susceptible to extirpation from random 
events.
    Frank Vasek (1964) described Clarkia springvillensis based on his 
collection along Balch Park Road, the type locality, near Springville. 
Clarkia springvillensis is an erect annual herb in the evening primrose 
family (Onagraceae). The 1 m (3 ft) tall plant has simple or usually 
branched stems. The bright green leaves are 2 to 9 centimeters (cm) 
(0.8 to 3.5 in) long and 5 to 20 millimeters (mm) (0.2 to 0.8 in) 
broad. The lavender-pink flowers appear in May to July and usually have 
a dark purplish basal spot. Clarkia springvillensis can be separated 
from the co-occurring C. unguiculata by the absence of long hairs on 
the calyx and ovary, the purple sepals, and the dark purplish spot at 
the base of the petals. Clarkia springvillensis is found on granitic 
soils in sunny sites from 360 to 910 m (1,220 to 3,000 ft) in 
elevation. Clarkia springvillensis grows mostly on the uphill slope of 
roadbanks, on small decomposing granitic domes, and in openings within 
the blue oak (Quercus douglasii) woodland community in the foothills of 
the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains of Tulare County, where 15 
populations occur. Collectively, the populations are estimated to 
occupy a total of 61 ha (150 ac) (CNDDB 1997). All but one of the 15 
populations are found within about a 24 km (15) mi range, with the 
remaining population occurring 26 km (16 mi) to the northwest. One site 
is partially protected by the CDFG, one is on Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) land, eight are on U.S. Forest Service land, and five are on 
private land. With the variability typical of an annual plant, six 
populations of C. springvillensis have ranged from 20 to 200 plants. 
Four populations along roadsides have become restricted to a narrow 
band just above a zone of herbicide use and just below heavily grazed 
terrain. The largest population of this plant occurs on the 1.8 ha (4.5 
ac) preserve owned by the CDFG. The status of C. springvillensis is 
stable to declining according to the CDFG (CDFG 1995). Clarkia 
springvillensis is threatened by urban development, inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms, heavy livestock grazing, and roadway maintenance 
activities. Due to its few populations and low numbers, C. 
springvillensis is vulnerable to extirpation from random events.
    Harold A. Moldenke (1942) described Verbena californica from 
specimens collected by Robert Hoover from an area north of Keystone in 
Tuolumne County. Verbena californica is an erect perennial herb 
belonging to the vervain family (Verbenaceae). Verbena californica 
grows to 60 cm (23 in) in height and has opposite, bright green, 
stalkless (sessile) leaves. White-blue to purple blossoms appear in May 
through September. Verbena californica grows in nine populations 
between 260 and 335 m (850 to 1,150 ft) in elevation. The populations 
are restricted to intermittent and perennial streams within serpentine 
areas of the Red Hills of Tuolumne County. The entire range of the 
species is about 16 km (10 mi). Within this narrow range, the total 
area occupied by the populations is estimated to be 36 ha (90 ac) 
(CNDDB 1997). Eight of the nine populations occur in drainages that 
feed into Don Pedro Reservoir; five of these eight are on Six Bit Gulch 
and its tributaries. The ninth population is on Andrew Creek that feeds 
into Tullock Reservoir (CDFG 1993, CNDDB 1997). Four of the nine 
populations are wholly on BLM lands, and two are partially on BLM 
lands, although these six sites contain only 15 percent of Verbena 
californica plants. The remaining 85 percent of Verbena californica 
plants are on private lands. When last surveyed, two populations were 
estimated to contain several thousand plants each, four populations 
were estimated to contain 200 to 500 plants each, and the remaining 
three populations were estimated to contain fewer than 100 plants each 
(CDFG 1993, CNDDB 1997). The two largest populations, at Andrew Creek 
and Big Creek, occur entirely or primarily on private lands (CDFG 1993, 
CNDDB 1997). Verbena californica is threatened by urbanization, 
recreational placer gold mining, off-highway vehicle use (OHV), 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms, dumping, and heavy grazing and 
trampling. Due to the few populations and low numbers, it is also 
vulnerable to extirpation from random events.

Previous Federal Action

    Federal government actions on these four plants began as a result 
of section 12 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian 
Institution to prepare a report on those plants considered to be 
endangered, threatened, or extinct in the United States. This report, 
designated as House Document No. 94-51, was presented to Congress on 
January 9, 1975, and included Brodiaea pallida as endangered. 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 its 
intention thereby to review the status of the plant taxa named therein. 
Brodiaea pallida was 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-

[[Page 49024]]

51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication. Brodiaea pallida 
and Calyptridium puchellum were included as endangered 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 more than 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 an updated Notice of Review for plants on 
December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This notice included Brodiaea pallida, 
Calyptridium puchellum, Clarkia springvillensis, and Verbena 
californica as category 1 candidates. Category 1 species were those for 
which the Service had on file substantial information on biological 
vulnerability and threats to support preparation of listing proposals.
    On November 28, 1983, the Service published in the Federal Register 
a supplement to the Notice of Review (48 FR 53640) in which Brodiaea 
pallida and Verbena californica were designated as category 1 
candidates for Federal listing. This supplement also changed Clarkia 
springvillensis and Calyptridium puchellum to category 2. Category 2 
included taxa for which information in the possession of the Service 
indicated that a listing proposal was possibly appropriate, but for 
which sufficient data on biological vulnerability and threat were not 
available to support a proposed rule. On February 28, 1996, the Service 
published a Notice of Review in the Federal Register (61 FR 7596) that 
discontinued the designation of category 2 species as candidates.
    The plant notice was revised again on September 27, 1985 (50 FR 
39526). The status of these four plants remained unchanged from the 
1983 supplement. Another revision of the plant notice was published on 
February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184). In this revision, Clarkia 
springvillensis was returned to category 1 status. On September 30, 
1993, the Service published another notice and the status of the 
species remained unchanged (58 FR 51144).
    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to make 
certain findings on pending petitions within 12 months of their 
receipt. Section 2(b)(1) of the 1982 amendments further requires that 
all petitions pending on October 13, 1982, be treated as having been 
newly submitted on that date. This was the case for Brodiaea pallida 
because the 1975 Smithsonian report had been accepted as a petition. On 
October 13, 1983, the Service found that the petitioned listing of 
these species was warranted, but precluded by other pending listing 
actions, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act; 
notification of this finding was published on January 20, 1984 (49 FR 
2485). Such a finding requires the petition to be recycled, pursuant to 
section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act. The finding was reviewed in October 
of 1984 through 1993.
    On October 4, 1994, the Service published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register (59 FR 50540) to list Brodiaea pallida, Calyptridium 
pulchellum, Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus, and Mimulus shevockii as 
endangered and Allium tuolumnense, Clarkia springvillensis, Carpenteria 
californica, Fritillaria striata, Navarretia setiloba, and Verbena 
californica as threatened. This proposed rule constituted the warranted 
finding for Brodiaea pallida.
    Based upon information received during public comment periods 
subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule, the Service now 
determines Brodiaea pallida, Calyptridium pulchellum, Clarkia 
springvillensis, and Verbena californica to be threatened species. The 
proposed listing of Allium tuolumnense, Carpenteria californica, 
Fritillaria striata, Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus, Mimulus shevockii, 
and Navarretia setiloba is being withdrawn by the Service as announced 
in a separate Federal Register notice published concurrently with this 
final rule.
    The processing of this final rule follows the Service's fiscal 
years 1998 and 1999 listing priority guidance published in the Federal 
Register on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance establishes the 
order in which the Service will process rulemakings. The guidance calls 
for giving highest priority to handling emergency situations (Tier 1) 
and second highest priority (Tier 2) to resolving the listing status of 
outstanding proposed listings. Processing critical habitat 
determinations is included in Tier 3 of the guidance. This final rule 
is a Tier 2 action and is being completed in accordance with the 
current listing priority guidance.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the October 4, 1994, proposed rule (59 FR 50540) and associated 
notifications, all interested parties were requested to submit factual 
reports or information that might contribute to development of a final 
rule. Appropriate Federal agencies, State agencies, County and City 
governments, scientific organizations, and other interested parties 
were contacted and requested to provide comments. Newspaper notices 
inviting public comment were published in the Bakersfield Californian 
and Porterville Recorder on October 10, 1994, and the Fresno Bee and 
Tuolumne Union Democrat on October 25, 1994. The comment period closed 
on December 5, 1994.
    As a result of receiving seven requests for one or more public 
hearings, the Service reopened and extended the comment period until 
February 13, 1995 (59 FR 67268). The Service held informational 
meetings with interested parties about the proposed rule in Fresno on 
January 25, 1995, in Visalia on January 26, 1995, and in Bakersfield on 
January 27, 1995. On January 31, 1995, the Service conducted a public 
hearing in Bakersfield. The Service received three requests to postpone 
or delay the public hearing and three additional requests to extend the 
comment period beyond February 13, 1995. Responding to these requests, 
the Service extended the comment period until June 4, 1995 (60 FR 
8342). From April 1995, through April 1997, the Service was under a 
congressionally imposed moratorium on final listings. The Service 
reopened the comment period on February 4, 1997, (62 FR 5199) and again 
on June 30, 1997, (62 FR 35116) to update and clarify information 
received during the three prior comment periods.
    The Service has reviewed all the comments received during the four 
comment periods. General comments received on all ten taxa included in 
the proposed rule, and specific comments on the four taxa for which the 
Service has determined that listing is appropriate are addressed in 
this final rule. Specific comments pertaining to the six taxa being 
withdrawn (Allium tuolumnense (Rawhide Hill onion), Carpenteria 
californica (carpenteria), Fritillaria striata (Greenhorn adobe lily), 
Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus (Mariposa lupine), Mimulus shevockii 
(Kelso Creek monkeyflower) and Navarretia setiloba (Puite Mountain 
navarretia)) are addressed in a separate Federal Register notice 
published concurrently with this rule.

