[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54975-54994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26861]



  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 1998 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 54975]]



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AL88


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered or Threatened Status for Four Southwestern California Plants 
from Vernal Wetlands and Clay Soils

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines endangered 
status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act), for two plants--Allium munzii (Munz's onion) and Atriplex 
coronata var. notatior (San Jacinto Valley crownscale), and determines 
threatened status for two plants--Brodiaea filifolia (thread-leaved 
brodiaea) and Navarretia fossalis (spreading navarretia). These four 
plants occur in vernal pools and other wetlands or on clay soils and 
moist grasslands throughout their respective ranges in southwestern 
California and northwestern Baja California, Mexico. These plant are 
variously threatened by one or more of the following: habitat 
destruction and fragmentation from agricultural and urban development, 
pipeline construction, alteration of wetland hydrology by draining or 
excessive flooding, channelization, off-road vehicle activity, cattle 
and sheep grazing, weed abatement, fire suppression practices 
(including discing (plowing)), and competition from alien plant 
species. This rule implements the Federal protection and recovery 
provisions afforded by the Act for these four plants.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Field Office, 2730 Loker Avenue West, 
Carlsbad, California, 92008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Wallace (see ADDRESSES above), 
telephone (760) 431-9440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Allium munzii (Munz's onion), Brodiaea filifolia (thread-leaved 
brodiaea), Atriplex coronata var. notatior (San Jacinto Valley 
crownscale), and Navarretia fossalis (spreading navarretia) occur in 
clay soils or in vernal wetlands that have a clay hardpan or silty 
alkaline substrate. These habitats are restricted or unique, often 
associated with a specific soil type or hydrologic regime, or both. The 
composite range of these four plants encompasses the interior lowlands 
and foothills of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, and Riverside 
counties south into coastal San Diego County, California, and the 
northwestern State of Baja California, Mexico. Although some of these 
plants are relatively wide-ranging, all are localized in distribution 
within their respective ranges because of the restricted and patchy 
nature of the habitats in which they are found.
    Allium munzii (Munz's onion), a member of the lily family 
(Liliaceae), was first referred to as Allium fimbriatum var. munzii by 
Marion Ownbey (Munz and Keck 1959). The varietal epithet was attributed 
to Ownbey and H. Aase. This name was not validly published because it 
lacked a proper description and citation, which were provided by Traub 
(1972), who published the name as Allium fimbriatum var. munzii Ownbey 
ex Traub, based on a specimen collected by Philip Munz south of Glen 
Ivy, Riverside County, California, in 1922. McNeal (1992) elevated this 
taxon to species status (Allium munzii (Traub) D. McNeal).
    Allium munzii is a perennial herb, 15 to 35 centimeters (cm) (0.5 
to 1.2 feet (ft)) tall, originating from a bulb with a papery, reddish-
brown outer coat and light brown inner coat. The single leaf is teretes 
(cylindrical in shape) and up to 1.5 times as long as the stalk of the 
inflorescence (scape). The inflorescence (flower cluster) is umbellate, 
consisting of 10 to 35 flowers. The flowers have six perianth segments 
(undifferentiated petals and sepals) that are white, or white with a 
red midvein, becoming red with age. They are 6 to 8 millimeters (mm) 
(0.2 to 0.3 inches (in)) long. The ovary is crested with fine, 
irregularly dentate (pointed) processes and the fruit is a three-lobed 
capsule (Munz 1974, McNeal 1993).
    Allium munzii can be distinguished from other members of the genus 
within its range by its solitary cylindric leaves, elliptic to ovate 
perianth segments, generally white flowers, and finely and irregularly 
dentate ovary crests.
    Allium munzii is restricted to mesic clay soils in western 
Riverside County, California. This species is frequently found in 
association with southern needlegrass grassland, mixed grassland, and 
grassy openings in coastal sage scrub or, occasionally, in cismontane 
juniper woodlands (California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1989, 
Orlando Mistretta, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, in litt. 1993). A. 
munzii is known from 13 extant populations. Only one of these 
populations is partially on Federal land (Roberts 1993a, California 
Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) 1997, Jeff Newman, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1996). Five populations occur in the 
Gavilan Hills, including one at Harford Springs County Park, and one on 
lands managed by the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency 
(RCHCA). One population occurs in the Temescal Valley on private land; 
another population may still be extant but is likely extirpated. One 
population occurs north of Walker Canyon on private land. Five small 
populations occur in or near the Paloma Valley, including near the 
Scott Road, Skunk Hollow, Domenigoni Hills, and Bachelor Mountain 
areas. These populations are on land managed by the Reserve Management 
Committees (Domenigoni Hills and Bachelor Mountain) for the Riverside 
County multispecies plans, or on private land. One population is in the 
Elsinore Mountains, partly on Federal land in the Cleveland National 
Forest and partly on private lands (Boyd and Mistretta 1991).
    The Service estimates that there are about 20,000 to 70,000 
individuals of A. munzii (Roberts 1993a, CNDDB 1997, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service unpublished data). In response to rainfall and other 
factors, perennial bulbs may not produce aerial leaves or flowers in a 
given year or may produce only leaves. As a result, fluctuations in 
numbers of observed individuals can be misleading. Five populations are 
large (over 2,000 individuals) and cover as much as 8 hectares (ha) (20 
acres (ac)). Most populations contain fewer than 1,000 individuals and 
their areas range from several meters to less than 1 ha (2.5 ac).
    Atriplex coronata var. notatior (San Jacinto Valley crownscale), a 
member of the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae), was described by Epson 
(1914), based on a specimen he collected in 1901 from the dried bed of 
San Jacinto Lake (= Mystic Lake), Riverside County, California. Hall 
and Clements (1923) considered this taxon a minor variant and submerged 
it in A. coronata. Atriplex coronata var. notatior has subsequently 
been recognized by Munz (1935, 1974) and Taylor and Wilken (1993).
    Atriplex coronata var. notatior is an erect, gray-scurfy annual, 1 
to 3 decimeters (dm) (4 to 12 in) tall. The grayish leaves are sessile, 
alternate, 8 to

[[Page 54976]]

20 mm (0.3 to 0.8 in) long and elliptic to ovate-triangular in outline. 
This taxon is monoecious (male and female flowers on the same plant). 
The female flowers are obscure and develop spherical bracts in the 
fruiting phase. These bracts have dense tubercles (nodule) that are 
roughly equal in number to the marginal teeth (Munz 1974, Taylor and 
Wilken 1993).
    Atriplex coronata var. notatior can be distinguished from the more 
northern A. coronata var. coronata by its erect stature, the spheric 
shape of the bracts together in fruiting stage, and the more numerous 
tubercles and marginal teeth on the bracts. The distributions of the 
two varieties do not overlap. Atriplex coronata var. coronata is found 
in the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and neighboring valleys, while A.c. 
var. notatior is restricted to Riverside County. A.c. var. notatior 
occurs with eight other native and one introduced species of Atriplex 
within its range (D. Bramlet 1993b, Bramlet in litt. 1995, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, unpubl. data). It can be distinguished from these 
taxa by a combination of characteristics, including annual habit, the 
shape of the leaf, and the size and form of the bract (Munz 1974, 
Taylor and Wilken 1993).
    Atriplex coronata var. notatior is restricted to highly alkaline, 
silty-clay soils in association with the Traver-Domino-Willows soil 
association (see Soil Conservation Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs 
1971 for soil descriptions). Most populations are associated with the 
Willows soil series. It occurs in alkali sink scrub, alkali playa, 
vernal pools, and, to a lesser extent, in annual alkali grassland 
communities (Bramlet 1993a, Roberts 1993b). These areas are typically 
flooded by winter rains. The duration and extent of flooding are 
extremely variable from one year to the next. A. coronata var. notatior 
germinates after the water has receded. It usually flowers in April and 
May and sets fruit by May or June (D. Bramlet, in litt. 1992).
    Atriplex coronata var. notatior is restricted to the San Jacinto, 
Perris, Menifee and Elsinore Valleys of western Riverside County, 
California. This taxon consists of 11 population centers that are 
primarily associated with the San Jacinto River and Old Salt Creek 
tributary drainages (Roberts 1993b, Roberts and McMillan 1997, CNDDB 
1997). One additional isolated and small population has recently been 
discovered in Willows soils near Lake Elsinore (Roberts and McMillan 
1997).
    The number of individuals of Atriplex coronata var. notatior in a 
population complex varies in any given year in response to rainfall, 
extent of winter flooding, and temperature. Disturbance (discing, 
dryland farming, pipeline construction, out of season inundation) has 
become an increasingly important factor in limiting the number of 
individuals in a population.
    Between 1990 and 1994, an estimated 78,000 Atriplex coronata var. 
notatior individuals were located (Metropolitan Water District (MWD) 
1992, Ogden 1993, D. Bramlet, in litt. 1993, CNDDB 1997, Roberts 
1993b). These plants occupied about 145 ha (400 ac) of about 3,300 ha 
(8,200 ac) of potentially suitable habitat (alkali scrub, alkali playa, 
and annual alkali grassland vegetation associations). The majority of 
the individuals (about 75 percent) were associated with three 
population centers (Mystic Lake, the Nuevo-Ramona Expressway segment of 
the San Jacinto River, and west Hemet) (Roberts 1993b). Since 1993, the 
population has apparently declined significantly as a result of major 
flooding in the winter of 1992-1993 and the subsequent conversion or 
alteration of potential habitat (Roberts and McMillan 1997). Several 
new populations have since been discovered near historic populations 
(e.g., 5,200 individuals on the San Jacinto River and fewer than 200 
individuals near Elsinore, California). However, new discoveries have 
not appreciably balanced the reduction of populations due to activities 
and events described above. About 45 ha (115 ac) of nearly 2,200 ha 
(5,500 ac) of available potentially suitable habitat are currently 
occupied by about 26,500 individuals of A. coronata var. notatior. 
About 12 ha (30 ac) of 1,000 ha (2,500 ac) of marginal habitat that has 
been substantially disturbed are currently occupied by about 500 
individuals of this taxon (Roberts and McMillan 1997). Atriplex 
coronata var. notatior appears to have declined about 70 percent since 
1992.
    The majority of the population centers of A. coronata var. notatior 
are located on privately owned lands. Three populations are on State 
land (San Jacinto Wildlife Area), one population is partially on County 
lands (RCHCA along the San Jacinto River), and one population is on a 
private preserve managed by MWD. This plant is not known to occur on 
Federal lands.
    Brodiaea filifolia, a member of the lily family (Liliaceae), was 
described by Watson (1882) based on a specimen collected by S. B and W. 
F. Parish in 1880 at Arrowhead Hot Springs, San Bernardino County, 
California (Niehaus 1971). Greene (1887) transferred B. filifolia to 
the genus Hookera. However, monographic and floristic treatments accept 
B. filifolia as the name for this taxon (Niehaus 1971, Munz 1974, 
Beauchamp 1986, Keator 1993). Brodiaea orcuttii (Greene) Baker was 
included as a variety of B. filifolia by Epson (1922) but subsequent 
authors have recognized this taxon as a distinct species (Niehaus 1971, 
Munz and Keck 1973, Munz 1974, Keator 1993).
    Brodiaea filifolia is a perennial herb with dark-brown, fibrous-
coated corms. The flower stalks (scapes) are 2 to 4 dm (8 to 16 in) 
tall with several narrow leaves that are shorter than the scape. The 
flowers bloom from May to June and are arranged in a loose umbel. The 
six perianth segments are violet, spreading, and 9 to 12 mm (0.4 to 0.5 
in) long. The broad and notched anthers are 3 to 5 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in) 
long. The fruit is a capsule (Munz 1974, Keator 1993).
    Brodiaea filifolia can be distinguished from the other species of 
Brodiaea that occur within its range (B. orcuttii, B. jolonensis, and 
B. terrestris ssp. kernensis) by its narrow, pointed staminodia, rotate 
perianth lobes (i.e., a saucer-shaped flower), and a thin perianth 
tube, which is split by developing fruit (Niehaus 1971, Munz 1974).
    Brodiaea filifolia is known to hybridize with B. orcuttii, B. 
terrestris, and possibly B. jolonensis, where these species coexist 
(Sandy Morey, CDFG, in litt. 1995, Boyd, et. al. 1992, CNDDB 1997). 
Significant hybridization is evident on the Santa Rosa Plateau between 
B. filifolia and B. orcuttii, or B. filifolia and B. terrestris (S. 
Morey, in litt. 1995). At least one major population in the vicinity of 
Miller Mountain (San Diego County) in the Cleveland National Forest 
appears to represent a hybrid swarm between B. orcuttii and B. 
filifolia (Boyd et al. 1992). The Miller Mountain population alone 
occupies nearly 45 percent of reported occupied habitat for B. 
filifolia. Hybridization among these Brodiaea species is a natural 
phenomenon. However, these plants relied on relatively species-specific 
native bee species for pollination in the past and the introduction of 
non-native honeybees, which tend to be species-generalist, may have 
increased the potential for hybridization (Gary Bell, The Nature 
Conservancy (TNC), pers. comm. 1997, S. Morey, in litt. 1995).
    This species typically occurs on gentle hillsides, valleys, and 
floodplains in mesic, southern needlegrass grassland and alkali 
grassland plant communities in association with clay, loamy sand, or 
alkaline silty-clay soils (CDFG 1981, Bramlet 1993a). Sites occupied by 
this species are frequently intermixed with, or near, vernal pool

