Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Bromus arizonicus, 3504-3506 [05-1261]
Download as PDF
3504
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
private sector in any one year. Thus,
today’s rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
E. Applicability of Executive Order
13045
The Executive Order, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that
(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children; and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant rule as defined
by Executive Order 12866, and because
it does not involve decisions on
environmental health or safety risks that
may disproportionately affect children.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
This proposed rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This proposed
rule does not create a mandate on State,
local, or tribal governments and does
not impose any enforceable duties on
these entities. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule. In the
spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State
and local governments, EPA specifically
VerDate jul<14>2003
13:13 Jan 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This proposed rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. The rule does
not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.
H. Executive Order 13211: Energy
Effects
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standard. This
rulemaking does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 262
Environmental protection, Hazardous
materials transportation, Hazardous
waste, Packaging and containers,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: January 6, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Deputy Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, part 262 of title 40, chapter I
of the Code of Federal Regulations is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 262—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 262
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 9612, 6922–
6925, 6937, and 6938.
Subpart I—[Amended]
2. Section 262.90 is amended by
revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 262.90 Project XL for Public Utilities in
New York State.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) This section will expire on ll [72
months from effective date].
[FR Doc. 05–822 Filed 1–24–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
Petitions To List Bromus arizonicus
(Arizona brome) and Nassella cernua
(nodding needlegrass) as Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day petition finding for petitions to
list Bromus arizonicus (Arizona brome)
and Nassella cernua (nodding
needlegrass) under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. We
find that neither petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing one
or both of these species may be
warranted. We will not be initiating a
further status review in response to the
petitions to list.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made January 7, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Data, information, written
comments and materials, or questions
concerning these petitions and findings
should be submitted to the Field
Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
93003. The petition findings and
supporting data are available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Constance Rutherford, botanist, at the
above address (telephone 805/644–
1766).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that
we make a finding on whether a petition
to list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on all
information available to us at the time
we make the finding. To the maximum
extent practicable, this finding is to be
made within 90 days of our receipt of
the petition, and we must publish the
notice of the finding promptly in the
Federal Register. Our standard for
substantial information within the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) with
regard to a 90-day petition finding is
‘‘that amount of information that would
lead a reasonable person to believe that
the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)).
If the finding is that substantial
information was presented, we are
required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species, if one
has not already been initiated, under
our internal candidate assessment
process.
On June 20, 2002, we received two
separate petitions, both dated June 18,
2002, to list Bromus arizonicus (Arizona
brome) and Nassella cernua (nodding
needlegrass). The petitions requested
that we add Bromus arizonicus and
Nassella cernua to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. We are responding to both
petitions in this one Federal Register
notice because the petitions were
received at the same time from the same
petitioner.
Bromus arizonicus
This taxon was first described by
Cornelius Lott Shear in 1900 as Bromus
carinatus var. arizonicus based on a
collection from near Tucson, AZ.
Stebbins et al. (1944) raised the taxon to
full species status based on cytogenetic
(cellular) differences between it and
Bromus carinatus. They found that,
while both the taxa are polyploid in
their number of chromosomes, Bromus
carinatus has a chromosome count of
VerDate jul<14>2003
13:13 Jan 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
2n = 56, while Bromus arizonicus has a
chromosome count of 2n = 84. However,
some taxonomists still consider Bromus
arizonicus to be synonymous with
Bromus carinatus (Felger 2000; R.
Felger, University of Arizona, in litt.
2003; P. Jenkins, University of Arizona,
in litt. 2003).
The petition to list Bromus arizonicus
comprises one page of information
about the species, including its habitat,
distribution, potential threats,
observations made by the petitioner at
historic locations for the species, and
two literature citations. The information
from the petition is summarized as
follows: Bromus arizonicus is an annual
grass restricted in distribution to the
San Joaquin Valley, the southern Coast
Ranges, and Channel Islands of southern
California, Arizona, and Baja California,
Mexico. The species is associated with
valley grassland, foothill woodland,
chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and
creosote bush scrub. The species occurs
principally in an average annual rainfall
band between 5 and 14 inches (in) (13
to 36 centimeters (cm)), and in an
elevational band between 20 and 2,000
feet (ft) (6 and 610 meters (m)).
Twisselmann (1967) indicated that the
species is widespread in the valley
grasslands, especially in the lower
Sonoran grassland, and is scarce in
creosote bush scrub in the desert.