[[Page 49025]]

    The Service received 525 comments (i.e., letters, phone calls, 
facsimiles, and oral testimony) from 164 individuals or agencies or 
group representatives concerning the proposed rule. Seventy-one 
commenters provided opposing comments, 39 commenters provided 
supporting comments, and 54 commenters provided neutral comments. Of 
the 525 comments, 310 were opposed to the proposed listing, 87 
supported the listing, and 128 had no position regarding the proposed 
listing. Several commenters provided additional information that, along 
with other clarifications, has been incorporated into the 
``Background'' or ``Summary of Factors'' sections of this final rule. 
Opposing and technical comments have been organized into specific 
issues. These issues and the Service's response to each, are summarized 
as follows.

Issue 1--Insufficiency of Data

    Comment: Several commenters stated that data used in the proposed 
rule to list these ten plants was either inaccurate, insufficient, 
inconsistent, erroneous, unsubstantiated, unverified, unjustified, 
based only on biased opinions in favor of listing the species, not 
peer-reviewed, or required additional research.
    Service Response: Information used by the Service to list the 
species was gathered from a variety of sources, including Federal and 
State agencies, local governments, and private individuals, including 
species experts and scientists. This information, and additional 
information received during public comment periods, including those of 
peer reviewers and comments received at public hearings, provide the 
foundation for determining the final status of these ten plants. All 
information received was carefully evaluated in accordance with the 
interagency policy on information standards under the Act, published on 
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271). Five of the seven independent species 
experts that reviewed the proposed rule supported the listing of one or 
more of the ten plant taxa. Criteria for what information may be 
considered are discussed in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species'' section. As previously stated, this final rule concerns four 
of the ten taxa proposed on October 4, 1994. The other six taxa are 
addressed in a separate notice published concurrently with this final 
rule.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the information on these 
four plants was collected during drought years, and therefore, the data 
were biased. Another commenter suggested that the Service extend the 
comment period for another two or three growing seasons so more 
information could be collected on the species in non-drought years.
    Service Response: Professional and amateur botanists have known of 
and searched for three of the four plants for decades. Brodiaea 
pallida, Calyptridium pulchellum, and Verbena californica were all 
described prior to 1960 and were included in Philip Munz and David 
Keck's, ``A California Flora of California, 1959.'' The first State-
wide inventory of rare plants was assembled by the California Native 
Plant Society (CNPS) in 1974. Monitoring efforts on the locations and 
habitats of the four plants have been more consistent since this time. 
Continuing inventory efforts have not been conducted on all populations 
of the four plants in all years over the last twenty years. However, 
site visits to locations of populations of these plants have been 
undertaken in both drought and non-drought years, as discussed in the 
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section. Under section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Service is required to make its 
determination upon the best available scientific and commercial data. 
The Service is neither required, funded, nor authorized to conduct 
further surveys for these species, and concludes that the best 
available information is sufficient to support the listing of these 
species under the Act.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that data were, or may have 
been, collected by trespass and questioned the legality and 
admissibility of the data under those circumstances.
    Service Response: Among the information sources used by the Service 
is the information from the CNDDB, a part of the California Department 
of Fish and Game (CDFG). The data comprising the CNDDB and data at the 
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office is checked for accuracy, but 
whether or not observers obtained written or verbal permission to visit 
private land is not investigated. Many of the older observations may 
predate the more recent heightened sensitivity of landowners to 
individuals searching for rare plants on their property. Neither the 
Service nor the CDFG condone trespassing.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the Service did 
not collect information from ranchers and that the information to list 
the four plants may not be accurate without this information.
    Service Response: The Service collected and has used the best 
scientific and commercially information available from Federal, State 
and local agencies, species experts, ecologists, botanists, and 
interested individuals in the preparation of the proposed and final 
rules, consistent with section 4(a)(1)(B) of the Act. A list of all 
data sources and information used to formulate the proposed and final 
rules are available from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office upon 
request. The Service participated in two informal information exchange 
meetings with State and County representatives and private landowning 
ranchers in Bakersfield, California, to discuss the importance, 
usefulness, and thresholds of useful information during the fourth 
comment period and received information from ranchers during all 
comment periods. Some of this information pertained to specific or 
general locational references and has been incorporated into this final 
rule.

Issue 2--Species Are Not Threatened or Threats Are Not Substantiated

    Comment: Several commenters stated that some of the species are 
more common than indicated in the proposed rule, or some, if not all of 
the species are not threatened by one or more factors across the range 
of the species. One commenter stated that Clarkia springvillensis is 
not threatened by urbanization, timber operations, or road maintenance 
across its range. Another commenter stated that Clarkia springvillensis 
is more widespread than is indicated in the proposed rule.
    Service Response: The Service has reviewed all the information and 
comments from many sources and has determined that logging does not 
pose a significant threat to Clarkia springvillensis. Urbanization 
poses a threat to C. springvillensis on private lands, but not to those 
populations found on public lands. Road maintenance threatens the 
species at four of its 15 locations. Additional information regarding 
threats to the species are discussed in the ``Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species'' section of this document. The Service has 
determined that each of these four taxa meets the definition of a 
threatened species under the Act. A list of all data sources and 
information used to formulate the proposed and final rules are 
available at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office upon request.

Issue 3--Economic Effects of Listing

    Comment: Numerous commenters stated that listing may limit, 
curtail, or impinge on the existing uses of private property, or that 
listing would result in the loss of management opportunities on private 
lands as well as the loss of economic productivity of those lands.