[[Page 54977]]

complexes, such as near San Marcos (San Diego County), the Santa Rosa 
Plateau, and southwest of Hemet in Riverside County.
    The historical range of B. filifolia extends from the foothills of 
the San Gabriel Mountains at Glendora (Los Angeles County), east to 
Arrowhead Hot Springs in the western foothills of the San Bernardino 
Mountains (San Bernardino County), and south through eastern Orange and 
western Riverside Counties to Carlsbad in northwestern San Diego 
County, California (S. Morey, in litt. 1995, CNDDB 1997).
    Forty-six populations of B. filifolia have been reported. At least 
nine of these populations have been extirpated, primarily in San Diego 
County, California. Thirty-seven populations are presumed extant. 
Nearly half of these remaining populations are clustered in the growing 
cities of Vista, San Marcos, and Carlsbad (nine populations) and in the 
vicinity of the Santa Rosa Plateau in southwestern Riverside County, 
California (six populations). The remaining 22 populations are 
scattered within the counties of Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San 
Bernardino, and San Diego.
    The population of B. filifolia reported to have the largest number 
of individuals is on private land in the City of San Marcos (S. Morey, 
in litt. 1995). The populations with the largest extent of potentially 
suitable habitat are on the Santa Rosa Plateau, where only about 15 ha 
(38 ac) of the plateau is reported as occupied by B. filifolia, but 
about 120 ha (300 ac) is potentially suitable habitat (MWD 1991, CNDDB 
1997). These lands are primarily managed by TNC.
    The only populations of Brodiaea filifolia known to occur on 
Federal land are on Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton in San Diego 
County (CNNDB 1997, U. S. Marine Corps 1997), where three populations 
were recently discovered in an abandoned weapons impact area. Six 
populations were recently discovered in Orange County. Most of the 
recently discovered populations of Brodiaea filifolia in Orange County 
are relatively small. The largest population (Forster Ranch) supports 
about 60 percent of the B. filifolia individuals and about 80 percent 
of the occupied habitat in Orange County. Only two of the Orange County 
populations (Casper's Regional Park and Aliso-Woods Canyon Regional 
Park), with fewer than 1,000 individuals combined, are on lands managed 
by the County government (Michael Brandman Associates 1996, CNDDB 
1997). Brodiaea filifolia has also been found on the San Jacinto 
Wildlife Management Area in Riverside County, managed by the CDFG.
    Brodiaea filifolia, in its entire range, occupies about 330 ha (825 
ac) of suitable habitat (mesic needlegrass grassland, mixed native-non-
native grassland with clay soils, or alkali annual grassland with 
alkaline silty clay soils). The total number of individuals of this 
species and the extent of occupied habitat vary on an annual basis in 
response to the timing and amount of rainfall, as well as temperature 
patterns. Fewer than 2,000 individuals have been observed at most 
populations. Most of these populations occupy less than 5 ha (13 ac) 
(CNDDB 1997, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpubl. data). The largest 
extant population in Riverside County, Santa Rosa Plateau, has been 
estimated to contain over 30,000 observed individuals and occupies 
about 15 ha (38 ac) of habitat (MWD 1991, CNDDB 1997). In San Diego 
County, the largest confirmed population is on an isolated 16 ha (40 
ac) parcel in San Marcos, California. This population may support as 
many as 342,000 individual plants (S. Morey, in litt. 1995). The number 
of observed individuals often does not correlate with the number of 
corms present at a site. For example, at one residential development 
site, Taylor and Burkhart (1992) reported 20 individuals of B. 
filifolia, but more than 8,000 corms were found during the effort to 
transplant B. filifolia to another site.
    Brodiaea filifolia and its suitable habitat have been significantly 
reduced by urbanization, agricultural conversion, and discing for fire 
and weed control. In Riverside County, California, most of the annual 
alkaline grassland near the San Jacinto River and southwest of Hemet 
has been urbanized or converted to dryland farming or more intensive 
cultivation (see discussion under A. coronata var. notatior above). 
Additionally, Brodiaea filifolia is vulnerable to deep discing or 
repeated discing. Thus, areas that were disced and have partially 
recovered after being left fallow for a period of time tend to support 
reduced and gradually declining populations of B. filifolia, if any 
have survived. For example, at least two B. filifolia populations have 
been reported in the San Jacinto River flood plain in the vicinity of 
the I-215 highway crossing. Since 1992, 80 percent of the potentially 
suitable habitat in this area has been disced for dryland farming 
(Roberts and McMillan 1997, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpubl. 
data). The most significant threat to this species is urbanization, 
conversion to farming, and discing for fire and weed control.
    In San Diego County, California, the majority of the B. filifolia 
populations are concentrated within the cities of San Marcos, Vista, 
and Carlsbad and are highly correlated with the distribution of clay 
soils and soils with clay subsoils. Data available from the Soil 
Conservation Service and Forest Service (1973) and other sources (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, unpubl. data) indicate that there are about 
3,300 ha (8,280 ac) of clay soils and over 1,570 ha (3,940 ac) of soils 
with clay subsoils in these three cities. By 1994, nearly 65 percent of 
the clay soils and about 75 percent of the soils with clay subsoils had 
been developed or urbanized in these three cities and were no longer 
available for B. filifolia or its associated habitat (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, unpubl. data). In the City of Carlsbad, most B. 
filifolia populations occur in association with a specific soil series: 
the Altamont Clay soil series. There are about 1,085 ha (2,715 ac) of 
this soil in Carlsbad. By 1994, about 82 percent had been cultivated or 
overlain by urban development and was no longer available as habitat 
for conservation or recovery of this species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, unpubl. data).
    Based on the historic and current distribution of soils within the 
Vista, San Marcos, and Carlsbad area, it is likely that substantial 
unreported populations of B. filifolia were extirpated in this area. Of 
the 16 historically-known populations within these cities, at least 5 
have been extirpated. Collectively, these sites were known to support 
as many as 128,000 individuals over at least 9 ha (23 ac) of occupied 
habitat (CNDDB 1997, Roberts and Vanderwier 1997). One additional major 
population was significantly reduced from about 8 ha (20 ac) to 1.6 ha 
(4 ac) around 1990 (WESTEC 1988, Taylor and Burkhart 1992, CNDDB 1997).
    Navarretia fossalis (spreading navarretia), a member of the phlox 
family (Polemoniaceae), was described by Reid Moran in 1977 based on a 
specimen he collected in 1969 near La Mision in northwestern Baja 
California, Mexico (Moran 1977). Navarretia fossalis is a low, mostly 
spreading or ascending, annual herb, 10 to 15 cm (4 to 6 in) tall. The 
lower portions of the stems are mostly glabrous. The leaves are soft 
and finely divided, 1 to 5 cm (0.4 to 2 in) long, and spine-tipped when 
dry. The flowers are white to lavender white with linear petals and are 
arranged in flat-topped, compact, leafy heads. The fruit is an ovoid, 
2-chambered capsule (Moran 1977, Day 1993).

[[Page 54978]]

    Several other species of Navarretia occur within the range of N. 
fossalis. Two of them, N. intertexta and N. prostrata, can occur in 
similar habitat. N. fossalis is distinguished from them by its linear 
or narrowly ovate corolla lobes, erect habit, cymose inflorescences, 
size and shape of the calyx, and the position of the corolla relative 
to the calyx. All Navarretia species can be distinguished by the 
appearance of the pollen grain surface (Day 1993, Steve Spencer, Rancho 
Santa Ana Botanical Garden, in litt. 1993)
    The primary habitat of N. fossalis is vernal pools. This species 
occasionally occurs in ditches and other artificial depressions, which 
often occur in degraded vernal pool habitat (Moran 1977). In western 
Riverside County, N. fossalis has been found in relatively undisturbed 
and moderately disturbed vernal pools within a larger vernal wetland 
plain dominated by annual alkali grassland (Bramlet 1993a).
    Navarretia fossalis is distributed from northwestern Los Angeles 
County and western Riverside County, south through coastal San Diego 
County, California to San Quintin in northwestern Baja California, 
Mexico. Fewer than 30 populations exist in the United States. Nearly 60 
percent of these populations are concentrated in three locations: Otay 
Mesa in southern San Diego County, along the San Jacinto River in 
western Riverside County, and near Hemet in Riverside County (Bauder 
1986, Bramlet 1993a, CNDDB 1997). Others are scattered in southern 
Riverside County, Los Angeles County, and coastal San Diego County.
    The number of individuals of N. fossalis varies annually in 
response to the timing and amount of rainfall and temperature. In 
Riverside County, one population contains 300,000 individuals. Another 
population contains 75,000 individuals. However, each of these 
populations occupies less than 3 ha (8 ac) of habitat. The majority of 
populations contain fewer than 1,000 individuals and occupy less than 
0.5 ha (1 ac) of habitat (D. Bramlet, in litt. 1992, CNDDB 1997). The 
Service estimates that less than 120 ha (300 ac) of habitat in the 
United States is occupied by this species. The most pressing threat to 
Navarretia fossalis is the ongoing degradation of vernal pools and 
their outright destruction due to widespread urbanization, agricultural 
practices, off-road vehicles, and the longer-term threats from flood 
control and development.
    The majority of N. fossalis populations are on privately owned 
lands. At least one population occurs on the federally owned Marine 
Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, and the plant occurs at three locations on 
Naval Air Station Miramar (J.S. Walker, Naval Base San Diego, in litt. 
1997).
    In Mexico, N. fossalis is known from fewer than 10 populations 
clustered in three areas: along the international border, on the 
plateaus south of the Rio Guadalupe, and on the San Quintin coastal 
plain (Moran 1977).

Previous Federal Action

    Federal government actions on these four plants began as a result 
of section 12 of the Act, 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, and was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975, and 
included B. filifolia as endangered. The Service published a notice in 
the July 1, 1975, Federal Register (40 FR 27823), of its acceptance of 
the report as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) 
(petition provisions are now found in section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act) 
and its intention thereby to review the status of the plant taxa named 
therein, including B. filifolia. The Service published a proposal in 
the June 16, 1976, Federal Register (41 FR 24523) to determine 
approximately 1,700 vascular plant species to be endangered species 
pursuant to section 4 of the Act. The list of 1,700 plant taxa was 
assembled on the basis of comments and data received by the Smithsonian 
Institution and the Service in response to House Document No. 94-51 and 
the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication. Brodiaea filifolia was 
included as endangered in the June 16, 1976, Federal Register notice.
    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 one-year grace period 
was given to those proposals already more than two 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 of plants in the 
Federal Register on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This notice 
included Brodiaea filifolia and Navarretia fossalis 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). The plant notice of 
review was again revised on September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526). B. 
filifolia and N. fossalis were included in the 1983 and 1985 
supplements as category 2 candidates. 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. Allium munzii (then known as Allium fimbriatum 
var. munzii) was included in the 1985 notice of review as a category 2 
taxon. On February 21, 1990, a revised notice of review was published 
in the Federal Register (55 FR 6184) that included A. fimbriatum var. 
munzii and B. filifolia as category 1 candidate taxa, and A. coronata 
var. notatior as a category 2 candidate taxon; the status of N. 
fossalis remained unchanged from the 1985 notice of review. All four 
plant taxa were listed as category 1 candidate species in the September 
30, 1993, notice of review (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. That was the case for Brodiaea filifolia 
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 December 15, 1994 (59 FR 64812), the Service published a 
proposed rule to list Allium munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior 
as endangered, and Brodiaea filifolia and Navarretia fossalis as 
threatened. This proposed rule constituted the warranted petition 
finding for Brodiaea filifolia.
    Based upon information received during public comment periods 
subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule, the Service now

[[Page 54979]]

determines Allium munzii and Atriplex coronata var. notatior to be 
endangered species, and Brodiaea filifolia and Navarretia fossalis to 
be threatened species.
    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 new listing proposals, 
processing administrative petition findings, processing a limited 
number of delisting and reclassification actions. 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 December 15, 1994, proposed rule (59 FR 64812) and 
associated notifications, all interested parties were requested to 
submit factual reports or information that might contribute to the 
development of a final rule. The first comment period closed on 
February 13, 1995. Appropriate State agencies, county governments, 
Federal agencies, and other interested parties were contacted and 
requested to comment. Public notices announcing the publication of the 
proposed rule were published in the Press Enterprise in Riverside 
County on January 5, 1995; the Orange County Register on January 11, 
1995; and San Diego Union Tribune in San Diego County on January 13, 
1995. Numerous requests for a public hearing were received. On March 7, 
1995, a notice was published in the Federal Register announcing that a 
public hearing would be held on March 23, 1995, at the City of 
Riverside, in Riverside County, California (60 FR 12531). Copies of 
this notice were sent to parties that requested a public hearing. This 
notice also announced the reopening of the public comment period until 
May 20, 1995. Notices were published in the Orange County Register 
(March 7, 1995), San Diego Union Tribune (March 7, 1995), and Perris 
Progress (March 8, 1995), announcing the public hearing and extension 
of the public comment period.
    The Service received a total of 65 written comments. Ten commenters 
supported the listing of these taxa. Five commenters neither supported 
nor opposed the proposed listing. Forty-four commenters opposed the 
proposed listing. During the public hearing, 21 commenters spoke, most 
of whom also sent written comments. Information from a number of these 
comments has been incorporated into the final rule. Seventeen issues 
were raised in these comments. The Service's response to each is as 
follows:
    Issue 1: Concerns about taxonomy and identification. Several 
commenters questioned the taxonomic status of Atriplex coronata var. 
notatior. One commenter supported listing A. coronata var. notatior but 
doubted that it was taxonomically distinct from A. c. var. coronata of 
central California. The commenter noted that A. c. var. coronata 
appeared at least as uncommon as A. c. var. notatior, and suggested 
that the entire species should be listed. Other commenters stated that 
A. coronata var. notatior is a discrete entity. At least one commenter 
objected to the Service proposing to list a taxon of lower rank than a 
full species. Another commenter questioned the validity of the 
identification of reports of Navarretia in Riverside County, 
California, and suggested that N. fossalis may be more common than 
currently believed.
    Service Response: The Service is required to make listing 
determinations based on the best available scientific and commercial 
data according to Section 4 (b)(1)(A) of the Act, as amended. Section 
3(16) defines the term ``species'' to include any species or subspecies 
of fish or wildlife or plants. In plant nomenclature, a taxon 
recognized as a variety can alternatively be recognized as a 
subspecies, so varieties qualify for listing. Atriplex coronata var. 
notatior has been recognized as a distinct taxon from A. coronata var. 
coronata in floristic treatments since 1935 (Munz 1935, 1971, 1974) as 
well as in the most recent statewide systematic treatment of the genus 
(Taylor and Wilken 1993). While the status of A. c. var. coronata is 
also declining, this taxon is not the subject of this rule.
    All available collections of Navarretia similar to N. fossalis in 
Riverside County have been reviewed by an expert on the genus. 
Navarretia fossalis is the primary wetlands dependent species in 
Riverside County. No new populations of N. fossalis from Riverside 
County have been reported recently (S. Spencer, in litt. 1993, S. 
Spencer, pers. comm. 1997).
    Issue 2: One commenter noted that in the years before the proposed 
listing, an extreme drought had taken place within Riverside County, 
California. The commenter suggested that these species were represented 
by low numbers and isolated populations as a direct result of the 
drought and that the taxa would likely not be rare in wetter years.
    Service Response: The Service agrees that wetland plants generally 
are both more widely distributed and more numerous in wet years than in 
dry years. However, wetlands plants are at their greatest risk of 
extinction or endangerment during dry years. Navarretia fossalis and A. 
coronata var. notatior populations have declined significantly since 
the proposed rule was published, irrespective of climatic conditions. 
Both species have been affected by increased farming activity and other 
threats that have resulted in continuing habitat disturbance and 
degradation.
    Issue 3: Several commenters stated that the Service closed the 
public comment period before additional surveys could be performed and 
that these surveys were necessary for a final listing determination. 
Another commenter noted that letters originating from the Service in 
1991 indicated that A. coronata var. notatior was a category 2 
candidate for listing as threatened or endangered, thus indicating that 
there was not enough data to determine if listing was warranted. Then, 
3 years later, the Service proposed to list A. coronata var. notatior. 
Other commenters suggested that the Service should postpone listing of 
this species until citizen concerns were addressed.
    Service Response: The Service utilizes the best available 
scientific information in determining whether a species qualifies for 
Federal protection. Although the Service acknowledges that private 
landowners have legitimate economic and land use concerns, the Service 
reviews only the biological data in determining whether a species 
qualifies for Federal protection (See also Issues 2 and 13). Although 
additional surveys could be useful, they are unnecessary to make a 
final determination because the majority of the suitable habitat for 
these species remains threatened. The Service has continued to monitor 
habitat for these taxa since the proposed rule was published. Analyses 
of the relevant data reveal that three of the four species have 
declined considerably since the proposed rule was published in 1994. 
Although additional localities of B. filifolia have been reported in 
Orange County and in San Diego County, few of these populations are 
protected and several are threatened by urbanization.
    Atriplex coronata var. notatior appeared in the 1990 Plant notice 
of