However, the petitioner stated that
Bromus arizonicus became rarer in the
1970s and 1980s as a result of
overgrazing during drought periods.
The petitioner estimates that Bromus
arizonicus historically ranged across 5
million acres (ac) (2 million hectares
(ha)), and estimates that the range has
been reduced to 25 ac (10 ha) in Arizona
and 25 ac (10 ha) in California. Causes
cited for the disappearance of the
species in the San Joaquin Valley
include a combination of overgrazing by
cattle and two extended droughts in the
1970s and 1980s. During his own
surveys in the 1990s, the petitioner was
able to find only one small stand of
Bromus arizonicus in Kern County, in
an area protected from grazing. In 2002,
the petitioner found that a second stand
of Bromus arizonicus that he had
observed over a period of years has been
converted to a truck stop parking lot.
The petitioner states that threats to
Bromus arizonicus include: Commercial
and residential development,
agricultural development, off-highway
vehicle activity, energy developments,
grazing, fires, military activities,
introduction of nonnative plants,
roadside herbicide use, roadside
mowing, and border patrol activities
along the United States-Mexico border.
However, other than the two references
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3505
mentioned above, the petitioner did not
provide any other information related to
the status of Bromus arizonicus, such as
field survey forms or reports
documenting either positive or negative
survey findings, a list of historic
locations that were field-checked, maps,
or an explanation of how estimates of
historic and current ranges were
derived.
The information available to us for the
species in California states that the
species is: ‘‘Occasional in coastal sage
scrub and weedy ground; coast west of
Point Dume, Sepulveda Canyon, west
Los Angeles’’ (Raven et al. 1986);
‘‘reported only from Salinas Valley’’ in
Monterey County (Matthews 1997); and
‘‘evidently widespread about waste
places of towns, railroads, ranches, and
highways from coast to Cuyama Valley’’
in the Santa Barbara region (Smith
1998). The University of California at
Berkeley and Jepson Herbaria (UC/JEPS)
(2003) indicates that the species is
principally found in grasslands and
shrublands in California at elevations of
less than 3,300 ft (1,000 m). The species
has been collected in 13 California
counties (UC/JEPS 2003). The
information available to us for the
species in Arizona indicates that it
occurs ‘‘almost throughout the state, at
moderate elevations’’ (Kearney and
Peebles 1951), and in ‘‘sandy washes
and protected sites in desert areas,
roadsides, and other disturbed soils,
mostly below 5,000 feet but occasionally
higher in the northern part of its range
where it occurs as an introduced weed’’
(Gould 1988). The Natural Resources
Conservation Service lists this species
as occurring in the States of Nevada and
Texas, in addition to California,
Arizona, and Baja California (https://
plants.usda.gov).
Nassella cernua
This taxon was first described as Stipa
cernua by G. L. Stebbins and R. M. Love
(1941) based on a collection made from
Alameda County, CA. In 1990, M.E.
Barkworth segregated the genus
Nassella and included the species
cernua, from Stipa (Barkworth 1993).
The petition to list Nassella cernua
comprises one page of information
about the species, including its habitat,
distribution, potential threats, and
observations made by the petitioner at
historic locations for the species. No
literature citations were included. The
information from the petition is
summarized as follows: Nassella cernua
is a perennial grass restricted in
distribution to the North Coast Range,
eastern San Francisco Bay area, San
Joaquin Valley, the Coast Ranges of
southern California, and in Baja
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
3506
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
California, Mexico. The petitioner states
that the species occurs principally in an
average annual rainfall band between 5
and 14 in (13 to 36 cm), and in an
elevational band between 20 and 4,500
ft (6 and 1,370 m).
The petitioner estimates that Nassella
cernua historically ranged across 10
million ac (4 million ha). He estimates
that the range has been reduced to 800
ac (324 ha) in California and 200 ac
(81 m) in Baja California. Causes cited
for the decline of the species in the San
Joaquin Valley include a combination of
overgrazing by cattle and two extended
droughts in the 1970s and 1980s. The
petitioner states that threats to Nassella
cernua include commercial and
residential development, agricultural
development, off-highway vehicle
activity, energy developments, grazing,
fires, military activities, introduction of
nonnative plants, roadside herbicide
use, roadside mowing, and border patrol
activities along the United StatesMexico border. However, the petitioner
did not provide any other information
related to the status of Nassella cernua,
such as a list of historic locations that
were field-checked, maps, or an
explanation of how estimates of historic
and current ranges were derived.