[[Page 49026]]

    Service Response: The Act does not restrict the damage or 
destruction of listed plants due to otherwise lawful private activities 
on private land beyond any level of protection that may be provided 
under State law. Listing the four plants as threatened or endangered 
will not regulate logging, 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, as well as 
prohibited activities, are discussed further under ``Available 
Conservation Measures'' section of this rule.
    Comment: Numerous commenters stated that the Service should 
consider the economic effects of the listing on the local economies and 
industries in the counties where the plants occur.
    Service Response: Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, a listing 
determination must be based solely on the best scientific and 
commercial data available about whether a species meets the Acts 
definition of a threatened or endangered species. 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., 2nd 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 the legislation,'' H.R. Rep. NO. 97-835, 97th Cong. 2nd 
Sess. 19 (1982). Because the Service is precluded from considering 
economic impacts, in a final decision on a proposed listing, the 
Service does not examine such impacts.
    Comment: One commenter stated that listing may result in 
``takings'' of private property and therefore the Service should 
complete a Takings Implications Assessment.
    Service Response: The U.S. Attorney General has issued guidelines 
to the Department of the Interior (Department) on the implementation of 
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. The provisions 
in the guidelines relating to non-discretionary actions clearly are 
applicable to the determination of endangered or threatened status for 
the four plants in this rule.
    In this context, an agency's actions might be subject to legal 
challenge if it did not consider or act upon economic data. In these 
cases, the Attorney General's guidelines state that Takings 
Implications Assessments (TIA) will be prepared after, rather than 
before, the agency makes the decision upon which its discretion is 
restricted. The purpose of TIAs in these special circumstances is to 
inform policy makers of areas where unavoidable takings exposures 
exist. Such TIAs shall 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 the 
Department to list species based solely upon scientific and commercial 
data indicating whether they are in danger of extinction. Thus, by law 
and U.S. Attorney guidelines, the Service cannot conduct such TIA's 
prior to listing.

Issue 4--Designation of Critical Habitat

    Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service needed to 
designate critical habitat, and had no prudent basis for refusal to do 
so.
    Service Response: The Service has determined that critical habitat 
for these four species is not prudent. Please refer to the ``Critical 
Habitat'' section of this rule for a detailed discussion of the 
Service's basis for not designating critical habitat at this time.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the Service needed to designate 
critical habitat to help locate populations and verify data. Another 
commenter disagreed with the Service that the designation of critical 
habitat and subsequent publication of critical habitat maps would cause 
vandalism to the plants.
    Service Response: Protection that these species will receive as a 
result of listing is discussed under ``Available Conservation 
Measures'' portion of this rule. The public has access to general 
locational information on all four of these plants through the CDFG's 
CNDDB. The Service considers the risk of malicious damage to most of 
these plants to be relatively small, especially for the species that 
are inconspicuous. Please refer to the ``Critical Habitat'' section of 
this rule for a detailed discussion of the Service's reasons for not 
designating critical habitat at this time.

Issue 5--Recovery Planning

    Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service should not list 
these four species without a recovery plan. Another commenter stated 
that the lack of a recovery plan hampers a county's ability to provide 
adequate protection measures for these species. One commenter stated 
that the Service could not prepare a recovery plan without an economic 
assessment.
    Service Response: The recovery planning process typically occurs 
after the species has been listed and provides recovery objectives and 
criteria to delist the species. The recovery planning process will 
involve species experts, scientists, and interested members of the 
public in accordance with interagency policy on recovery plans under 
the Act, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272). The information and 
public education needs for successful recovery of these species are 
many and will be incorporated into the recovery plan. Economic 
assessments are not part of the recovery planning process; however, 
every recovery plan includes an estimate of the costs of all recovery 
tasks identified in the plan.

Issue 6--National Environmental Policy Act and Information Availability

    Comment: Numerous commenters stated that the Service needed to 
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental 
Assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) on this rule.
    Service Response: For reasons described in the NEPA section of this 
document, the Service has determined that the rules issued pursuant to 
section 4(a) of the Act do not require the preparation of an EIS. The 
Federal courts have held in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 
f2d. 829 (6th Circuit 1981) that an EIS is not required for listing 
under the Act. The court decision noted that preparing an EIS on 
listing actions does not further the goals of NEPA or the Act.
    Comment: Several commenters wanted to personally view the evidence 
used by the Service to list these plants, or specifically wanted to 
know the names of individuals who conducted site visits or provided 
peer review for the proposed rule.
    Service Response: A full administrative record of the information 
considered in the proposed and final rules for these species is 
available at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES 
section).

Issue 7--Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Comment: Numerous commenters stated that the existing regulatory 
measures available through State, Federal and local laws, rules and 
regulations provide adequate protection for the four species to be 
listed in this

[[Page 49027]]

rule. Other commenters stated that the existing regulatory mechanisms 
were not sufficient to protect the species included in this rule, and 
therefore the listing should go forward to provide the protection 
necessary for the continued existence of these species.
    Service Response: The Service believes that the existing regulatory 
mechanisms provided in the State, local and county regulations are 
inadequate to protect these four plants. Please see Factor D of the 
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,'' section of this rule.

Issue 8--Grazing

    Comment: Several commenters stated that grazing and/or trampling is 
good for these species by promoting plant vigor, or creates a better 
seedbed. One commenter stated that the Service holds the position that 
all grazing is overgrazing. One commenter stated that other 
environmental factors (e.g., rainfall) are more of an issue for these 
species than grazing.
    Service Response: The Service has no evidence to support the 
general position that grazing is beneficial or detrimental for these 
species. Numerous factors involved in livestock management and grazing 
practices, such as season of use, intensity, duration, and stocking 
levels, as well as varying climatic conditions, may affect these 
species and/or their habitats. No available literature supports the 
position that grazing is beneficial to these species. Site specific 
observations and local extirpations suggest that heavy grazing may have 
impacted some populations of these species. The Service does not hold 
that all grazing is overgrazing, but rather that grazing at some 
locations has had adverse impacts on the species considered in this 
rule. Virtually all the information that the Service received or 
located regarding beneficial and adverse livestock grazing effects on 
the four taxa is anecdotal. However, repeated observations over time 
coupled with knowledge of historical land uses has validity even though 
that information was not scientifically collected. That kind of 
information was provided for some of the locations for some of the taxa 
in this rule. Based upon this information, it appears that some levels 
of livestock grazing are compatible with, and may be beneficial to, 
some of these species. Competition from alien grasses may pose a threat 
to some of these species and grazing, to the extent that it can 
alleviate such competition without eliminating or weakening a rare 
plant population through direct consumption or trampling, or secondary 
effects such as accelerated soil erosion, is compatible with rare 
plants on many sites. The listing provisions of the Act provide that 
species may be determined to be endangered or threatened species due to 
one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the 
Act. The effects of herbivory by any animal, including livestock, is 
discussed under Factor C of the ``Disease and Predation'' section of 
this rule.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that threats associated with 
livestock grazing were either false, purely speculative, or lacked any 
scientific credence.
    Service Response: During the preparation of this rule, the Service 
evaluated site specific observations of known plant populations, and 
reviewed an extensive body of literature on the impacts of grazing 
mammals to plant species. Please refer to Factor C in the ``Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species'' section of this rule for further 
discussion on the effects of herbivory, including livestock grazing.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that grazing of Clarkia 
springvillensis is not a problem or that grazing is necessary for the 
survival of the species.
    Service Response: Grazing, in combination with other environmental 
and human factors, have led to deleterious effects on the habitat of 
Clarkia springvillensis. According to observers (Tim Holtsford and 
Kimberlie McCue-Harvey, University of Missouri, in litt. 1993), 
livestock grazing is damaging eight of the 15 known locations of this 
species by direct consumption and trampling. The Service believes that 
these effects, together with other threats discussed in ``Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species'' section support the determination of 
threatened status for this species.