[[Page 54980]]

review (55 FR 6184) as a category 2 candidate. Category 2 candidates 
were taxa that the Service considered potentially at risk of extinction 
but did not have data to support a listing proposal. Information newly 
acquired by the Service between 1992 and 1993 indicated that the 
species qualified for Federal protection. In the September 30, 1993 
plant notice of review (58 FR 51144), the Service elevated the status 
of this taxon to category 1, indicating that the Service possessed 
enough data in its files to support a listing proposal.
    Issue 4: One commenter indicated that the Service failed to 
consider populations of A. coronata var. notatior at Mystic Lake and 
the extensive suitable habitat in the area.
    Service Response: The known populations of A. coronata var. 
notatior in the vicinity of Mystic Lake were considered in this 
determination. The Mystic Lake bed and surrounding shoreline areas 
potentially support over 400 ha (1,000 ac) of suitable habitat for A. 
coronata var. notatior. In fact, the largest known population was 
reported in this area in 1992. However, prior to 1992, a significant 
portion of the lake bottom was under cultivation. In 1993, major 
flooding filled the lake and this population and several others were 
inundated. The lake did not recede enough to expose the former 
population until 1996. Few plants have been reported where 20,000 were 
once reported. Most of the Mystic Lake area is not within the San 
Jacinto Wildlife Area and has no formal protection. It has been 
proposed that reclaimed water be piped into Mystic Lake. The addition 
of water outside the normal rainy season will undoubtedly slow recovery 
of suitable habitat for Atriplex coronata var. notatior in this area.
    Issue 5: Several commenters questioned the reliability of the data 
the Service used in preparation of the proposed rule. Several 
commenters noted that the Service did not incorporate existing reports 
that contained important data necessary to the decision making process. 
Several commenters specifically noted that the San Jacinto River 
Improvement Project Biological Assessment (Tierra Madre Consultants 
1991) was not cited in the proposed rule. Another commenter indicated 
that the results from a number of other reports, such as a floral 
survey of March Air Force Base (James 1992), imply that these species 
are more widespread than the Service has indicated.
    Another commenter noted that the soils which species like Atriplex 
coronata var. notatior appear to rely upon are not restricted to 
Riverside County. Similar soils occur from Solano to Santa Clara 
Counties in central California, and the Service did not indicate that 
surveys for this taxon were conducted in this area. By contrast, 
another commenter noted that the presence of similar soils outside the 
known range of A. coronata var. notatior does not necessarily indicate 
that the plant occurs there; such areas are likely to be occupied by a 
different variety, A. coronata var. coronata, which is also declining 
in central California habitat that has been largely converted to 
cultivation.
    Service Response: The Service has used the best available 
scientific information upon which to make its findings. Although 
several of the commenters mentioned that the distribution and abundance 
of populations of these four species may be greater than indicated in 
the proposed rule, only two provided data to support their assertion. 
The Service acknowledges that the San Jacinto River Improvement Project 
Biological Assessment (Tierra Madre Consultants 1991) was not cited in 
the proposed rule. The Service incorporated the results of this report 
into this final determination. The Service notes that this report, in 
discussing A. coronata var. notatior states: ``[i]mpacts to the San 
Jacinto saltbush on lands to be reclaimed and subsequently developed as 
residential, commercial, and industrial areas, are direct. Populations 
of this species that have been reported in this document to occur on 
natural lands in the 100-year floodplain will suffer local extirpations 
if valley saltbush scrub habitat is destroyed. Proposed project 
developments in the 100-year floodplain that impact these remaining 
parcels of natural habitat should be reviewed by the Riverside County 
and the City of Perris planning departments on a case-by-case basis and 
substantial portions of these areas should be designated as `open 
space' (not parks), or be included as part of the Habitat Conservation 
Plan for Riverside County.''
    Information from several of the other documents, when appropriate, 
also has been incorporated into this determination. However, the 
Service notes that several other documents cited by commenters, such as 
a floral survey of March Air Force Base (James 1992), indicated only 
that subject species were known from a given general area, and not 
necessarily found within the study site.
    The general distribution of the four plants addressed herein is 
well documented (Munz and Keck 1973, Munz 1974, Taylor and Wilken 1993, 
Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Several researchers (e.g., Boyd, Bramlet, and 
Sanders) have conducted directed surveys in Riverside County for these 
plants over several to many years. In the process, these researchers 
have verified the plants' habitat-specificity and have documented 
fluctuations in abundance. Although the Service acknowledges that 
additional populations of these plant taxa may be identified, it is 
unlikely, given the fairly specific habitat requirements of these taxa, 
that significant populations remain undiscovered. If so, it is likely 
that they would be subject to the same threats that currently place 
known populations at risk. The Service acknowledges that similar soils 
that could potentially be suitable habitat for these species occur in 
central California. However, there is no evidence that two of these 
species (Navarretia fossalis and Brodiaea filifolia) have ever been 
documented in central California and in the case of Atriplex coronata, 
these soils are occupied by a related but distinct taxon (A. c. var. 
coronata).
    Issue 6: Several commenters stated that the Service did not 
adequately consider the conservation benefits that will result from 
regional Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP).
    Service Response: Two of the proposed taxa, Brodiaea filifolia and 
Navarretia fossalis, are covered species under the Multiple Species 
Conservation Plan (MSCP) in San Diego County. However, significant 
populations of both species are found outside of the MSCP boundary. 
Large populations of both taxa also occur in the Multiple Habitat 
Conservation Plan (MHCP) area of northern San Diego County. This plan 
is still in the data analysis stage, and species coverage for these two 
taxa has yet to be determined. Populations of Brodiaea filifolia and 
Navarretia fossalis are also found, along with Atriplex coronata var. 
notatior and Allium munzii, in western Riverside County, where a 
multiple species planning program is being initiated but conservation 
levels have not yet been determined.
    Populations of Brodiaea filifolia also occur in Orange, Los 
Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties. In these counties, planning 
efforts for areas with these plants are either not yet complete or 
lacking (See discussion under Factor D). Significant populations of 
Navarretia fossalis occur in areas such as western Los Angeles County 
and western Riverside County where protection is still limited to 
existing land-use and regulatory mechanisms that have not

[[Page 54981]]

proven adequate in the past to conserve the species effectively.
    Issue 7: Several commenters indicated that Brodiaea filifolia 
should be listed as endangered and not threatened.
    Service Response: Brodiaea filifolia has one of the widest 
distributions of the four plants, being found in Los Angeles, Orange, 
western Riverside, southwestern San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. 
The population with the largest area of potentially suitable habitat is 
protected in TNC's Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve. Other populations are 
protected at the CDFG's San Jacinto Wildlife Area. Several new 
populations have also recently been discovered in Orange County and San 
Diego County. As such, B. filifolia does not meet the definition of an 
endangered species under the Act and listing as threatened is 
appropriate.
    Issue 8: Two respondents stated that the Service's notification to 
the public on this proposal was inadequate. One of these commenters 
stated specifically that the Service failed to give notice of the 
proposal to the County of Riverside, Riverside County Flood Control, 
and that the Service failed to publish notice of the proposed rule in a 
newspaper of general circulation within Riverside County. Two 
commenters stated that a single public hearing was inadequate to obtain 
full public input on the proposal. These same commenters requested that 
public hearings be held in more than one location. Additionally, 
several commenters also stated that the Service had not provided enough 
opportunity for the public to respond.
    Service Response: The Service is obligated to hold one public 
hearing on a listing proposal if requested to do so within 45 days of 
publication of the proposal (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5)(E)). Considering the 
limited geographic distribution of the species, the Service determined 
that holding a single public hearing was not an impediment or undue 
inconvenience to those wishing to attend. In addition, the Service went 
through an extensive notification process to make the public aware of 
this proposal. This process, which is described in detail above, fully 
satisfied the requirements of the Act.
    As was indicated above, newspaper notices were published in the 
Orange County Register, San Diego Union Tribune, and the Press 
Enterprise. All three papers are widely available in western Riverside 
County. A large number of interested parties, including the County of 
Riverside Planning Department and the Riverside County Flood Control 
District, were sent copies of the proposed rule on December 27, 1994.
    The Service is obligated to allow 60 days for the public to respond 
to a proposed rule. The Service extended the comment period for an 
additional 60 days to allow for additional public response.
    Issue 9: One commenter stated that the intention of the signed 
Memorandum of Understanding for the San Jacinto River Corridor Plan 
(MOU) was to ``avoid the need to list the saltbush'' and to cooperate 
in the development of a plan to protect the saltbush. Thus, although a 
plan was developed in accordance with the criteria delineated in the 
MOU, ``the Service has failed to approve this plan in blatant disregard 
of its commitments established in the MOU.''
    Service Response: The intent of the MOU was to reduce the threats 
to the San Jacinto Valley crownscale (saltbush), Atriplex coronata var. 
notatior, by developing a conservation plan that accommodates 
channelization of the San Jacinto River while protecting saltbush 
habitat along the river. The MOU does not cover the entire range of the 
saltbush; approximately two-thirds of the range of the species is 
outside of the MOU area. Therefore, the proposal to list the saltbush 
does not violate the terms of the MOU. The MOU is still in effect, and 
the Service stands by its signatory responsibilities. However, to date, 
the Service has not received a plan that provides adequate protection 
and conservation measures for the species. The Service pledges to 
continue working with all interested parties to develop a conservation 
plan for the saltbush along the San Jacinto River that adequately and 
simultaneously meets the conservation needs of the species and the 
needs of the stakeholders.
    Issue 10: Several commenters have stated that the Service has not 
appropriately taken into account the planning and preservation efforts 
by local jurisdictions. One commenter noted that ``the City of Hemet 
has undertaken a separate proactive planning effort which the Service 
also failed to consider when preparing this rule.''
    Service Response: The Service has considered planning and 
preservation efforts by local jurisdictions in preparation of this 
determination. For example, although the City of Hemet initiated a 
conservation plan for the vernal pools and vernal wetlands along the 
western edge of the city in 1994, the plan apparently has not yet 
resulted in significant conservation of any of the taxa in this final 
rule.
    Issue 11: One commenter stated that the proposed rule discloses 
inconsistencies in the Service's mitigation recommendations or 
requirements for various projects that could impact the species 
addressed herein.
    Service Response: The commenter apparently is referring to the 
disparity between the mitigation accepted for pipeline projects versus 
that accepted for flood control projects. Pipeline projects involve 
temporary impacts and have fewer indirect effects than channelization 
projects, which permanently alter the habitat and prevent natural 
habitat recovery within the natural flood plan.
    Issue 12: Four commenters stated that personal letters and informal 
correspondence should not be considered a legitimate source of 
information. They felt that the Service had not accounted for bias on 
the part of these parties.
    Service Response: The Act requires the Service to use the best 
available scientific information as the sole basis for its listing 
decision. This information may take the form of published papers, peer 
review by acknowledged experts on a given subject, scientific reports, 
letters, and personal communications. The Service considers 
professional judgment and expert opinion by knowledgeable biologists in 
making decisions. All such information is subject to peer review during 
the listing process.
    Issue 13: Two commenters stated the proposed rule failed to 
consider the protections provided by State and local statutes to the 
species listed herein. One commenter stated that listing of these 
species would not provide them with additional protection.
    Service response: The Service considered all the existing 
applicable regulatory mechanisms that deal with the species listed 
herein on private, State, and Federal lands throughout their range. 
These issues are discussed in the Summary of Factors section, Factor D. 
The Service has concluded that existing regulatory mechanisms do not 
currently provide adequate protection for these plants. The listing of 
these species will protect them from a variety of unauthorized 
activities including removal or reduction to possession from areas 
under Federal jurisdiction or in violation of a State law, including 
criminal trespass, and will allow review of projects with a Federal 
nexus to determine whether such actions may affect the listed species.
    Issue 14: Numerous commenters stated that critical habitat would 
impose an unnecessary economic burden on property owners or requested 
that the

[[Page 54982]]

boundaries of proposed critical habitat be modified to exclude their 
properties.
    Service Response: Because critical habitat is not being designated 
in this rule, comments regarding critical habitat have not been 
addressed.
    Issue 15: One commenter stated that existing regulatory mechanisms 
are adequate but regulatory agencies have failed to enforce these 
regulations.
    Service Response: The adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is 
discussed under ``D.'' The Service acknowledges that not all regulatory 
mechanisms are strictly enforced.
    Issue 16: Eight commenters expressed concern about adverse economic 
effects of the listing.
    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. 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 nonbiological considerations from affecting such decisions ``* 
* *,'' (H.R. Rep. No. 97-835, 97th Cong. 2nd Sess. 19 (9182)). As 
further stated in the legislative history, ``* * * economic 
considerations have no relevance to determinations regarding the status 
of the species * * *'' (Id. at 20). Because the Service is specifically 
precluded from considering economic impacts, either positive or 
negative, in making listing decisions, the Service does not evaluate or 
consider the economic impacts of listing species.