The information in our files indicates
that in California, the species is
scattered in coastal sage scrub and
chaparral in the western half of the
Santa Monica Mountains below 2000 ft.
(Raven et al. 1986); found in ‘‘dry hills,
open woods, and rocky slopes,
chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal sage
scrub, etc.’’ in Monterey County
(Matthews 1997); and ‘‘common
throughout the interior except in the
most arid parts’’ in San Luis Obispo
County (Hoover 1970). UC/JEPS (2003)
indicates that the species is principally
found in grasslands, chaparral, and
juniper woodland in California at
elevations of less than 4,600 ft (1,400
m), and distributed within the inner
North Coast Ranges, eastern San
Francisco Bay area, South Coast Ranges,
Transverse Ranges, Peninsular Ranges,
and Baja California. The species has
VerDate jul<14>2003
13:13 Jan 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
been collected in 30 of California’s 58
counties (UC/JEPS 2003).
NatureServe (2000; 2003) indicates
that the global heritage status rank for
both Bromus arizonicus and Nassella
cernua is G5, which means that the
species is common, widespread, and
abundant (although it may be rare in
parts of its range, particularly on the
periphery). NatureServe (2000) defines
this ranking as a species that is not
considered to be vulnerable in most of
its range. The U.S. Forest Service (2003)
and Bureau of Land Management (2003)
do not have Bromus arizonicus or
Nassella cernua on their sensitive
species lists, and neither the California
Natural Diversity Data Base (2003) nor
the California Native Plant Society
(2003) tracks these species or gives them
any special consideration. Additionally,
neither the Arizona Natural Heritage
Program (2003) nor the Nevada Natural
Heritage Program (2003) tracks Bromus
arizonicus or gives it any special
consideration.
Although the petitioner mentioned a
number of threats to both Bromus
arizonicus and Nassella cernua, he did
not provide information concerning
specific threats and specific locations,
other than the reference to one site for
Bromus arizonicus being converted to a
parking lot. Felger (in litt. 2003)
indicated that Bromus arizonicus was a
very common grass in the Sonoran
Desert and ‘‘beyond any question it is
not in any way endangered.’’ We
contacted the petitioner and inquired
whether he could provide us with any
additional information on either
species; he indicated he was not able to
do so at this time (C. Rutherford,
Service, in litt. 2003). Based on the
information provided by the petitioner,
and the information available to us, we
find that threats the petitioner
mentioned cannot be adequately
determined for Bromus arizonicus or
Nassella cernua.
Findings
We have reviewed the petitions,
literature cited in the petitions, other
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
pertinent literature, and information
available in our files. The available
information we were able to access
concerning these species indicates that
they are widespread. Without additional
information on the life history, range, or
population size of Bromus arizonicus
and Nassella cernua, such as an
explanation of how estimates of historic
and current ranges were derived,
information concerning specific threats
and specific locations, or any other
references, we cannot evaluate the
seriousness of the potential threats to
them.
After reviewing the best scientific and
commercial information available, and
because of the lack of adequate data
indicating a biological vulnerability and
presence of threats to these species, we
find the petitions do not present
substantial information that listing
Bromus arizonicus or Nassella cernua
may be warranted. However, we
welcome any additional information
concerning the status of Bromus
arizonicus and Nassella cernua. Please
submit any information to the Field
Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available, upon request, from
the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary author of this document
is Constance Rutherford, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: January 7, 2005.
Steve Williams,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05–1261 Filed 1–24–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\25JAP1.SGM
25JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 25, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3504-3506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1261]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
Petitions To List Bromus arizonicus (Arizona brome) and Nassella cernua
(nodding needlegrass) as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day petition finding for petitions to list Bromus arizonicus
(Arizona brome) and Nassella cernua (nodding needlegrass) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We find that neither
petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing one or both of these species may be warranted.
We will not be initiating a further status review in response to the
petitions to list.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made January 7, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Data, information, written comments and materials, or
questions concerning these petitions and findings should be submitted
to the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA
[[Page 3505]]
93003. The petition findings and supporting data are available for
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance Rutherford, botanist, at the
above address (telephone 805/644-1766).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that we make a finding
on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on all
information available to us at the time we make the finding. To the
maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days
of our receipt of the petition, and we must publish the notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register. Our standard for substantial
information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to
a 90-day petition finding is ``that amount of information that would
lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the
petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If the finding is that
substantial information was presented, we are required to promptly
commence a review of the status of the species, if one has not already
been initiated, under our internal candidate assessment process.