Issue 9--Alternative Status

    Comment: Several commenters requested that the species considered 
in this rule should either not be listed at this time, be listed with 
an alternate status, withdrawn, delayed in listing, or retain current 
status.
    Service Response: Substantive information provided by commenters in 
support of arguments for alternative listing status, including delay or 
withdrawal, has been incorporated into this final rule and the 
accompanying withdrawal notice. The Service believes there is 
sufficient information to list these four species, and that the 
appropriate determination of the status of each of these species has 
been made. The Service has made these determinations based on 
consideration of the best available information, in accordance with 
section 4(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Please refer to the ``Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species'' section of this rule regarding threats to 
Brodiaea pallida, Calyptridium pulchellum, Clarkia springvillensis, and 
Verbena californica, and to the notice of withdrawal being published 
concurrently with this rule [insert FR#] for information regarding 
Allium tuolumnense, Carpenteria californica, Clarkia springvillensis, 
Fritillaria striata, Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus, Mimulus shevockii, 
and Navarretia setiloba.

Issue 10--Lack of Regulatory Authority to List Plant Species

    Comment: One commenter stated the Service lacks jurisdiction to 
enact the proposed rule, and that the rule should be withdrawn since 
there is no connection between regulation of these plants and a 
substantial effect on ``interstate commerce.''
    Service Response: The Service maintains that it does have the 
authority to list plants such as those included in the proposed rule 
pursuant to the Act. Several Federal court cases have confirmed this 
authority (see e.g. National Association of Home Builders v. Babbitt, 
130 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed (March 5, 
1998)).

Peer Review

    Consistent with the interagency policy on peer review published on 
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), the Service solicited the expert opinions 
of seven independent and appropriate specialists regarding pertinent 
scientific or commercial data and assumptions relating to the taxonomy, 
population status, and supporting biological and ecological information 
for the ten proposed plants. Five of the seven peer reviewers provided 
comments. Not all reviewers commented on all of the taxa that were 
proposed for listing. One reviewer supported the listing of all species 
addressed in this rule, noted that each species is taxonomically 
distinct, and commented that the low numbers of individuals in 
populations make them especially susceptible to detrimental genetic 
phenomena, including inbreeding depression and loss of genetic 
variability. This reviewer characterized the population sizes of 
Brodiaea pallida and Calyptridium pulchellum as ``perilously low'' and 
the populations of Clarkia springvillensis and Verbena californica as 
approaching that condition. A second reviewer also supported the 
listing of all species addressed in this rule and commented 
specifically on Brodiaea pallida,

[[Page 49028]]

Calyptridium pulchellum, and Clarkia springvillensis. The reviewer 
noted that the restriction of Brodiaea pallida to a single population 
and its ``dangerously low'' population size make it susceptible to 
extinction by random events. The same reviewer also commented that 
further reductions in populations of Calyptridium pulchellum and 
Clarkia springvillensis may place them in danger of extinction by 
random events. A third reviewer, who only addressed Calyptridium 
pulchellum and Clarkia springvillensis, noted that each is 
taxonomically distinct and of such limited range that listing is 
warranted. A fourth reviewer provided information on the taxonomic 
distinctiveness, ecology, and non-native competitors of Navarretia 
setiloba, a species that is being withdrawn, and also emphasized the 
importance of conserving the species. The fifth reviewer provided no 
specific comments but supported the listing of all four taxa addressed 
in this final rule.

Summary of the Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated 
to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures 
for adding species to the Federal lists. A species may be determined to 
be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five 
factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their 
application to Brodiaea pallida Hoover (Chinese Camp brodiaea), 
Calyptridium puchellum (Eastwood) Hoover (Mariposa pussypaws), Clarkia 
springvillensis Vasek (Springville clarkia), and Verbena californica 
Moldenke (California vervain) are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of its Habitat or Range

    Brodiaea pallida, Calyptridium puchellum, Clarkia springvillensis, 
and Verbena californica are restricted to grassland and woodland 
communities of the southwestern foothills of the central Sierra Nevada 
Mountains. These four species have been variously impacted and face 
future impacts from development projects and other human activities.
    Historically, the only known population of Brodiaea pallida 
extended up to 0.6 km (1 mi) south of the Red Hills Road; however, 
large parts of the population were destroyed by non-permitted 
construction around 1982 (Blaine Rogers, Columbia College, in litt. 
1990; CNDDB 1997). A subdivision has been proposed for the remainder of 
the site (B. Rogers, in litt. 1997; Pat Stone, CNPS, in litt. 1997). 
The proposed subdivision divides some of the population into 2 ha (5 
ac) parcels and would impact approximately one half of all the known 
individual plants (P. Stone, in litt. 1994). No construction activity 
has occurred since 1989 at the proposed subdivision that was believed 
to threaten B. pallida. No construction activity is currently planned 
at the site where the species occurs. Thus, in reassessing the threat 
to the single population of Brodiaea pallida and recognizing that the 
threat is less imminent than initially thought, the Service has 
determined that threatened status is more appropriate for Brodiaea 
pallida.
    Two populations of Calyptridium puchellum occur on lots in the 
midst of a subdivision (Ann Mendershausen, Mariposa County Resource 
Conservation District, pers. comm. 1993, 1997; CNDDB 1997). This 
subdivision had a vacancy rate of 23 percent as of March 1997 (David 
Deel, Madera County Planning Department, pers. comm. 1997) and 
additional human impacts may occur to the two populations as the 
subdivision fills to 100 percent occupancy. A third population of C. 
pulchellum occurs in an area including commercial and residential 
zoning adjacent to the location of the population (A. Mendershausen in 
litt. 1995; Thomas Kidwell, Madera County Assessors Office, in litt. 
1997; D. Deel, in litt. 1997). Although one subdivision was constructed 
prior to the proposed rule, none of the proposed subdivisions that were 
thought to threaten populations of C. pulchellum have been constructed 
since the proposed rule was published in 1994. No construction 
activities are planned at the sites where the species occurs. A fourth 
population of C. pulchellum occurs on a ranch that is for sale (A. 
Mendershausen pers. comm. 1993, 1997; CNDDB 1997). The populations of 
Madera and Mariposa counties, where C. pulchellum occurs on private 
lands, are expected to increase by 58 percent and 55 percent, 
respectively, between 1996 and 2010 (California Department of Finance 
1993, 1996). Thus, the Service has determined that the threats to 
populations of Calyptridium puchellum from subdivisions are not as 
imminent as first thought and has determined that threatened status is 
more appropriate for Calyptridium puchellum.
    Two populations of Clarkia springvillensis on the Sequoia National 
Forest (CNDDB 1997) and three populations on non-Federal lands are 
threatened by road maintenance activities such as grading and roadside 
mowing (T. Holtsford, in litt. 1993, T. Holtsford and K. McCue-Harvey, 
in litt. 1993, CNDDB 1997). These five populations comprise more than 
40 percent of the known acreage of C. springvillensis habitat (CNDDB 
1997). Four of these five populations are small and have become 
restricted to a narrow band above and/or below the part of the roadbank 
that is not graded and above and/or below the heavily grazed terrain 
across a fence adjacent to the roadway (CDFG 1990). Mowing usually 
occurs when the grass turns golden, just when C. springvillensis begins 
to flower (James Shevock, U.S. Forest Service, in litt. 1985). One of 
the five sites is along a county road (County Road M-220) that is 
graded infrequently by the Tulare County Public Works Department; the 
plants extend to the edge of the road and are graded and buried 
periodically (T. Holtsford, 1994 pers. comm.). At this same site, C. 
springvillensis appears to be threatened by the Public Works Department 
dumping of sand (T. Holtsford, pers. comm. 1994).
    A sixth population of Clarkia springvillensis, on private land, is 
threatened by development (Andrew Pacheco, Tulare County Planning 
Department, in litt. 1997; CNDDB 1997). Zoning in portions of the area 
allows one dwelling per ha (2.5 ac) as long as the dwellings are 
occupied by family, employees, or farm laborers (A. Pacheco, in litt. 
1997). This is in addition to an allowance for one dwelling for the 
owner. Further subdivision of parcels requires an amendment to the 
general plan. Applications for general plan amendments can be submitted 
whenever, and as frequently as, the land owner wishes in Tulare County 
(A. Pacheco pers. comm. 1997). Three small populations of C. 
springvillensis occur on lands owned by Tulare County. These 
populations are subject to incidental impacts associated with frequent 
large nature group walks and livestock grazing (CNDDB 1997).
    The largest population of Clarkia springvillensis occurs on a 1.8 
ha (4.5 ac) preserve owned by CDFG. Prior to acquisition by CDFG, this 
property had an access road cut into the preserve, a water well 
drilled, and a knoll leveled as a pad for home construction. The type 
locality for C. springvillensis,, which covered a 27 ha (67 ac) area, 
was extirpated by mobile home development (CNDDB 1997).
    Both of the largest populations of Verbena californica are on 
private land that currently is being developed, or could be developed 
soon. When last surveyed, each of these populations was estimated to 
contain several thousand