Peer Review

    In accordance with interagency policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), the Service solicited the 
expert opinions of three independent specialists regarding pertinent 
scientific or commercial data and assumptions relating to the taxonomy, 
population models, and supportive biological and ecological information 
for the taxa under consideration for listing. The purpose of such 
review is to ensure listing decisions are based on scientifically sound 
data, assumptions, and analyses, including input from appropriate 
experts and specialists. One of the three specialists sent a supportive 
letter during the public comment period. No additional comments were 
received from the other specialists.

Summary of 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 Allium munzii (Traub) D. McNeal (Munz's onion), 
Atriplex coronata S. Watson var. notatior Jeps. (San Jacinto Valley 
crownscale), Brodiaea filifolia S. Watson (thread-leaved brodiaea), and 
Navarretia fossalis Moran (spreading navarretia) are as follows and 
summarized in Table 1.

                                          Table 1.--Summary of Threats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Agriculture/                               Alteration    Trampling/       Alien
           Species            urbanization   ORV use \1\     Mining     of hydrology     grazing       species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allium munzii...............            X             X             X   ............            X             X
Atriplex coronata var.
 notatior...................            X             X   ............            X             X             X
Brodiaea filifolia..........            X   ............  ............  ............            X             X
Navarretia fossalis.........            X             X   ............            X             X            X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ORV=off road vehicle.

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

    The natural plant communities of coastal Orange and San Diego 
counties, western Riverside and southwestern San Bernardino counties, 
California, and northwestern Baja California, Mexico, have undergone 
significant changes as a result of both direct and indirect human-
caused activities. The rapid urbanization of this region (which 
currently harbors over 17 million people) has already eliminated a 
significant portion of the habitat for these four plants. The remaining 
patches of habitat are frequently isolated and have been, or are being, 
degraded and/or fragmented by agricultural practices, streambed 
channelization and other hydrological alterations, weed abatement, fire 
suppression practices, and grazing.
    Allium munzii occurs in grassy openings in coastal sage scrub and 
mesic native perennial grasslands. The majority of B. filifolia 
populations are known to occur in mesic native perennial grasslands. 
The extent of these plant communities has undergone significant 
reduction due to urban and agricultural development (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1993, Oberbauer and Vanderwier 1991). Approximately 59 
percent of the coastal sage scrub in Riverside County has been 
destroyed since 1945, and as much as 71 percent has been destroyed 
since 1930 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). In San Diego County, 
95 percent of the native perennial grasslands and 72 percent of the 
coastal sage scrub have been destroyed (Oberbauer and Vanderwier 1991). 
Native perennial grasslands continue to be at risk and are threatened 
by urbanization and agricultural conversion throughout the range of 
Allium munzii and Brodiaea filifolia.
    Little is known concerning the historical distribution of A. 
munzii. owever, as much as 80 to 90 percent of the clay soils in 
western Riverside County that may have supported habitat for A. munzii 
have been adversely modified through extensive agriculture, 
urbanization, and clay mining (CDFG 1989).
    Allium munzii has recently been extirpated from at least two sites 
as a result of agricultural development, clay mining, and highway 
construction. Other populations of this species have been impacted by 
reduction of available habitat and numbers of individuals. One 
population of A. munzii was partially eliminated in 1982 by the 
realignment of the Interstate 15 freeway corridor in the Temescal 
Valley of Riverside County (Roberts 1993a). Another population was 
reduced when part of its habitat was inundated for a reservoir (CDFG 
1989).
    Two of the remaining 13 populations of Allium munzii are within the 
boundaries of proposed development (Roberts 1993a, Royce Rigging and 
Associates, in litt. March 1998, Brenda McMillan, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1998). Combined these projects contain 
over 470 ha (1,175 ac) of which a substantial area is potential habitat 
for A. munzii. Discing for the weed abatement or dry land

[[Page 54983]]

farming may destroy habitat and cause population declines of A. munzii. 
These activities, or off-road vehicle activity, are affecting six of 
the thirteen known sites of A. munzii (CNDDB 1997, Steve Boyd, Rancho 
Santa Ana Botanical Garden and D. Bramlet, pers. comm. 1993). One site, 
for example, that has been persistently disced for dryland farming 
since it was reported as supporting 1,000 individuals in 1992, was 
found to contain fewer than 10 individuals in 1998 (B. McMillan, pers. 
comm. 1998). Altogether 7 of the 13 populations (over 50 percent) 
supporting about 20 percent of the individuals are threatened by loss 
of habitat through development, discing, and off-road vehicle activity.
    Over 25 percent of B. filifolia populations have been eliminated by 
urbanization and agricultural conversion (Roberts and Vanderwier 1997). 
Over the last 15 years, nearly 60 ha (150 ac) of occupied habitat 
containing over 80,000 plants have been eliminated in the cities of San 
Marcos and Vista (CNDDB 1997, Taylor and Burkhart 1992, Wayne 
Armstrong, Palomar College, pers. comm. 1993, Roberts and Vanderwier 
1997). Urbanization continues to be the most significant threat to this 
species. About 20 percent (about 8) of the remaining populations of B. 
filifolia in San Diego and Riverside counties are currently within 
proposed or approved development projects. Another 10 percent (4) of 
the populations are zoned for urbanization or threatened by discing for 
fire suppression activities or dryland farming. Suitable habitat is at 
even greater risk. For example, Brodiaea filifolia is associated with 
clay soils and soils with clay subsoils. In 1994, about 1,595 ha (3,990 
ac) of these soils (about 30 percent of the historical figure) remained 
available in the cities of San Marcos, Vista, and Carlsbad. In 1996 and 
1997, at least 120 ha (300 ac) of clay soils and soils with clay 
subsoils, in part occupied by B. filifolia, was graded in the City of 
Carlsbad alone. Two approved projects in the City of Carlsbad are 
likely to reduce these available appropriate soils by at least 400 ha 
(1,000 ac) (Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, et. al. 1973, 
City of Carlsbad and Fieldstone/La Costa Associates 1994, Sweetwater 
Environmental Biologists 1994).
    It is probable that the only known population of B. filifolia 
reported for San Bernardino County in nearly 70 years will be removed 
by a major pipeline project (Robert Thorne, Rancho Santa Ana Botanical 
Garden, pers. comm. 1993, Edna Rey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
pers. comm. 1993).
    Most of the recently discovered populations of Brodiaea filifolia 
in Orange County, California are relatively small and are not at 
immediate risk (2 are on protected land). However, the largest 
population known in Orange County is within the proposed grading 
footprint of a 1,600-unit residential development (City of San Clemente 
1997). This population occupies about 6 ha (15 ac) and supports about 
60 percent of the reported B. filifolia individuals and about 80 
percent of the habitat occupied by this species in Orange County. As 
currently proposed, nearly the entire native population at this site 
would be impacted.
    The largest reported population of B. filifolia occurs on 16 ha (40 
ac) of habitat located near downtown San Marcos in San Diego County, 
which is zoned for industrial development (Kutz 1997). Other 
populations in San Marcos, although not as extensive, are also 
threatened. For example, a 9 ha (20 ac) parcel near the largest site is 
proposed for recreational development (San Diego Union Tribune, January 
29, 1998).
    The only populations of Brodiaea filifolia known to occur on 
Federal land are on Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton in San Diego 
County (CNNDB 1997, U.S. Marine Corps 1997). Several populations have 
recently been discovered in an abandoned weapons impact area. While no 
populations are currently reported as directly threatened by 
development on the base, a recently-proposed project may alter up to 54 
ha (134 ac) of highly suitable habitat that is immediately adjacent to 
known occupied habitat (U.S. Marine Corps 1997).
    As discussed below (vernal wetlands discussion), habitat that 
supports 5 of 6 populations of Brodiaea filifolia within the San 
Jacinto River flood plain and Old Salt Creek near Hemet is threatened 
by alteration of hydrology (duck ponds), channelization, discing for 
dry land farming and fire suppression practices, and urbanization 
(Roberts and Vanderwier 1997). These populations represent about one 
third of the populations and over 40 percent of the potential habitat 
for this species in Riverside County.
    At least 12 of the remaining 37 populations of Brodiaea filifolia 
within San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego County are 
threatened by the destruction of habitat that will result from 
urbanization, discing for dry land farming or fire suppression. These 
populations include a significant portion of the occupied habitat and 
the largest populations of Brodiaea filifolia within San Diego and 
Orange Counties. The reduction of these populations will result in a 
significant decline in the species.
    Vernal pools have undergone an extraordinary reduction in number 
and have nearly been eliminated in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego 
counties, and have been greatly reduced in Riverside County. In San 
Diego County, over 97 percent of vernal pool habitat occupied, in part, 
by Navarretia fossalis, had been lost by 1990 (Bauder 1986, Oberbauer 
and Vanderweir 1991).
    Loss estimates for vernal pools and vernal wetlands in Riverside 
County are less certain and are based on the status of soil types that 
support these kinds of habitat. The Service estimates that about 12,800 
ha (32,000 ac) in the Perris, western San Jacinto, and Menifee Valleys 
were historically dominated by alkali scrub, alkali playa, alkali 
grassland, or vernal pool plant communities that contained significant 
populations of B. filifolia, A. coronata var. notatior, and N. 
fossalis. About 75 percent of the 12,800 ha (32,000 ac) has been 
impacted by a combination of intensive cultivation, urbanization, or 
watercourse channelization; being filled; or otherwise being highly 
disturbed and, therefore, unlikely to return to supporting these native 
plants. A significant portion of the remaining 3,300 ha (8,200 ac) of 
alkali and vernal pool habitat suitable for these plants has been 
disturbed, predominantly by dryland farming activities (Tierra Madre 
Consultants 1992, Roberts 1993b, Roberts and McMillan 1997).
    About 95 percent of the populations of A. coronata var. notatior, 
about 15 percent of the populations of B. filifolia, and about 50 
percent of the populations of N. fossalis are associated with the San 
Jacinto River and a tributary of Old Salt Creek just west of the city 
of Hemet. Much of this area has been subject to dry land farming or 
irrigated farming at some time during the last 100 years. However, a 5-
year drought contributed significantly to a reduction in agricultural 
activity, particularly along the San Jacinto River. Conversely, in some 
areas, the soils have routinely been too wet and too alkaline for dry 
land farming. Both factors have contributed to the continued existence 
of these taxa in this area.
    Major commercial and urban development, transportation, and flood 
control projects have been proposed in General and Specific Plans for 
both the San Jacinto River Valley and the area west of Hemet. According 
to documents on file with the County of Riverside and the City of 
Perris in 1994, these proposals could result in over 19,000 new 
residential units, as well as hotel and commercial developments

[[Page 54984]]

encompassing over 3,200 ha (8,000 ac) (Riverside County Planning 
Department 1991, Louis Massey, Department of Planning, City of Perris, 
pers. comm. 1993, Mark Goldberg, City of Hemet, pers. comm. 1993). 
Although not all of these projects may move forward, potential habitat 
for A. coronata var. notatior, N. fossalis, and B. filifolia could be 
reduced by over 1,400 ha (3,500 ac) (Roberts 1993b). And, although the 
urbanization that could result from these major projects and others 
associated with the cities of San Jacinto and Hemet may not occur for 
up to five years, these same areas are more imminently threatened by a 
recent increase in pipeline construction, dry land farming, and weed 
abatement activities.
    Three pipeline projects have recently destroyed vernal pool, alkali 
grassland, and alkali playa habitat and directly impacted 5 of 11 
populations of A. coronata var. notatior, N. fossalis, and at least one 
historical site for B. filifolia in the San Jacinto River flood plain 
(Roger Turner, Eastern Municipal Water District, pers. comm. 1992, 
1993, Tierra Madre Consultants 1992). At least one additional pipeline 
project will further reduce one population of A. coronata var. notatior 
and N. fossalis (Roberts and McMillan 1997).
    In 1993, more than 200 ha (500 ac) of occupied or potential habitat 
for A. coronata var. notatior, B. filifolia, and N. fossalis were 
disced for weed abatement or fire suppression purposes (Roberts 1993b). 
In June 1993, an additional 80 ha (200 ac) of habitat containing A. 
coronata var. notatior and N. fossalis were disced and seeded for dry 
land farming (Bill Sweeney, landowner, pers. comm. 1993). Additional 
discing along the San Jacinto River has been reported since 1993. At 
least 42 stands of A. coronata var. notatior, including 4 of the 
largest, have been adversely modified since 1990. This has resulted in 
the decline in total numbers of A. coronata var. notatior plants, 
throughout its range, of nearly 70 percent since 1992 (Roberts and 
McMillan 1997).
    While Atriplex coronata var. notatior has displayed some ability to 
persist despite dryland farming in its habitat, its severe decline 
since 1992, combined with extensive plans for flood control and further 
urban development in its habitat show that this plant is in danger of 
extinction in much of its remaining habitat. The existing protected 
areas, as discussed below, do not appear to offer adequate area or 
management to prevent endangerment. Nearly half of the known 
populations of Navarretia fossalis occur within the same habitat that 
is occupied by A. coronata var. notatior. However, the distribution of 
N. fossalis is even more restricted in that it can only persist in the 
wettest areas of the San Jacinto River flood plain and the vernal pools 
at Hemet. The loss of these populations will result in a significant 
decline in the species.
    Navarretia fossalis also occurred historically in the vicinity of 
Murrieta Hot Springs in Riverside County during the 1920's (Spencer, in 
litt. 1993). Much of the Murrieta Hot Spring area has been urbanized or 
converted to agriculture resulting in a significant reduction and 
fragmentation of potential N. fossalis habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, unpublished data). While there are no additional confirmed 
populations of N. fossalis occurring in the Murrieta area, the 
continued and rapid urbanization of this area reduces the opportunities 
to conserve potential habitat for species recovery.
    The larger of two recently discovered occurrences of Navarretia 
fossalis in northwestern Los Angeles has apparently been partially 
graded, (Tim Thomas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1998), 
leading to the ongoing deposition of fill material into the vernal 
pool.
    In San Diego County, N. fossalis occurs within vernal pool 
complexes (Bauder 1986, CNDDB 1997). These areas have been and continue 
to be impacted by urbanization and agricultural conversion (Bauder 
1986, Nancy Gilbert and Ellen Berryman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
pers. comm. 1993).
    One of the largest concentrations of N. fossalis occurs on Otay 
Mesa in San Diego County. At least 37 proposed Precise Plans and 
Tentative Maps for development have been filed pursuant to the 
California Environmental Quality Act for this area. These plans 
encompass about 80 percent of the undeveloped portion of the mesa 
within the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego and all but four of 
the remaining vernal pool complexes. Several of these projects will 
impact N. fossalis. In addition, at least one major transportation 
project has been proposed for Otay Mesa and could potentially affect 
vernal pools occupied by N. fossalis (California Department of 
Transportation 1993).
    Navarretia fossalis and Brodiaea filifolia are found on Federal 
lands managed by the Navy at Naval Air Station, Miramar and Marine 
Corps Base, Camp Pendleton. These lands are used, in part, for military 
training activities that involve off-road vehicle maneuvers that 
adversely affect these species (D. Hogan, San Diego Biodiversity 
Project, and D. Belk, The Lady of the Lake University, in litt. 1992, 
CNDDB 1997).
    Trash dumping has also degraded vernal pools in San Diego County. 
Chunks of concrete, tires, refrigerators, furniture, and other pieces 
of garbage or debris have been found in pools containing N. fossalis. 
This trash crushes or shades vernal pool plants, disrupts the 
hydrologic functions of the pool, and, in some cases, may release toxic 
substances. Trash dumping continues to threaten vernal pools that 
support this species (S. Wynn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. 
comm. 1998).
    Vernal pools in Riverside and San Diego counties and, to a lesser 
extent, the alkali wetland habitats of Riverside County, have also been 
degraded by off-road vehicles. These vehicles compact soils, crush 
plants when water is present, cause turbidity, and leave deep ruts. 
This type of damage may alter the microhydrology of the pools by 
creating drainage channels or by disrupting the pool's water-retaining 
hardpan. Dirt roads that go through or adjacent to pools are widened as 
motorists try to avoid mud puddles, resulting in destruction of pool 
margins inhabited by N. fossalis and B. filifolia. Pools are 
incrementally destroyed, both as a result of destruction of vegetation 
and alteration of hydrology.
    For Navarretia fossalis, whose 30 known populations in the United 
States are concentrated in Otay Mesa in southern San Diego County, 
along the San Jacinto River in western Riverside County, and near Hemet 
in Riverside County, the ongoing degradation of vernal pools and their 
outright destruction due to widespread urbanization in Otay Mesa is the 
most pressing threat, followed by agricultural practices and the 
longer-term threats from flood control and development in the San 
Jacinto-Hemet areas of Riverside County.
    The vernal pool, alkali grassland, alkali playa, and alkali sink 
habitats upon which N. fossalis, A. coronata var. notatior, and, to a 
lesser extent, B. filifolia depend are also vulnerable to indirect 
destruction due to an alteration of the supporting watershed. An 
increase in water due to urban run-off leads to increased inundation, 
which makes pools vulnerable to invasion by plants characteristic of 
perennial wetlands, which results in decreased abundance of obligate 
vernal pool plants. At the other extreme, some pools and alkali 
wetlands have been drained or blocked from their source of water and 
have shown an increased domination by upland plant species. Of

[[Page 54985]]

the species covered by this rule, N. fossalis is the most vulnerable to 
alterations in hydrology because it is the most dependent on vernal 
pools. The other species in the plan occur in microhabitats that are 
more variable in wetness.
    Agricultural and/or urban development adjacent to vernal pools and 
alkali wetlands may cause adverse alterations in drainage and adverse 
hydrological alterations to vernal pools. Drainage of wetlands for 
agricultural purposes may render land suitable for urban development. 
Wetland drainage is exemplified by recent activities near Hemet in 
Riverside County, California. In 1989, drainage structures were built 
in alkali grassland and vernal pools west of Hemet in association with 
an Auto Mall (M. Goldberg, pers. comm. 1993). These structures have 
significantly reduced standing water and are responsible for the 
gradual drying of wetland vegetation as evidenced by relic stands of 
Eleocharis palustris and other obligate wetland species (Wayne Ferren, 
University of California, Santa Barbara, pers. comm. 1993). In another 
example, a vernal pool supporting a large population of N. fossalis in 
1994 was identified along the San Jacinto River. By 1997, the field had 
been disced and there was no evidence of the vernal pool nor N. 
fossalis.
    Because Navarretia fossalis is an obligate wetland species, 
drainage of the wetlands it inhabits will destroy it. The generally 
small sizes of vernal pool wetlands render them highly vulnerable to 
deliberate drainage, as discussed above, as well as to more or less 
unintentional alteration through changes in drainage that occur during 
development, and from the physical effects of off-road vehicles and 
trash dumping. The loss of over 97 percent of vernal pool habitat in 
San Diego County occupied, in part, by Navarretia fossalis, by 1990, 
shows the intensity of economic and other pressures to develop clay-
soil areas with vernal pools. To judge from recent development 
proposals, the remaining three percent of vernal pool habitat is likely 
to be lost. On the more extensive alkali wetlands of Riverside County, 
the effects of agricultural activities, drainage of wetlands, 
alteration of drainage (from diking and rerouting of drainage) likewise 
mean that the wetlands remaining available to this plant are much 
smaller and much more vulnerable to the effects of surrounding 
development than they were earlier in the century.
    Livestock grazing typically changes the composition of native plant 
communities by reducing or eliminating plants that cannot withstand 
grazing and trampling and by enabling more resistant (usually non-
native) species to increase in abundance. Non-native plants often are 
introduced and flourish under a grazing regime and may reduce or 
replace native species. Plants in vernal pools or adjacent alkali 
grasslands, playa, or scrub habitats may be trampled and killed or 
grazed prior to seed production. For example, sheep are imported to 
graze along the San Jacinto River and at Old Salt Creek annually, and 
they frequently trample habitat occupied by Atriplex coronata var. 
notatior, Navarretia fossalis, and Brodiaea filifolia (F. Roberts, 
pers. obs.). At least two populations of Allium munzii are within areas 
grazed by cattle (CNDDB 1997). Grazing also continues to impact vernal 
pool habitat in San Diego County, which, in part, is occupied by 
Navarretia fossalis, and on Otay Mesa where some of the most important 
populations are found, or at Ramona (S. Wynn, pers. comm. 1998).

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

    Neither disease nor natural predation are known to be a factor for 
the four plants. Cattle grazing occurs on Otay Mesa in areas where 
several vernal pool complexes contain N. fossalis. Intensive sheep 
grazing occurs west of Hemet and along the San Jacinto River in habitat 
occupied by N. fossalis, A. coronata var. notatior, and B. filifolia. 
It is not anticipated that any of the four species are regular forage 
for grazing animals, and thus effects from grazing are more likely to 
be from trampling rather than predation.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Existing regulatory mechanisms that could provide some protection 
for these species include: (1) listing under the California Endangered 
Species Act (CESA); (2) the California Environmental Quality Act 
(CEQA); (3) implementation of conservation plans pursuant to the 
California NCCP program; (4) conservation provisions under the Federal 
Clean Water Act; (5) the Act in cases where these species occur in 
habitat occupied by a listed species; (6) land acquisition and 
management by Federal, State, or local agencies, or by private groups 
and organizations; (7) local laws and regulations; and (8) enforcement 
of Mexican laws.

State Laws and Regulations

    The California Fish and Game Commission has listed B. filifolia as 
endangered and A. munzii (= A. fimbriatum var. munzii) as threatened 
under the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (Div. 2, chapter 10, 
section 1900 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code) and CESA 
(chapter 1.5, section 2050 et seq.). A. coronata var. notatior and N. 
fossalis are included on Lists 1B of the California Native Plant 
Society's Inventory (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), which, in accordance 
with section 1901, chapter 10 of the California Department of Fish and 
Game Code, makes them eligible for State listing. Although both 
statutes prohibit the ``take'' of State-listed plants (chapter 10 
section 1908 and chapter 1.5 section 2080), populations of three of the 
four species have continued to decline. For example, development 
proposals in Carlsbad (San Diego County) and in the Gavilan Hills 
(Riverside County) that involve direct impacts to A. munzii and B. 
filifolia have proceeded without notification to the Department 
(Roberts 1993a, Jim Dice, CDFG, pers. comm. 1993). In another case, a 
landowner disced a stand of N. fossalis growing with the State-listed 
Orcuttia californica for fire control without notifying the CDFG 
(Howard Windsor, Riverside County Fire Department, pers. comm. 1993).
    California Senate Bill 879, passed in 1997 and effective January 1, 
1998, requires individuals and entities to obtain 2081(b) incidental 
take permits to take listed species; however, the draft of proposed 
regulations to implement Senate Bill 879 would except the prohibition 
of take of listed plant species from major categories of activities, 
including take incidental to agricultural operations, approved timber 
harvest operations, mining assessment work, public works projects, and 
removal or destruction of plants from building sites on private lands. 
The extent to which the amended State Statute will afford protection to 
State-listed plant species is uncertain at this time.
    The majority of the known populations of the four plants considered 
herein occur on privately owned land. Local lead agencies empowered to 
uphold and enforce the regulations of the California Environmental 
Quality Act (CEQA) have made determinations that have or will

[[Page 54986]]

adversely affect A. munzii, A. coronata var. notatior, B. filifolia, 
and N. fossalis. Required biological surveys are often inadequate, and 
project proponents may ignore the results of surveys if occurrences of 
sensitive species are viewed as a constraint on project design. 
Mitigation measures used to condition project approvals are essentially 
experimental and fail to adequately guarantee long-term protection of 
sustainable populations. In addition, relocation attempts often fail. 
Project designs have also failed to provide an adequate buffer zone 
around sensitive plant populations to protect their long-term viability 
(WESTEC 1988, D. Bramlet, in litt. 1992, D. Hogan and D. Belk, in litt. 
1992, and O. Mistretta, in litt. 1993).
    The CEQA requires that a project proponent publicly disclose the 
potential environmental impacts of proposed projects. The public agency 
with the primary authority or jurisdiction over the project is 
designated as the lead agency and is responsible for conducting review 
of the project and consulting with other agencies concerned with 
resources affected by the project. Required biological surveys are 
sometimes inadequate and mitigation measures used to condition project 
approvals are sometimes experimental and do not always adequately 
guarantee protection of sustainable populations of the species 
considered in this rule. 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.'' CEQA decisions are also subject to overriding social and 
economic considerations, which allows the CEQA lead agency to approve a 
project with significant adverse effects on a listed plant species 
where the agency concludes that overriding considerations justify 
approval of the project.
    Even though impacts to rare plant taxa including N. fossalis, B. 
filifolia, and A. coronata var. notatior were considered significant 
under CEQA when several pipeline projects and Specific Plans were 
proposed in Riverside County, California, only A. coronata var. 
notatior was consistently considered in the environmental impact 
analyses. These projects proposed either no or inadequate mitigation 
for impacts to sensitive plant taxa (D. Bramlet, in litt. 1992, Roberts 
1993b). In another case, a major development in San Marcos (San Diego 
County) resulted in a 70 percent reduction in B. filifolia habitat. 
Although 5 ha (12 ac) were set aside for preservation of this species, 
the preserve is surrounded by residential development, has inadequate 
buffers, and is poorly configured (WESTEC 1988).