[[Page 49029]]

plants; the next largest population was estimated to contain fewer than 
500 plants (CDFG 1993, CNDDB 1997). In August 1997, the Tuolumne County 
Board of Supervisors rescinded the 1994 Environmental Impact Report 
(prepared pursuant to CEQA, discussed below) for a planned subdivision 
at one of these populations on Andrew Creek. Because of this action, a 
1989 vested map dividing the land into 23 parcels is in effect (Robin 
Wood, Tuolumne County Planning Department, pers. comm. 1997a). Grading 
and road building are currently occurring in V. californica habitat on 
the site (Rich Hunter, Central Sierra Environmental Resources Center, 
pers. comm. 1997; R. Wood, pers. comm. 1997a). This population was 
estimated to contain at least 35 to 40 percent of all V. californica 
plants, based on CDFG 1993 population sizes. In addition, it is the 
only population of V. californica known from the Andrew Creek drainage 
and the most westerly population of the species. The second of the two 
largest populations of V. californica is on Big Creek (CDFG 1993). The 
parcel recently was sold, and the owners are planning to build a house 
on a knoll about 300 feet from the creek where V. californica grows. 
The parcel is currently zoned so that it could be divided into 15 ha 
(37 ac) parcels. The parcel could be further divided if the general 
plan was amended; amending can take place three times a year in 
Tuolumne County. In addition, the busy, nearby intersection of Old Don 
Pedro Road and La Grange Road may be developed, if the general plan is 
amended. Other areas of rapid development in the vicinity of V. 
californica in Tuolumne County include the intersection of Highways 108 
and 120 and the area around Chinese Camp (R. Wood, pers. comm. 1997b).
    Recreational placer gold mining has not been allowed since 1993 in 
Andrew and Big creeks, but it is still allowed in Poor Man's and Six 
Bit gulches (Art Champ, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in litt. 1995). 
Three populations of Verbena californica on BLM land in Six Bit Gulch 
and one on BLM land in an unnamed drainage between Six Bit Gulch and 
Big Creek are threatened by recreational placer gold mining (CDFG 
1993). Impacts from casual mining continue to occur despite designation 
of the entire Red Hills as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by 
BLM (Ed Hastey, BLM, in litt. 1992). Verbena californica was only found 
on areas of the stream in the Six Bit Gulch area where mining 
activities had not changed land contours and habitat (Rogers 1983). 
Another impact from recreational mining is trampling by humans, which 
negatively affects V. californica and its habitat (Anne Knox, BLM, 
pers. comm. 1997a).

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Overutilization is not currently known to be a factor for these 
four plants, 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 final rule.

C. Disease or Predation

    Many Clarkia springvillensis sites are reported to be grazed by 
domestic livestock (Kimberlie McCue, Missouri Botanical Garden, in 
litt. 1997). Grazing can negatively affect C. springvillensis although 
the degree of impact depends on the timing and intensity of grazing. 
Grazed plants have the ability to continue producing flowers, but 
heavy, repeated, and/or late season grazing can adversely affect the 
plants (K. McCue, in litt. 1997). Intensive grazing has been identified 
as one of the greatest threats to the species and the ``basic cause of 
its rarity'' (J. Shevock in litt. 1985). Heavy livestock grazing and/or 
trampling have been reported in three populations of C. springvillensis 
in Tulare County (T. Holtsford and K. McCue-Harvey, in litt. 1993; 
CNDDB 1997). An additional five occurrences are grazed, but heavy 
grazing and/or trampling have not been reported at these sites (CNDDB 
1997). Appropriate grazing regimes may benefit C. springvillensis in 
some situations by reducing the abundance of alien plants and thereby 
lessening competitive pressure on C. springvillensis (K. McCue, in 
litt. 1997).
    Several populations of Verbena californica are grazed (CNDDB 1997). 
Although the effects of grazing on V. californica are not thoroughly 
understood, plants in grazed sites are noticeably smaller than those in 
ungrazed sites (Mark Skinner, CNPS, pers. comm. 1993; A. Knox, pers. 
comm. 1997b). Field observations suggest that V. californica can 
tolerate only light grazing before it disappears from occupied habitat 
(Rogers 1983). Even if grazing itself does not threaten V. californica, 
trampling associated with grazing negatively impacts the plants and 
their habitat (A. Knox, pers. comm. 1997a, b). One of the two largest 
populations of V. californica is subject to trampling (A. Knox, pers. 
comm. 1997b) and heavy grazing (CNDDB 1997). When last surveyed, this 
population contained several thousand plants on about 13 percent of the 
total acreage occupied by V. californica, and was estimated to contain 
approximately 40 to 50 percent of all V. californica plants (CDFG 1993; 
CNDDB 1997). Recently, a cattle feeder was installed 3 m (10 ft) from 
the creek where V. californica grows at this site (P. Stone, pers. 
comm. 1997a), which may increase trampling effects. Trampling has also 
been identified as a threat at two other populations of V. californica 
(CDFG 1993; A. Knox, pers. comm. 1997b). At one of these sites, the 
trampling was due to trespass grazing (A. Knox, pers. comm. 1997b).
    The Service has not received any scientific studies suggesting that 
heavy livestock grazing has adverse effects on any of the populations 
of the four taxa in this final rule. The Service maintains that, 
depending on a wide variety of circumstances, livestock grazing may 
have little, or no detectable, adverse effects on plant communities. 
The effects on plants from livestock grazing are highly variable and 
dependent on many factors, including but not limited to, livestock 
class, timing, intensity, and duration of livestock use, and the 
species of plants themselves, (Heady 1975). Soil and ambient air 
temperatures, along with effective soil moisture from spring rainfall 
also influence plant germination, growth, and availability for 
livestock consumption (Heady 1975; Huenneke and Mooney 1989). Livestock 
grazing occurs where many of the four plant species populations are 
located, and the Service is aware of numerous circumstances where, 
under a specific set of circumstances, livestock grazing has no or 
little adverse effect on any of the four plants. The BLM and Sierra 
National Forest constructed livestock exclusion fences around one 
population of Verbena californica and one population of Calyptridium 
pulchellum to promote and protect the plants and their habitats. There 
have been observations of neutral, little, and adverse effects of 
livestock grazing on these four taxa (K. McCue, in litt. 1997; CNDDB 
1997).