Regional Planning Efforts

    In 1991, the State of California established the NCCP Program to 
address conservation needs of natural ecosystems throughout the State. 
The focus of the current planning program is the coastal sage scrub 
community in southern California, although other vegetation communities 
are being addressed in an ecosystem-level approach. Brodiaea filifolia 
and Navarretia fossalis are currently being considered under the MSCP, 
MHCP, Central/Coastal Subregional NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan 
(Central/Coastal) or the Southern Subregional NCCP/Habitat Conservation 
Plan of Orange County, California. All of these habitat conservation 
plans are being conducted under the procedures of section 10(a)(1)(B) 
of the Act, which allows incidental take permits for federally listed 
animals in return for effective conservation plans.
    The Central/Coastal NCCP of Orange County was approved in July of 
1996. Only one of the four plants (Brodiaea filifolia) occurs within 
the Central/Coastal NCCP. It is not considered a covered species 
because of its recent discovery within the subregion. Covered species 
are those species that have been adequately considered in terms of 
long-term preservation within a Habitat Conservation Planning Area or 
NCCP subregion. Under an agreement with participants, CDFG, and the 
Service, future potential impacts for covered species are considered 
adequately addressed through proposed preservation, mitigation, and 
management. The single population of B. filifolia within the Central/
Coastal NCCP is situated on land preserved under the regional park 
system of the County of Orange.
    Five populations of B. filifolia are within the Southern Subregion 
of the Orange County NCCP. Preserve design in the Southern Subregion is 
still preliminary, and it is uncertain to what degree it will conserve 
the four populations of this taxon. However, the largest of the four 
populations (Forster Ranch) is within a proposed residential 
development site and is unlikely to benefit from any future preserve 
(City of San Clemente 1997).
    Since the publication of the proposed rule, the MSCP, a regional 
planning effort in southwestern San Diego County, has been finalized 
and submitted to the Service as part of an application for a section 
10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit for 85 species, including Brodiaea 
filifolia and Navarretia fossalis. The Service and the City of San 
Diego have jointly prepared a Recirculated Environmental Impact 
Statement, ``Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and 
Endangered Species due to urban Growth within the Multiple Species 
Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area.'' This document, released on 
August 30, 1996, and finalized in December 1996, assesses the effects 
of land-use decisions that will be made by local jurisdictions to 
implement the plan and the effects of the issuance of the incidental 
take permit for the 85 species. A permit was issued to the City of San 
Diego in July 1997 and for the County of San Diego in March 1998. A 
permit is expected for Chula Vista in 1999.
    The MSCP sets aside preserve areas and provides for monitoring and 
management for the 85 ``covered species'' addressed in the permit 
application, including Brodiaea filifolia and Navarretia fossalis. 
``Covered species'' are taxa that will be adequately conserved by the 
plan's proposed preservation and management. Project proponents in 
areas outside the MSCP subregion will be required to coordinate with 
the Service on these taxa where applicable.
    About 20 percent of the known populations of N. fossalis in the 
United States are in the MSCP subregion. The majority of these 
populations will be conserved by the MSCP. In addition the species is 
on the list of narrow endemics, which requires jurisdictions to specify 
and implement measures in their subarea plan to avoid or minimize 
impacts to all populations. However, significant populations of N. 
fossalis remain outside the MSCP subregion. Only a single recently 
reported population of B. filifolia occurs within the MSCP.
    The MHCP area in northwestern San Diego County contains several 
significant populations of N. fossalis and about half of the B. 
filifolia populations. The MHCP, which will include the Carlsbad 
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) program, is still in the early 
developmental phase, and thus it is uncertain to what degree it will be 
successful in providing protection for Brodiaea filifolia and 
Navarretia fossalis.
    About 50 percent of the populations of Navarretia fossalis occur in 
western Riverside County, along the San Jacinto River and southwest of 
Hemet. Riverside County is in the process of developing a multiple 
species plan. However, the plan will not be finalized

[[Page 54987]]

this year. B. filifolia, A. coronata var. notatior, and Allium munzii 
are also expected to benefit from the Riverside County plan when it is 
finalized. Five of the six populations of B. filifolia in southern 
Orange County are within multiple species planning areas in southern 
Orange County and most of these are expected to be conserved through 
the Southern Subregional NCCP. However, the largest and most 
significant population (Forster Ranch) will not have substantial 
conservation as a result of this planning effort. Small populations of 
N. fossalis and B. filifolia are also known from Los Angeles and San 
Bernardino County. These populations are generally in jurisdictions 
that have not developed or implemented regional multispecies planning 
programs.

Conservation Provisions Under the Clean Water Act

    Atriplex coronata var. notatior and N. fossalis could potentially 
be affected by projects requiring a permit from the Corps under section 
404 of the Clean Water Act. In Riverside County, the Corps has not 
required a permit or mitigation for filling of wetland habitat occupied 
by A. coronata var. notatior, N. fossalis, or B. filifolia in instances 
where the land had previously been used for agriculture or where the 
wetland was determined not to be within the jurisdiction of the Corps. 
The Corps has indicated a lack of certainty over whether hydric soils 
existed on a particular site, even though hydric vegetation and 
hydrologic features were present (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 
litt. 1993). Even if the Corps establishes jurisdiction under the Clean 
Water Act over vernal pools, this does not ensure their protection. At 
least two vernal pool complexes that represented suitable habitat for 
Navarretia fossalis that were under Corps jurisdiction in San Diego 
County have been destroyed or degraded without a section 404 permit (J. 
Dice, pers. comm. 1993, Carrie Phillips, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, pers. comm. 1993).
    A permit was issued by the Corps for channelizing the San Jacinto 
River in 1996. As a condition of approval, the permit was tied to a 
plan that would be designed to conserve A. coronata var. notatior 
habitat along a portion of the San Jacinto River. This plan is still in 
the development stage. It is anticipated that this conservation plan, 
when finalized, will provide adequate habitat for A. coronata var. 
notatior and other rare plant species, including N. fossalis. It will 
cover about one-third of the range of A. coronata var. notatior. This 
conservation plan is intended to adequately conserve A. coronata var. 
notatior (but not N. fossalis) in the covered area and to allow for its 
full recovery once similar conservation measures are undertaken 
elsewhere in its range.

Federal Endangered Species Act

    The Act may afford protection to sensitive species if they co-exist 
with species already listed as threatened or endangered under the Act. 
Pogogyne abramsii (San Diego mesa mint), P. nudiuscula (Otay Mesa 
mint), Orcuttia californica (California Orcutt grass), Eryngium 
aristulatum var. parishii (San Diego button-celery), San Diego fairy 
shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegoensis), and the Riverside fairy shrimp 
(Streptocephalus wootoni) are listed as endangered under the Act and 
occur in the same kinds of habitat type as several of the taxa listed 
herein. However, these species are often not found in the same vernal 
pool complexes as the taxa considered in this proposal. N. fossalis co-
exists with other listed species in only seven vernal pool complexes 
(one in Riverside County, six in San Diego County).
    The Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) and the Quino 
checkerspot (Euphydryas editha quino) are listed as endangered, and the 
coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) is listed as 
threatened under the Act. These species occur in coastal sage scrub 
(gnatcatcher) and grassland (kangaroo rat) habitats. Although A. munzii 
is known from similar habitats, there is less than 30 percent overlap 
between its populations and populations of these listed animals. Where 
overlap does occur, the A. munzii populations are either already 
preserved or potentially protected from development by other 
regulations. However, in these cases, A. munzii is still threatened by 
off-road vehicle activity and non-native plant species. Brodiaea 
filifolia occurs in the vicinity of California gnatcatcher populations 
in northern San Diego County but primarily inhabits a different habitat 
type (mesic grasslands). Brodiaea filifolia is known to co-exist with 
the Stephen's kangaroo rat at only one locality in Riverside County. 
The Quino checkerspot, an extremely rare species, is not known to occur 
with either species.

Land Acquisition and Management

    Land acquisition and management by Federal, State, or local 
agencies or by private groups and organizations has contributed to the 
protection of some localities inhabited by the taxa under consideration 
in this proposal. However, as discussed below, these efforts are often 
directed at other species and are inadequate to assure the long-term 
survival of the taxa considered in this proposal.
    Allium munzii and Brodiaea filifolia are found in the Cleveland 
National Forest and are recognized by the U.S. Forest Service (Forest 
Service) as sensitive species (U.S. Forest Service 1992, Boyd, et. al., 
1992). The Forest Service has policies to protect sensitive plant taxa 
and attempts to establish these species in suitable or historic 
habitat. The Forest Service also encourages land ownership adjustments 
to acquire and protect sensitive plant habitat. To this end, the Forest 
Service (1992) has released a Management Guide for A. munzii. However, 
only a portion of a single population actually occurs within the 
Cleveland National Forest, and it continues to be threatened by off-
road vehicle activity. The population of B. filifolia on National 
Forest lands, although one of the largest, is evidently a hybrid swarm 
(Boyd, et. al., 1992, S. Morey, in. litt. 1995).
    In 1993, the Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU) with local jurisdictions in Riverside County and the CDFG 
concerning channelization of the San Jacinto River and protection of A. 
coronata var. notatior habitat along the river. The purpose of this MOU 
is to reconcile conflicts between the conservation of this floodplain 
species and proposed flood control measures associated with major urban 
development plans. The MOU does not address the conservation of N. 
fossalis, B. filifolia, or other rare plants in the project area. The 
proposed flood control project could result in significant urban 
development and hydrological alterations that will contribute to the 
decline of all these taxa. Since 1993, over 400 ha (1,000 ac) of 
suitable A. coronata var. notatior habitat within the jurisdiction of 
the MOU was disced for purposes of dryland farming and weed abatement 
(Roberts 1993b, Roberts and McMillan 1997). Some of this altered 
habitat is in areas that could potentially be preserved as habitat for 
A. coronata var. notatior.
    Recently, local property owners have been contributing 
significantly to the conservation process. The goal is to allow 
channelization of the San Jacinto River and to protect adequate habitat 
south of the Ramona Expressway for local conservation of A. coronata 
var. notatior. In so doing, it is anticipated that the habitat set 
aside will be adequate for the conservation of other rare plant taxa, 
including N. fossalis. However, this conservation plan, which is under 
development, will protect only

[[Page 54988]]

part of the habitat occupied by the four plants listed herein. 
Potentially suitable conservation lands have been identified, but a 
mechanism to acquire them is still lacking.
    At least two of the plants listed in this rule occur in the San 
Jacinto Wildlife Area (SJWA), which is managed by the State of 
California. Although this preserve provides protection from 
urbanization and agriculture, it was originally established to mitigate 
impacts of State water projects. The SJWA's mission is to address 
multiple impacts such as loss of wetlands and to maintain waterfowl 
hunting along the San Jacinto River. In meeting this objective, a 
significant area of habitat for the plants listed in this rule has been 
converted into habitat for migrating waterfowl. Protection of rare 
plant habitat is only one of many potentially conflicting goals. 
Although there are rare plant management goals, duck ponds are 
inundated in regimes not necessarily conducive to the establishment of 
N. fossalis, A. coronata var. notatior, or B. filifolia, and 
significant portions of the SJWA support non-native grasses such as 
Phalaris minor and Crypsis schoenoides (swamp timothy) that feed 
migratory waterfowl but compete with native vegetation. Habitat within 
the preserve is also threatened, in part, with destruction from 
construction of utility lines (MWD 1992).
    The Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve is managed by TNC and contains one 
of the largest remaining population complexes of B. filifolia and a 
single, small population of N. fossalis. Although these populations are 
managed for long-term protection and viability and are very important 
for the recovery of these plants, they represent a fraction of the 
range of either species. Other protected areas will be needed to 
adequately ensure their continued existence.
    The RCHCA has initiated the preparation of a Multi-Species Habitat 
Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Although the intent of this plan is to 
identify and acquire areas with high biological diversity and sensitive 
species, the program is in the early development stage and it is 
uncertain to what degree it will be successful in providing protection 
for these taxa. In 1996, one land owner donated about 25 ha (60 ac) of 
land along the San Jacinto River to the RCHCA. This parcel supports 
small populations of A. coronata var. notatior and N. fossalis. This 
land will likely become part of a potential MSHCP preserve system.
    Navarretia fossalis is present at 3 sites on Marine Corps Air 
Station Miramar, and both it and Brodiaea filifolia are present on 
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. These two facilities comprise some 90 
percent of the remaining vernal pool habitat in San Diego County, so 
they are essential to the conservation of Navarretia fossalis. 
Navarretia fossalis is fully protected at the Marine Corps Air Station 
at Miramar in vernal pool management zones through the Integrated 
Natural Resource Management Plan (IRMP). This plan is a good example of 
the permanent protective measures promoted by that the Endangered 
Species Act. Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton has a Draft Isolated 
Ephemeral Wetlands Management Plan that did not prevent the 
unauthorized filling of a vernal pool in April 1998 (Lt. Col. Quigley, 
U.S. Marine Corps, Environmental Security, Camp Pendleton, in litt. 
June 1998), and the Service has not been able to review the plan (J. 
Bartel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1998).

Local Laws and Regulations

    Local laws and regulations potentially offer some protection to 
species considered within this proposal but these laws and regulations 
are subject to overriding considerations, are seldom enforced, and, in 
some cases, are conflicting. For example, the City of Hemet General 
Plan requires that biological surveys be conducted at sites that may 
contain sensitive plants before alteration of a site for development. 
However, the City has also adopted an ordinance that requires vacant 
land to be cleared for weed abatement (Ron Wrench, City of Hemet, Fire 
Department, pers. comm. 1993). This activity has contributed to the 
decline of A. coronata var. notatior, N. fossalis and other sensitive 
plant species for which the City general plan requires surveys.
    Habitat in Riverside County for A. coronata var. notatior, N. 
fossalis, and B. filifolia has been degraded by discing for weed 
abatement and fire management purposes. County ordinances require that 
parcels smaller than 2 ha (5 ac) and up to 30 meters (100 feet) 
adjacent to roads be cleared to reduce the potential for fire (Howard 
Windsor, Riverside County Fire Abatement, pers. comm. 1993). These 
activities have contributed to the decline of N. fossalis and the 
federally-listed, endangered Orcuttia californica. In some cases, 
landowners have exceeded the clearing requirements, which has resulted 
in additional reduction of sensitive plant populations and the 
destruction or perturbation (disturbance) of their habitat.