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The State of California Fish and Game Commission has listed 
Brodiaea pallida and Clarkia springvillensis as endangered species 
under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Chapter 1.5 
Sec. 2050 et seq. of the CDFG Code and Title 14 California Code of 
Regulations 670.2). In September 1994, the California Fish and Game 
Commission listed Verbena californica as a threatened species (Chapter 
1.5

[[Page 49030]]

Sec. 2050 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code and Title 14 
California Code of Regulations 670.2 ). Listing by the State of 
California requires individuals to obtain a memorandum of understanding 
with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to possess or 
``take'' a listed species. Although the ``take'' of State-listed plants 
is prohibited (California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA), Chapter 
10 Sec. 1908 and CESA, Chapter 1.5 Sec. 2080), State law appears to 
exempt the taking of such plants via habitat modification or land use 
changes by the owner. After CDFG notifies a landowner that a State-
listed plant grows on his or her property, State law evidently requires 
that the land owner notify the agency ``at least 10 days in advance of 
changing the land use to allow salvage of such a plant'' (CNPPA, 
Chapter 10 Sec. 1913). California Senate Bill 879, passed in 1997 and 
effective January 1, 1998, requires individuals to obtain a section 
2081(b) permit from CDFG to take a listed species incidental to 
otherwise lawful activities, and requires that all impacts be fully 
mitigated and all measures be capable of successful implementation. 
These new requirements have not been tested and several years will be 
required to evaluate their effectiveness in protecting species.
    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 listing as rare, threatened, or endangered but are not so listed 
are given the same protection as those species that are officially 
listed by the State or Federal governments. Once significant effects 
are identified, the lead agency has the option of requiring mitigation 
for effects through changes in the project or deciding that overriding 
considerations make mitigation infeasible. In the latter case, projects 
that cause significant environmental damage, such as destruction of 
endangered species, may be approved. Protection of listed species 
through CEQA is therefore dependant 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.
    Brodiaea pallida and Verbena californica occur in seeps, springs, 
and overflow channels, and in intermittent and perennial streams, 
respectively. Such features may be treated as 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 Brodiaea 
pallida and Verbena californica. 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 (61 FR 
65916). 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 (0.3 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 (61 FR 65917). Populations 
of Verbena californica and some parts of the single population of 
Brodiaea pallida may occur in wetlands smaller than 0.13 ha (0.3 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' (61 
FR 65880), 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 (0.3 ac) threshold. For Brodiaea pallida and 
Verbena californica, the reporting requirement may be inadequate to 
prevent significant destruction of many individual plants and 
associated habitats.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence

    Although the public lands in the Red Hills are closed to OHV use, a 
public loop road was constructed through the area in 1995, and OHV use 
continues to threaten populations of Verbena californica (P. Stone, 
pers. comm. 1997b; Patti Wilson, CNPS, in litt. 1997; CNDDB 1997). The 
BLM continues to issue small numbers of citations for shooting and OHV 
use in the Red Hills (Steve Martin, BLM, pers. comm. 1997). Trash 
dumping has also damaged one population of Verbena californica on BLM 
lands in Six Bit Gulch (A. Knox, pers. comm. 1997b).
    Small population size increases the susceptibility of a population 
to extirpation from random demographic, environmental and/or genetic 
events (Shaffer 1981, 1987; Lande 1988; Meffe and Carroll 1994). 
Brodiaea pallida exists in only a single population comprising 26 ha 
(65 ac). Population sizes of 100 or fewer are known for at least five 
populations of Calyptridium pulchellum and three populations of Verbena 
californica, and populations sizes of 20 to 200 plants are reported for 
Clarkia springvillensis (CDFG 1990; CNDDB 1997). Although neither 
regular nor systematic inventories have been conducted for all 
populations at every location, populations of these plants have been 
examined in drought and non-drought years from 1901 for Calyptridium 
pulchellum, 1964 for Clarkia cvspringvillensis, and 1942 for Verbena 
californica. Demographic events that may put small populations of 
Calyptridium pulchellum, Clarkia springvillensis, and Verbena 
californica at risk involve random fluctuations in survival and 
reproduction of individuals (Shaffer 1981, 1987; Lande 1988; Meffe and 
Carroll 1994). 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). Populations that are 
continually small in size are particularly susceptible to genetic 
changes due to drift. However, drift may also cause genetic changes 
with populations that occasionally fluctuate to small sizes (e.g., 
undergo population bottlenecks). 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).
    Environmental events that may put small populations at risk include 
random or unpredictable fluctuations in the physical environment such 
as fire or flooding (Shaffer 1981, 1987; Primack 1993; Meffe and 
Carroll 1994). Human-

[[Page 49031]]

related activities, such as trash dumping or toxic chemical spills, may 
be considered random environmental events potentially leading to the 
extirpation of small populations. Thus, all four species are threatened 
by potential loss of fitness and/or genetic variability as well as by 
demographic and environmental events associated with small population 
sizes. The combination of few populations, small range, and/or 
restricted habitat makes all four 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, 1987, Meffe and Carroll 1994). Such events 
are not usually a concern until the number of populations or geographic 
distributions become severely limited, as is the case with the four 
species discussed here. Once the number of populations or the plant 
population sizes are reduced, 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 taxa in determining to make this final 
rule. Urban development has reduced the range of Brodiaea pallida and 
continues to threaten the species. Inadequate regulatory mechanisms, 
the existence of only one population, and the small range of the 
species also threaten the existence of the species. Urbanization, small 
size of populations and small number of populations threaten 
Calyptridium puchellum throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Urbanization, roadway maintenance activities, inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms, the small range of the species, and heavy 
livestock grazing threaten Clarkia springvillensis throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Urbanization, OHV use, recreational 
placer gold mining, heavy livestock grazing and trampling, trash 
dumping, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, and random extirpation from 
small size and number of populations threaten Verbena californica 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines a 
threatened species as a species which is likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. An endangered species is any species which is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. The Service considered other alternatives to this action, but 
based on the foregoing evaluation, the Service finds that all four 
species meet the definition of a threatened species throughout all or a 
significant portion of their range.

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 section 4 of the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the 
conservation of the species and (II) that may require special 
management consideration or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside 
the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, 
upon determination that such areas are essential for the conservation 
of the species. ``Conservation''' means the use of all methods and 
procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing 
under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time 
the species is listed. 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. 
Service regulations also state that critical habitat is not 
determinable when one or both of the following situations exist--(i) 
information sufficient to perform required analysis of the impacts is 
lacking, or (ii) the biological needs of the species are not 
sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area of (50 CFR 
424.12(a)(2)). If the Service finds that it is not determinable, the 
Service may extend up to one year the designation of critical habitat.
    The designation of critical habitat may benefit listed plant 
species when actions affecting the species are likely to involve a 
Federal agency. Federal involvement is most likely on two situations--
(1) where the species occurs on Federal lands and (2) when a Federal 
agency is involved in authorizing or funding actions on non-Federal 
lands (for example, through section 404 of the Clean Water Act or 
actions involving Federal funding). The designation of critical habitat 
may also provide benefit to a species by informing the general public 
about the species, and by identifying areas critical to species for 
purposes of recovery planning. Critical habitat designation may also 
provide information to Federal agencies in the instances when they may 
have to consult with the Service pursuant to section 7.

Brodiaea pallida

    Brodiaea pallida occurs in a single location on private land (CNDDB 
1997). The local County government, present landowner and adjacent 
landowners are aware of B. pallida and its location. The California 
Commission of Fish and Game held a public hearing regarding the 
proposal to list B. pallida as an endangered species and later 
designated B. pallida an endangered species pursuant to CESA in 1978. 
In 1985, the CDFG offered an acquisition proposal to the landowners to 
obtain ownership of the occupied habitat of B. pallida but the 
landowners were not willing to sell to CDFG. Additionally, owing to the 
Services' extensive efforts of public outreach prior to, during, and 
after the public hearing to list B. pallida, additional public 
recognition and awareness would not result from designation of critical 
habitat. The small amount of potential habitat has been surveyed, but 
no other B. pallida sites have ever been identified (B. Rogers, in 
litt. 1997). No historic locations are known (CNDDB 1997). The Service 
does not envision any benefits from designating critical habitat for B. 
pallida which is only on private lands. Although a Federal nexus for B. 
pallida may exist through the Clean Water Act because the species 
occurs in overflow channels, seeps and springs, 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 and any 
consultation that may occur in accordance with section 7 of the ESA. 
Because the area of occupied habitat is very small (i.e., an area 3 to 
6 m (10 to 20 ft) wide and 0.8 km (0.5 mi) long), any adverse 
modification of the occupied habitat would likely jeopardize the 
continued existence of B. pallida. Critical habitat will not assist the 
Service or the general public in the recovery planning efforts because 
most interested parties are well informed about the range and 
distribution of B. pallida. Furthermore, the species experts that will 
be invited to assist the Service in developing a recovery plan for B. 
pallida will not be aided by the Service designating critical habitat. 
Because no benefits are to be found, the

[[Page 49032]]

Service finds that it is not prudent to designate critical habitat for 
B. pallida.

Calyptridium pulchellum

    Calyptridium pulchellum is found in seven occurrences; six of these 
are on private lands and one is on the Sierra National Forest. No other 
sites containing C. pulchellum have been identified, and no historic 
locations are known (CNDDB 1997). Given that targeted searches for 
potential habitat have been conducted, little likelihood exists of 
finding unknown populations within the range of the species. Owing to 
the Services' extensive efforts of public outreach prior to, during, 
and after the public hearing to list C. pulchellum, additional public 
recognition and awareness would not result from the designation of 
critical habitat.
    Moreover, there would be no benefit from the designation of 
critical habitat for the six locations on private land because C. 
pulchellum does not occur in wetlands regulated under the Clean Water 
Act and no other Federal actions or authorizations are likely to occur 
in its habitat. Even if a Federal nexus were identified, because of the 
small number and size of the C. pulchellum occurrences, any activity 
that would destroy or modify the habitat of the species would also 
likely jeopardize its continued existence. Four of the seven 
populations of C. pulchellum are from 1 to 5 sq. m (11 to 53 sq ft) in 
area and two are 0.05 ha (0.125 ac) in area and any disturbances 
associated with the occupied habitat of any of the six populations are 
likely to preclude the recovery of the species. The Service envisions 
no benefits to the species will accrue through the section 7 
consultation process by virtue of designating critical habitat. The 
single population occupying less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) on U.S. Forest 
Service land has been fenced to protect it from cattle trampling and 
grazing (CNDDB 1997). Critical habitat will not assist the Service or 
the general public in the recovery planning efforts because most all 
interested parties are well informed about the range and distribution 
of C. pulchellum. Furthermore, the species experts that will be invited 
to assist the Service in developing a recovery plan for C. pulchellum 
will not be aided by the Service designating critical habitat. 
Therefore, the Service finds that it is not prudent to designate for C. 
pulchellum due to lack of benefit.

Clarkia springvillensis

    Clarkia springvillensis is found in 15 occurrences. Eight of these 
occurrences are on U.S. Forest Service lands and one is on BLM lands. 
The remainder are on non-Federal lands, including private, County, and 
State lands. Owing to the Services' extensive efforts of public 
outreach prior to, during, and after the public hearing to list C. 
springvillensis, additional public recognition and awareness would not 
result from the designation of critical habitat. The only other known 
C. springvillensis population was extirpated by mobile home development 
in 1983; the species has not been relocated at the site because the 
habitat for the species is no longer present (CNDDB 1997). On Federal 
lands, modification of occupied habitat is unlikely to occur without 
consultation under section 7 of the Act because the presence of C. 
springvillensis, and its specific locations, are well known to the 
managers of the Sierra National Forest (Dale Pengilly, District Ranger, 
Sierra National Forest, in litt. 1996) and to the managers of the BLM 
lands where the species occurs (Susan Carter, BLM, in litt. 1995). The 
Sierra National Forest has written a species management guide for 
populations of C. springvillensis that occur on Federal lands. 
Likewise, the Bakersfield BLM office is aware of the single population 
of C. springvillensis which occurs on Federal land administered by that 
agency. On March 31, 1997, the Service completed formal consultation 
and formal conference and issued a 79-page biological opinion on the 
Caliente Resource Area Management Plan (CRMP). The CRMP covered many 
current and proposed land use actions, including those in Tulare 
County, which may affect C. springvillensis.
    C. springvillensis does not occur in wetlands regulated under the 
Clean Water Act and no other Federal actions are likely to occur in its 
habitat on those sites located on non-Federal lands. Designation of 
critical habitat on Federal lands would provide no benefit to the 
species beyond listing because any action which would destroy or 
adversely modify the habitat of the remaining populations of this 
species would also likely jeopardize its continued existence. This is 
especially the case with such an edaphically (pertaining to soil) and 
narrowly restricted species as C. springvillensis because four 
populations have less than 300 plants and four others have less than 
1,000 plants. Common actions such as logging, road building, and home 
construction would easily destroy populations of C. springvillensis and 
any adverse modification of C. springvillensis habitat would reduce 
appreciably the likelihood of the survival and recovery of C. 
springvillensis. Critical habitat will not assist the Service or the 
general public in the recovery planning efforts because interested 
parties are well informed about the range and distribution of C. 
springvillensis. Furthermore, the species experts that will be invited 
to assist the Service in developing a recovery plan for C. 
springvillensis will not be aided by the Service designating critical 
habitat. Therefore, because there is no benefit in designating critical 
habitat, the Service finds that it is not prudent to designate critical 
habitat for C. springvillensis.

Verbena californica

    Verbena californica occurs in nine locations. Four of the locations 
are wholly on BLM lands, and two are partially on BLM lands. Owing to 
the Services' extensive efforts of public outreach prior to, during, 
and after the public hearing to list V. californica, additional public 
recognition and awareness would not result from the designation of 
critical habitat. Additionally, as a part of the outreach prior to the 
State of California Fish and Game Commission (SCFGC) listing V. 
californica as threatened, the CDFG notified private landowners who had 
populations of V. californica in 1992. Furthermore, the SCFGC held a 
public hearing to take testimony regarding the proposed designation. As 
a consequence of the State hearing, the CDFG was directed to conduct 
additional public outreach with landowners within Tuolumne County. The 
Tuolumne County Planning Department has detailed maps showing the 
southwest trending stream channels and the distribution of V. 
californica. Despite the public education and awareness program for V. 
californica ongoing since 1992, destruction of parts of one population 
occurred in 1997.
    Although six of nine known locations are entirely or partially on 
BLM lands, BLM lands contain only 15 percent of V. californica plants. 
On Federal lands, no modification of occupied habitat is likely to 
occur without consultation under section 7 of the Act because the 
presence of V. californica, and its specific locations are well known 
to the managers of these BLM lands (A. Knox, pers. comm., 1997a). BLM 
installed, but has not maintained, fencing to exclude cattle from 
riparian areas in the Andrews Creek drainage that support V. 
californica (Franklin 1996; Al Franklin, BLM, pers. comm., 1997). 
Eighty-five percent of V. californica plants are on private lands. 
Despite repeated searches for additional locations of V. californica, 
no other sites containing V. californica