Mexican Laws

    Navarretia fossalis also occurs in northwestern Baja California, 
Mexico. The Service is not aware of any existing regulatory mechanisms 
in Mexico that would protect this plant or its habitat. Although Mexico 
has laws that could provide protection to rare plants, they are not 
easily enforced. At this time there is no specific protections for 
vernal pools or N. fossalis in Mexico. If specific protections were 
available to this species in Mexico, the portion of the species range 
in Mexico alone would not be adequate to assure long-term conservation 
of this species.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence

    Non-native species of grasses and forbs have invaded many of 
southern California's plant communities. Their presence and abundance 
are often an indirect result of habitat disturbance from grazing, 
development, mining, discing, and alteration of hydrology. All four 
plant taxa in this final rule are subject to displacement by such non-
native plant species.
    Many vernal pools on Otay Mesa and in San Marcos (San Diego County) 
have become dominated by Lolium perenne, the non-native perennial 
ryegrass that is very widely planted for lawns and other purposes. 
Ryegrass is tolerant of inundation and displaces native species such as 
Navarretia fossalis and Brodiaea filifolia in areas where significant 
populations for both species are known to occur. In Riverside County, 
Crypsis schoenoides, an aggressive non-native grass, has been seeded as 
a food source for migratory waterfowl along the San Jacinto River. This 
species is becoming widespread and has replaced, or is in the process 
of replacing, native vernal pool (and other) native species, including 
N. fossalis, B. filifolia, and A. coronata var. notatior, on the San 
Jacinto Wildlife Area and in other areas west of Hemet (D. Bramlet, in 
litt. 1992). The impact of this grass is extremely significant for N. 
fossalis since the majority of populations are found within this area 
and Crypsis schoenoides competes for the same habitat required by N. 
fossalis.
    Non-native grass species such as Avena barbata and Bromus 
madritensis are dominant on the clay soils required by A. munzii. 
Crowding and competition for resources from these grasses threaten the 
majority of the 13 occurrences of Allium munzii (CNDDB 1997). For 
example, one of the largest populations (Estelle Peak), has not been 
located recently and increased competition from alien grasses is likely

[[Page 54989]]

the cause of this (B. McMillan, pers. comm. 1998). In San Diego County, 
aggressive non-native species such as Cynara cardunculus (wild 
artichoke) and Foeniculum vulgare (fennel) are impacting grassland 
habitat supporting populations of Brodiaea filifolia (Roberts and 
Vanderwier 1997, H. Wier, Dudek and Associates, pers. comm. 1997).
    The four plants in this rule rely on seasonal rainfall. Drier 
conditions, such as those that prevailed from 1986 to 1992, reduce the 
number of individuals in populations. Such climatic conditions stress 
species and reduce germination and survival rates. Negative effects of 
habitat loss and degradation from other factors including development, 
discing, and grazing, when combined with climatic conditions, increase 
the level of threat to the involved species.
    The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by these four plants in determining to make this 
final rule. Much of the remaining habitat for these species is 
degraded. Based on this evaluation, the Service finds that Allium 
munzii and A. coronata var. notatior are in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. Allium munzii 
is extremely threatened by competition from alien grass species 
throughout its entire range, and urban development, dry land farming 
activities, and off-road vehicle activities throughout a significant 
portion of its range. A. coronata var. notatior is threatened by 
alteration of hydrology of its vernal pool and alkali vernal wetland 
plains habitats, urbanization, grazing, and discing associated with dry 
land farming and fire suppression, as exemplified by a reduction of 
over 50 percent of known individuals since this species was proposed 
for listing as an endangered species in 1994.
    For reasons discussed below, the Service finds that B. filifolia 
and N. fossalis are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. 
Although many populations of B. filifolia are threatened by 
urbanization and agricultural development, trampling, grazing, and 
competition from non-native plant taxa, the Service finds that 
threatened status is appropriate for B. filifolia because, in part, one 
of the largest remaining populations (Santa Rosa Plateau) is protected. 
The Service finds that threatened status is appropriate for N. fossalis 
because although many populations are threatened by urbanization and 
agricultural development, alteration of hydrology of its vernal pool 
habitat, trampling, and competition from exotic plant taxa, this taxon 
has demonstrated resilience to some forms of disturbance. In addition, 
both B. filifolia and N. fossalis occur in a large enough number of 
populations and locations that they are not in immediate danger of 
extinction.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time 
it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species and that may require special management considerations or 
protection; and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied 
by the 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 the Service's 
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum 
extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical 
habitat at the time a species is listed as endangered or threatened. 
Service regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of 
critical habitat is not prudent when: (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; and/or 
(2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the 
species.
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult 
with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or 
carried out by such agency, does not jeopardize the continued existence 
of a federally listed species or does not destroy or adversely modify 
designated critical habitat. The requirement that Federal agencies 
refrain from contributing to the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat in any action authorized, funded or carried out by 
such agency (agency action) is in addition to the section 7 prohibition 
against jeopardizing the continued existence of a listed species; and 
it is the only mandatory legal consequence of a critical habitat 
designation. The Service's implementing regulations (50 CFR part 402) 
define ``jeopardize the continuing existence of'' and ``destruction or 
adverse modification of'' in very similar terms. To jeopardize the 
continuing existence of a species means to engage in an action ``that 
reasonably would be expected to reduce appreciably the likelihood of 
both the survival and recovery of a listed species.'' Destruction or 
adverse modification of habitat means an ``alteration that appreciably 
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and 
recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, 
numbers, or distribution of that species.'' Common to both definitions 
is an appreciable detrimental effect to both the survival and recovery 
of a listed species. An action that appreciably diminishes habitat for 
recovery and survival may also jeopardize the continued existence of 
the species by reducing reproduction, numbers, or distribution because 
negative impacts to such habitat may reduce population numbers, 
decrease reproductive success, or alter species distribution through 
habitat fragmentation.
    For a listed plant species, an analysis to determine jeopardy under 
section 7(a)(2) would consider loss of the species associated with 
habitat impacts. Such an analysis would closely parallel an analysis of 
habitat impacts conducted to determine adverse modification of critical 
habitat. As a result, an action that results in adverse modification 
also would almost certainly jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species concerned. Because habitat degradation and destruction is the 
primary threat to these species, listing them will ensure that section 
7 consultation occurs, and potential impacts to the species and their 
habitat are considered, for any Federal action that may affect these 
species. In many cases, listing also ensures that Federal agencies 
consult with the Service even when Federal actions may affect 
unoccupied suitable habitat where such habitat is essential to the 
survival and recovery of the species. This is especially important for 
plant species where consideration must be given to the seed bank 
component of the species, and associated pollinators and dispersal 
agents, which are not necessarily visible in the habitat throughout the 
year. In practice, the Service consults with Federal agencies proposing 
projects in areas where there is potentially suitable but unoccupied 
habitat, particularly when the species was known to recently occur 
there or in similar nearby areas; or the area is known to harbor seed 
banks.

[[Page 54990]]

    Apart from section 7, the Act provides no additional protection to 
lands designated as critical habitat. Designating critical habitat does 
not create a management plan for the areas where the listed species 
occurs; does not establish numerical population goals or prescribe 
specific management actions (inside or outside of critical habitat); 
and does not have a direct effect on areas not designated as critical 
habitat.
    Critical habitat would provide no benefit to the species addressed 
in this rule on non-Federal lands (i.e., private, State, County or City 
lands) beyond that provided by listing. Critical habitat provides 
protection on non-Federal lands only if there is Federal involvement (a 
Federal nexus) through authorization or funding of, or participation, 
in a project or activity on non-Federal lands. In other words, 
designation of critical habitat on non-Federal lands does not compel or 
require the private or other non-Federal landowner to undertake active 
management for the species or to modify any activities in the absence 
of a Federal nexus. Possible Federal agency involvement or funding that 
could involve the species addressed in this rule on non-Federal lands 
include the Corps through section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the 
Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Aviation 
Administration, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and the 
Federal Highway Administration. Federal involvement, if it does occur, 
will be addressed regardless of whether critical habitat is designated 
because interagency coordination requirements such as the Fish and 
Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) and section 7 of the Act are already 
in place. When a plant species is listed, activities occurring on all 
lands subject to Federal jurisdiction that may adversely affect the 
species would prompt the requirement for consultation under section 
7(a)(2) of the Act, regardless of whether critical habitat has been 
designated.
    While a designation of critical habitat on private lands would only 
affect actions where a Federal nexus is present and would not confer 
any additional benefit beyond that already provided by section 7 
consultation because virtually any action that would result in an 
adverse modification determination would also likely jeopardize the 
species, a designation of critical habitat on private lands could 
result in a detriment to the species. This is because the limited 
effect of a critical habitat designation on private lands is often 
misunderstood by private landowners whose property boundaries could be 
included within a general description of critical habitat for a 
specific species. Landowners may mistakenly believe that critical 
habitat designation will be an obstacle to development and impose 
restrictions on their use of their property. Unfortunately, inaccurate 
and misleading statements reported through widely popular medium 
available worldwide, are the types of misinformation that can and have 
led private landowners to believe that critical habitat designations 
prohibit them from making use of their private land when, in fact, they 
face potential constraints only if they need a Federal permit or 
receive Federal funding to conduct specific activities on their lands. 
These types of misunderstandings, and the fear and mistrust they create 
among potentially affected landowners, make it very difficult for the 
Service to cultivate meaningful working relationships with such 
landowners and to encourage voluntary participation in species 
conservation and recovery activities. Without the participation of 
landowners in the recovery process, the Service will find it very 
difficult to recover species that occur on non-Federal lands.
    A designation of critical habitat on private lands could actually 
encourage habitat destruction by private landowners to rid themselves 
of the perceived endangered species problem. Listed plants have limited 
protection under the Act, particularly on private lands. Section 
9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by regulations at 50 CFR section 17.61 
(endangered plants) and 50 CFR 17.71 (threatened plants) prohibits: (1) 
Removal and reduction of listed plant species to possession from areas 
under Federal jurisdiction, or their malicious damage or destruction on 
areas under Federal jurisdiction; or (2) removal, cutting, digging up, 
or damaging or destroying any such species in knowing violation of any 
State law or regulation including State criminal trespass laws. 
Generally, on private lands, collection of, or vandalism to, listed 
plants must occur in violation of State law to be a violation of 
section 9 of the Act. The Service is not aware of any State law in 
California that generally regulates or prohibits the destruction or 
removal of federally listed plants on private lands (see section 9 
discussion under ``Available Conservation Measures'' section of this 
rule). Thus, a private landowner concerned about perceived land 
management conflicts resulting from a critical habitat designation 
covering his property would likely face no legal consequences if the 
landowner removed the listed species or destroyed its habitat. For 
example, in the spring of 1998, a Los Angeles area developer buried one 
of the only three populations of the endangered Astragalus brautonii in 
defiance of efforts under the CEQA to negotiate mitigation for the 
species (Tim Thomas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1996). 
The designation of critical habitat involves the publication of habitat 
descriptions and mapped locations of the species in the Federal 
Register, increasing the likelihood of potential search and removal 
activities at specific sites.
    The Service acknowledges that in some situations critical habitat 
designation may provide some value to the species by notifying the 
public about areas important for the species conservation and calling 
attention to those areas in special need of protection. However, when 
this limited benefit is weighed against the detriment to plant species 
associated with the widespread misunderstanding about the effects of 
such designation on private landowners and the environment of mistrust 
and fear that such misunderstanding can create, the Service concludes 
that the detriment to the species from a critical habitat designation 
covering non-Federal lands outweighs the educational benefit of such 
designation and that such designation is, therefore, not prudent. The 
information and education process can more effectively be handled by 
working directly with landowners and communities during the recovery 
planning process and by the section 7 consultation and coordination 
where the Federal nexus exists. The use of these existing processes 
will impart the same knowledge to the landowners that critical habitat 
designation would but without the confusion and misunderstandings that 
may accompany a critical habitat designation.
    For similar reasons, the Service also concludes that there would be 
no additional benefits to the species covered in this rule beyond the 
benefits conferred by listing from a designation of critical habitat on 
Federal lands. In the case of each of these plant species, the existing 
occurrences of the species are known by the DOD and the U.S. Forest 
Service and any action that would result in adverse modification would 
almost certainly result in likely jeopardy to the species, so that a 
designation of critical habitat on Federal lands would not confer any 
additional benefit on the species. On the other hand, particularly on 
National Forest System lands, a designation of critical habitat could 
increase the threats to

[[Page 54991]]

these species from vandalism and collection similar to the threats 
identified in response to listing a species (Oberbauer 1992, Beauchamp 
in litt. 1997). Simply listing a species can precipitate commercial or 
scientific interest, both legal and illegal, which can threaten the 
species through unauthorized and uncontrolled collection for both 
commercial and scientific purposes. The listing of species as 
endangered or threatened publicizes their rarity and may make them more 
susceptible to collection by researchers or curiosity seekers (Mariah 
Steenson pers. comm. 1997, M.Bosch, U.S. Forest Service in litt. 1997). 
For example, the Service designated critical habitat for the mountain 
golden heather (Hudsonia montana), a small shrub not previously known 
to be commercially valuable or particularly susceptible to collection 
or vandalism. After the critical habitat designation was published in 
the Federal Register, unknown persons visited a Forest Service 
wilderness area in North Carolina where the plants occurred and, with a 
recently published newspaper article and maps of the plant's critical 
habitat designation in hand, asked about the location of the plants. 
Several plants the Service had been monitoring were later found to be 
missing from unmarked Service study plots. (Nora Murdock, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1998).
    The Service has weighed the lack of overall benefits of critical 
habitat designation beyond that provided by listing as threatened or 
endangered, along with the benefits of public notification against the 
detrimental effects of the negative public response and 
misunderstanding of what critical habitat designation means and the 
increased threats of illegal collection and vandalism, and has 
concluded that critical habitat designation is not prudent for Allium 
munzii (Munz's onion), Brodiaea filifolia (thread-leaved brodiaea), 
Atriplex coronata var. notatior (San Jacinto Valley crownscale), and 
Navarretia fossalis (spreading navarretia). The specific reasons why 
designation of critical habitat is not prudent for each of these 
species are addressed in the following discussion.