[[Page 49033]]

have been identified, and no historic locations are known (CNDDB 1997).
    On private lands, a Federal nexus for Verbena californica may occur 
through the Clean Water Act because the species is found in a small 
series of southwest trending intermittent and perennial serpentintic 
stream channels within three small watersheds. Although a Federal nexus 
for V. californica may exist through the Clean Water Act, the 
designation of critical habitat for V. californica would provide little 
or no benefit to the protection of this species beyond that provided by 
listing and any consultation that may occur in accordance with section 
7 of the Act.
    Designation of critical habitat for V. californica would provide 
little benefit to the species beyond listing because any action which 
would destroy or adversely modify the habitat of the remaining 
populations of this species would also likely jeopardize its continued 
existence. The rationale for this overlap is found in the basis of the 
edaphic restriction to serpentine substrates, the small size of some 
populations, and the small number of plants in many of the populations. 
Verbena californica has four populations that contain fewer than 250 
individual plants covering an estimated 1.4 ha (4 ac). Any common 
actions such as construction of dikes, detention dams, stream 
crossings, or bridges could very easily and completely destroy any of 
these smaller populations of V. californica. Likewise, any adverse 
modification of V. californica habitat would seriously and easily 
reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of V. californica. The 
Service finds that the designation of critical habitat for V. 
californica is not prudent due to lack of benefit.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Service finds that the 
designation of critical habitat for the four plants in this final rule 
is not prudent due to lack of benefit. Protection of the habitat of 
these species will be addressed through the section 4 recovery process 
and the section 7 consultation process. The Service believes that 
Federal involvement in the areas where these plants occur can be 
identified without the designation of critical habitat because the 
resource staffs of the BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, and national forests 
already have working knowledge of the locations of occupied habitats of 
the species and have undertaken targeted inventories of potential 
habitat since the publication of the proposed rule.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as threatened 
under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for 
Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain activities. 
Recognition through listing encourages and results in conservation 
actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups, and 
individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and 
cooperation with the State and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal 
agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities involving 
listed plants are discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, 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 is being designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to use their 
authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs 
for listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure 
that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency 
must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    Listing these four plants would provide for development of a 
recovery plan (or plans) for them. Such plans would bring together both 
State and Federal efforts for conservation of the plants. The plans 
would establish a framework for agencies, local government, and private 
interests to coordinate activities and cooperate with each other in 
conservation efforts. The plans would set recovery priorities and 
estimate costs of various tasks necessary to accomplish them. It also 
would describe site-specific management actions necessary to achieve 
conservation and survival of these four plants. Additionally, pursuant 
to section 6 of the Act, the Service would be able to grant funds to 
affected States for management actions promoting the protection and 
recovery of these species.
    Federal activities potentially affecting one or more of the four 
plants include mining, grazing authorizations, and issuance of special 
use permits and rights-of-ways. Populations of three of the four plants 
occur on Federal lands. Approximately half the occurrences of Clarkia 
springvillensis and one population of Calyptridium pulchellum occur on 
lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. One population of Clarkia 
springvillensis occurs on lands managed by the BLM. Approximately two-
thirds of the occurrences (representing 15 percent of the plants) of 
Verbena californica occur on lands managed by the BLM. These agencies 
would be required to consult with the Service if any activities 
authorized, funded, or carried out by these two agencies may affect 
these species. For example, consultations with the BLM and U.S. Forest 
Service may be required on road maintenance, livestock grazing 
authorizations, and right-of-way authorizations for projects that 
include adjacent or intermixed private land.
    Other Federal agencies that may become involved as a result of this 
rule include the Federal Highways Administration and the Corps. Because 
at least two of these plants exist in or near seeps, springs, stream 
beds, perennial streams or drainages, the Corps may become involved 
through jurisdiction of section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In 
addition, when the Service issues permits for habitat conservation 
plans (HCPs) prepared by non-Federal parties, the Service must prepare 
an intra-Service section 7 biological opinion on the issuance of the 
10(a) permit.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened 
plants. All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 
50 CFR 17.71 for threatened plants, 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, or maliciously 
damage or destroy threatened plants from areas under Federal 
jurisdiction. Seeds from cultivated specimens of threatened plant taxa 
are exempt from these prohibitions provided that a statement ``Of 
Cultivated Origin'' appears on the shipping containers. Certain 
exceptions to the prohibitions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies.
    It is the policy of the Service (59 FR 34272) to identify to the 
maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed those 
activities that would or would not constitute a violation of

[[Page 49034]]

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public 
awareness of the effect of the listing on proposed and ongoing 
activities within a species' range. Two of the four species in this 
rule are known to occur on U.S. Forest Service lands, and two are known 
to occur on BLM lands. The Service believes that, based upon the best 
available information, the following actions will not result in a 
violation of section 9, provided these activities are carried out in 
accordance with existing regulations and permit requirements:
    (1) Activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal 
agencies (e.g., grazing management, agricultural conversions, wetland 
and riparian habitat modification, flood and erosion control, 
residential development, recreational trail development, road 
construction, hazardous material containment and cleanup activities, 
prescribed burns, pesticide/herbicide application, pipelines or utility 
line crossing suitable habitat,) when such activity is conducted in 
accordance with any reasonable and prudent measures given by the 
Service according to section 7 of the Act;
    (2) Casual, dispersed human activities on foot or horseback (e.g., 
bird watching, sightseeing, photography, camping, hiking);
    (3) Activities on private lands that do not require Federal 
authorization and do not involve Federal funding, such as grazing 
management, agricultural conversions, flood and erosion control, 
residential development, road construction, and pesticide/herbicide 
application;
    (4) Residential landscape maintenance, including the clearing of 
vegetation around one's personal residence as a fire break.
    The Service believes that the following might potentially result in 
a violation of section 9; however, possible violations are not limited 
to these actions alone:
    (1) Unauthorized collecting of the species on Federal lands;
    (2) Application of herbicides violating label restrictions;
    (3) Interstate or foreign commerce and import/export without 
previously obtaining an appropriate permit. Permits to conduct 
activities are available for purposes of scientific research and 
enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Questions 
regarding whether specific activities will constitute a violation of 
section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of the Service's 
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    Intentional collection, damage, or destruction on non-Federal lands 
may be a violation of State law or regulations or in violation of State 
criminal trespass law and therefore a violation of section 9. The Act 
and 50 CFR 17.62, 17.63, and 17.72 provide for the issuance of permits 
to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered or 
threatened plant species under certain circumstances. Such permits are 
available for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or 
survival of the species. For threatened plants, permits are also 
available for botanical or horticultural exhibition, educational 
purposes, or special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act. 
The Service anticipates that few permits would ever be sought or issued 
for the four species because they are typically not sought for 
cultivation and are uncommon in the wild. Requests for copies of the 
regulations on listed plants and inquiries regarding them may be 
addressed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 
Endangered Species Permits, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-
4181; telephone 503/231-2063 or FAX 503/231-6243).

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
for which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. is required. An 
information collection related to the rule pertaining to permits for 
endangered and threatened species has OMB approval and is assigned 
clearance number 1018-0094. This rule does not alter that information 
collection requirement. For additional information concerning permits 
and associated requirements for threatened species, see 50 CFR 17.32.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited is available upon request 
from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    Authors. The authors of this final rule are Maria Boroja, Diane 
Elam, Ken Fuller, and Dwight Harvey, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see ADDRESSES section); telephone (916) 979-2125.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service amends part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, 
Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Amend Sec. 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    Special  
          Scientific name                  Common name                                                                                          rules   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
          Flowering Plants                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Brodiaea pallida...................  Chinese Camp brodiaea.  U.S.A. (CA)...........  Liliaceae--Lily.......  T                          643           NA
                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page 49035]]

                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Clarkia springvillensis............  Springville clarkia...  U.S.A. (CA)...........  Onagraceae--Evening     T                          643           NA
                                                                                      primrose.                                                         
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Calyptridium pulchellum............  Mariposa pussypaws....  U.S.A. (CA)...........  Portulacaceae-Purslane  T                          643           NA
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Verbena californica................  Red Hills vervain.....  U.S.A. (CA)...........  Verbenaceae-Vervain...  T                          643           NA
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: September 1, 1998.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 98-24500 Filed 9-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P