Atriplex coronata var. notatior

    In the December 15, 1994, proposed rule to list these taxa (59 FR 
64812), the Service proposed to designate critical habitat in Riverside 
County for A. coronata var. notatior. The Service has now determined to 
withdraw that proposal, based on the plant's continued decline, by 
perhaps 50 percent, since its listing was proposed. The decline is due 
mostly to the end of a prolonged drought and a new source of reclaimed 
water, which have allowed increased barley farming. Repeated discing of 
significant areas of habitat occupied by this plant, including proposed 
critical habitat, is likely to have contributed to the decline, 
although the Service lacks information on the acreage involved, or the 
frequency of discing. This continued decline makes it less likely that 
A. coronata var. notatior will be found on sites that it currently does 
not occupy, and increases the conservation importance of remaining 
sites. This decline occurred despite the proposal of critical habitat, 
so the proposal's map evidently provided no conservation benefit with 
respect to notification of government agencies and others. In any case, 
such parties can identify potential habitat for this plant at least as 
easily and accurately by consulting the county soil survey as by 
consulting the critical habitat map.
    The majority of the population centers of A. coronata var. notatior 
are located on privately owned lands. Three populations are on State 
land (San Jacinto Wildlife Area), one population is partially on County 
lands (RCHCA along San Jacinto River), and one population is on a 
private preserve managed by MWD. This plant is not known to occur on 
Federal lands. Federal involvement on these lands is unlikely because 
they do not involve wetland areas or any other activity associated with 
Federal agencies. If, in the future, there is Federal involvement 
through permitting or funding, such as through the Federal Highway 
Administration, then interagency coordination and consultation required 
by section 7 would be in effect if such actions may affect this 
species, once listed. As previously discussed, an analysis to determine 
jeopardy under section 7(a)(2) would consider loss of individual plants 
associated with habitat impacts. Such an analysis would closely 
parallel any analysis of habitat impacts conducted to determine adverse 
modification of critical habitat. A jeopardy finding would be 
equivalent to a finding of adverse modification of critical habitat. 
Therefore, there would be no additional conservation benefit to the 
species from designation of critical habitat beyond that provided by 
the species' listing.
    Therefore, the Service finds that critical habitat is not prudent 
for Atriplex coronata var. notatior at this time because the Service 
believes no benefit over that provided by listing would result from 
identification of critical habitat on the non-Federal lands where this 
species occurs. The identification of critical habitat would not 
increase management or conservation efforts on State or private lands 
and could impair those efforts. The Service believes that conservation 
of this species on private lands can best be addressed by working 
directly with landowners and communities during the recovery planning 
process and through the interagency coordination and consultation 
processes of section 7 should there be any future unforeseen Federal 
involvement.

Navarretia fossalis

    The majority of N. fossalis populations are on privately owned 
lands. At least one population occurs on Federal lands owned by the 
Department of the Navy. The Department of the Navy is aware of the 
occurrences and habitat of the species on their lands. Some of the 
private land has Federal involvement because Navarretia fossalis is a 
covered species under the MSCP and populations occur in the MHCP area 
of northern San Diego County. Navarretia fossalis is protected at 
Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar in vernal pool management zones 
through the Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (IRMP). This 
plan is an example of the permanent protective measures promoted by the 
Act. Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton has a similar Draft Isolated 
Ephemeral Wetlands Management Plan (Lt. Col. Quigley, U.S. Marine 
Corps, Environmental Security, Camp Pendleton, in litt. June 1998). The 
Department of Navy consults with the Service under section 7 for 
activities related to other listed species in the area and would be 
subject to similar requirements as a result of this listing. 
Designation of critical habitat would not necessarily require either 
military agency to increase or change their commitment or management 
efforts for this species, only to avoid adverse modification of such 
critical habitat.
    The Service finds that critical habitat is not prudent for 
Navarretia fossalis at this time because such designation would provide 
no benefit over that provided by listing on privately owned lands where 
this species occurs. Landowners where the species occur are aware of 
its presence and status. Critical habitat designation on these private 
lands would not change the way those lands are managed or require 
specific management actions to take place, and could be detrimental 
because of potential landowner misunderstandings about the real effects 
of critical habitat designation on private lands. The species is 
currently known and

[[Page 54992]]

managed on Federal lands; no change in management would occur as a 
result of critical habitat designation and all activities that may 
affect the species on these Federal lands would be subject to section 7 
consultation. The Service believes that the conservation of this 
species on private lands can best be addressed by working directly with 
landowners and communities during the recovery planning process and 
through the interagency coordination and consultation processes of 
section 7 for those activities with Federal agency involvement.

Allium munzii

    A. munzii is known from 13 extant populations; only one of these 
populations is partially on Federal land. Five populations occur in the 
Gavilan Hills, including one at Harford Springs County Park, and one on 
lands managed by the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency 
(RCHCA). Two populations occur on private land. Five small populations 
occur on land managed by the Reserve Management Committees (Domenigoni 
Hills and Bachelor Mountain) for the Riverside County multispecies 
plans, or on private land. One population is in the Elsinore Mountains, 
partly on Federal land in the Cleveland National Forest and partly on 
private lands.
    The Service finds that critical habitat is not prudent for Allium 
munzii at this time because such designation would provide no benefit 
over that provided by listing on privately owned lands where this 
species occurs. Landowners where the species occur are aware of its 
presence and status. The plant occurs on land owned by the RCHCA. Such 
land is likely to become part of a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation 
Plan preserve system. Critical habitat designation on these private 
lands would not change the way those lands are managed or require 
specific management actions to take place, and could be detrimental 
because of potential landowner misunderstandings about the real effects 
of critical habitat designation on private lands. The species is 
currently known and managed on Federal lands; no change in management 
would occur as a result of critical habitat designation and all 
activities that may affect the species on these Federal lands would be 
subject to section 7 consultation. The Service believes that the 
conservation of this species on private lands can best be addressed by 
working directly with landowners and communities during the recovery 
planning process and through the interagency coordination and 
consultation processes of section 7 for those activities with Federal 
agency involvement.

Brodiaea filifolia

    Brodiaea filifolia occurs on private land, including lands managed 
by TNC. Two populations are on lands managed by the County government 
and also on the San Jacinto Wildlife Management Area in Riverside 
County, managed by the CDFG. The only populations of Brodiaea filifolia 
known to occur on Federal lands managed by the Department of Navy. 
Brodiaea filifolia is protected at Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar in 
vernal pool management zones through the Integrated Natural Resource 
Management Plan (IRMP). This plan is an example of the permanent 
protective measures promoted by the Act. Marine Corps Base, Camp 
Pendleton has a similar Draft Isolated Ephemeral Wetlands Management 
Plan (Lt. Col. Quigley, U.S. Marine Corps, Environmental Security, Camp 
Pendleton, in litt. June 1998). The Department of Navy consults with 
the Service under section 7 for activities related to other listed 
species in the area and would be subject to similar requirements as a 
result of this listing. Designation of critical habitat would not 
necessarily require either military agencies to increase or change 
their commitment or management efforts for this species, only to avoid 
adverse modification of such critical habitat. Some of the private land 
has Federal involvement because Brodiaea filifolia is a covered species 
under the MSCP and populations occur in the MHCP area of northern San 
Diego County. Brodiaea filifolia habitat managed by the CDFG (San 
Jacinto Wildlife Area) is not wetlands, so there is no Federal 
involvement that would lead to protection through designation of 
critical habitat.
    The Service finds that critical habitat is not prudent for Brodiaea 
filifolia at this time because such designation would provide no 
benefit over that provided by listing on privately owned lands where 
this species occurs. Landowners where the species occur are aware of 
its presence and status. Critical habitat designation on these private 
lands would not change the way those lands are managed or require 
specific management actions to take place, and could be detrimental 
because of potential landowner misunderstandings about the real effects 
of critical habitat designation on private lands. The species is 
currently known and managed on Federal lands; no change in management 
would occur as a result of critical habitat designation and all 
activities that may affect the species on these Federal lands would be 
subject to section 7 consultation. The Service believes that the 
conservation of this species on private lands can best be addressed by 
working directly with landowners and communities during the recovery 
planning process and through the interagency coordination and 
consultation processes of section 7 for those activities with Federal 
agency involvement.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
activities. Recognition through listing encourages and results in 
conservation actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, groups, and 
individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition from 
willing sellers 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)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the 
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is 
subsequently listed, 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 
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.
    Federal agencies expected to have involvement with Allium munzii, 
Atriplex coronata var. notatior, Brodiaea filifolia, and Navarretia 
fossalis include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental 
Protection Agency due to their permit authority under section 404 of 
the Clean Water Act. The Federal Aviation Administration has 
jurisdiction over areas with vernal pools containing N.

[[Page 54993]]

fossalis near Montgomery Field within the city limits of San Diego and 
on Brown Field on Otay Mesa in San Diego County. This jurisdiction 
would also apply if any of the taxa considered in this rule are 
discovered at Perris Airport or Ryan Airport in Riverside County. The 
Federal Highways Administration may be involved through potential 
funding of highway construction projects near Hemet (Riverside County) 
and Otay Mesa (San Diego County). Because N. fossalis occurs on Naval 
Air Station, Miramar and on Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, these 
facilities will also likely be involved through the pursuit of their 
respective missions or the process of excessing surplus Federal lands. 
The Immigration and Naturalization Service will need to evaluate the 
effects of its activities on N. fossalis, which is known to occur along 
the international border. The Department of Housing and Urban 
Development may insure housing loans in areas that support some of 
these species. The Forest Service has jurisdiction over at least part 
of one population of A. munzii in Cleveland National Forest.
    Listing Allium munzii, Atriplex coronata var. notatior, Brodiaea 
filifolia, and Navarretia fossalis provides for the development and 
implementation of recovery plans for the taxa. Such plans will bring 
together State and Federal efforts for conservation of the species. A 
recovery plan will establish a framework for agencies to coordinate 
conservation efforts. A plan will set recovery priorities and estimate 
the costs of tasks necessary to accomplish the priorities. It will also 
describe site-specific management actions necessary to achieve 
conservation and survival of the species.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered or threatened 
plants. All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 
50 CFR parts 17.61, (endangered plants) and 17.71 (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, 
transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a 
commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign 
commerce, or remove and reduce to possession any such species from 
areas under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for plants listed as 
endangered, the Act prohibits malicious damage or destruction any such 
species on Federal lands or to remove, cut, dig up, damage, or destroy 
of any such species in knowing violation of any State law or 
regulation, including criminal trespass laws. Section 4(d) of the Act 
allows for the provision of such protection to threatened species 
through regulation. This protection may apply to these taxa in the 
future if regulations are promulgated. Seeds from cultivated specimens 
of threatened plant species are exempt from these regulations provided 
that their containers are marked ``of cultivated origin.'' Certain 
exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation 
agencies.
    The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63 for endangered plants, and 17.72 
for threatened plants, provide for the issuance of permits to carry out 
otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered or threatened 
plants under certain circumstances. Such permits are available for 
scientific purposes or for enhancing the propagation or survival of the 
plants. For threatened plants, permits are also available for botanical 
or horticultural exhibition, educational purposes, or special purposes 
consistent with the Act. It is anticipated that few trade permits would 
ever be sought or issued for the taxa considered herein because they 
are not common in cultivation or in the wild. These species have 
specific germination and growth requirements including, in some cases, 
seasonal inundation that would be difficult to recreate in cultivation.
    It is the policy of the Service, published in the Federal Register 
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to increase public understanding of the 
prohibited acts that will apply under section 9 of the Act. Allium 
munzii, Brodiaea filifolia, Atriplex coronata var. notatior, and 
Navarretia fossalis are known to occur on Federal lands under the 
jurisdiction of the Forest Service. Collection, damage or destruction 
of listed species on Federal lands is prohibited, except as authorized 
under section 7 or section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Such activities on 
non-Federal lands would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act 
if activities were conducted in knowing violation of California State 
law or regulation, or in violation of California State criminal 
trespass law.
    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 lines crossing suitable habitat), when such 
activity is conducted in accordance with any reasonable and prudent 
measures given by the Service in a consultation conducted under 
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 when consistent with label restrictions;
    (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 would constitute 
violations of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of 
the Service's Carlsbad Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests 
for copies of the regulations concerning listed plants (50 CFR 17.61 
and 17.71) and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may 
be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological 
Services, Endangered Species Permits, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, 
Oregon 97232-4181 (telephone 503/231-2063; facsimile 503/231-6243).

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental 
Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the 
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be 
prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 
4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice 
outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in 
the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

[[Page 54994]]

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. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless 
it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 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 herein is available, upon 
request, from the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section).
    Author: This primary author of this final rule is Fred Roberts of 
the Carlsbad Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

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


Sec. 17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Species
------------------------------------------------------    Historic Range          Family            Status       When       Critical      Special rules
         Scientific Name              Common name                                                               listed      habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
        FLOWERING PLANTS
       *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Allium munzii (=A. fimbriatum     Munz's onion.......  U.S.A. (CA)........  Liliaceae--Lily...  E                  650  NA               NA
 var. munzii).
       *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Atriplex coronata var. notatior.  San Jacinto Valley   U.S.A. (CA)........  Chenopodiaceae--Go  E                  650  NA               NA
                                   Crownscale.                               osefoot.
       *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Brodiaea filifolia..............  Thread-leaved        U.S.A. (CA)........  Liliaceae--Lily...  T                  650  NA               NA
                                   brodiaea.
       *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
Navarretia fossalis.............  Spreading            U.S.A. (CA), Mexico  Polemoniaceae--Phl  T                  650  NA               NA
                                   navarretia.          (Baja California).   ox.
       *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: September 29, 1998.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 98-26861 Filed 10-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U