On June 20, 2002, we received two separate petitions, both dated
June 18, 2002, to list Bromus arizonicus (Arizona brome) and Nassella
cernua (nodding needlegrass). The petitions requested that we add
Bromus arizonicus and Nassella cernua to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We are responding to both petitions in
this one Federal Register notice because the petitions were received at
the same time from the same petitioner.
Bromus arizonicus
This taxon was first described by Cornelius Lott Shear in 1900 as
Bromus carinatus var. arizonicus based on a collection from near
Tucson, AZ. Stebbins et al. (1944) raised the taxon to full species
status based on cytogenetic (cellular) differences between it and
Bromus carinatus. They found that, while both the taxa are polyploid in
their number of chromosomes, Bromus carinatus has a chromosome count of
2n = 56, while Bromus arizonicus has a chromosome count of 2n = 84.
However, some taxonomists still consider Bromus arizonicus to be
synonymous with Bromus carinatus (Felger 2000; R. Felger, University of
Arizona, in litt. 2003; P. Jenkins, University of Arizona, in litt.
2003).
The petition to list Bromus arizonicus comprises one page of
information about the species, including its habitat, distribution,
potential threats, observations made by the petitioner at historic
locations for the species, and two literature citations. The
information from the petition is summarized as follows: Bromus
arizonicus is an annual grass restricted in distribution to the San
Joaquin Valley, the southern Coast Ranges, and Channel Islands of
southern California, Arizona, and Baja California, Mexico. The species
is associated with valley grassland, foothill woodland, chaparral,
coastal sage scrub, and creosote bush scrub. The species occurs
principally in an average annual rainfall band between 5 and 14 inches
(in) (13 to 36 centimeters (cm)), and in an elevational band between 20
and 2,000 feet (ft) (6 and 610 meters (m)). Twisselmann (1967)
indicated that the species is widespread in the valley grasslands,
especially in the lower Sonoran grassland, and is scarce in creosote
bush scrub in the desert. However, the petitioner stated that Bromus
arizonicus became rarer in the 1970s and 1980s as a result of
overgrazing during drought periods.
The petitioner estimates that Bromus arizonicus historically ranged
across 5 million acres (ac) (2 million hectares (ha)), and estimates
that the range has been reduced to 25 ac (10 ha) in Arizona and 25 ac
(10 ha) in California. Causes cited for the disappearance of the
species in the San Joaquin Valley include a combination of overgrazing
by cattle and two extended droughts in the 1970s and 1980s. During his
own surveys in the 1990s, the petitioner was able to find only one
small stand of Bromus arizonicus in Kern County, in an area protected
from grazing. In 2002, the petitioner found that a second stand of
Bromus arizonicus that he had observed over a period of years has been
converted to a truck stop parking lot. The petitioner states that
threats to Bromus arizonicus include: Commercial and residential
development, agricultural development, off-highway vehicle activity,
energy developments, grazing, fires, military activities, introduction
of nonnative plants, roadside herbicide use, roadside mowing, and
border patrol activities along the United States-Mexico border.
However, other than the two references mentioned above, the petitioner
did not provide any other information related to the status of Bromus
arizonicus, such as field survey forms or reports documenting either
positive or negative survey findings, a list of historic locations that
were field-checked, maps, or an explanation of how estimates of
historic and current ranges were derived.
The information available to us for the species in California
states that the species is: ``Occasional in coastal sage scrub and
weedy ground; coast west of Point Dume, Sepulveda Canyon, west Los
Angeles'' (Raven et al. 1986); ``reported only from Salinas Valley'' in
Monterey County (Matthews 1997); and ``evidently widespread about waste
places of towns, railroads, ranches, and highways from coast to Cuyama
Valley'' in the Santa Barbara region (Smith 1998). The University of
California at Berkeley and Jepson Herbaria (UC/JEPS) (2003) indicates
that the species is principally found in grasslands and shrublands in
California at elevations of less than 3,300 ft (1,000 m). The species
has been collected in 13 California counties (UC/JEPS 2003). The
information available to us for the species in Arizona indicates that
it occurs ``almost throughout the state, at moderate elevations''
(Kearney and Peebles 1951), and in ``sandy washes and protected sites
in desert areas, roadsides, and other disturbed soils, mostly below
5,000 feet but occasionally higher in the northern part of its range
where it occurs as an introduced weed'' (Gould 1988). The Natural
Resources Conservation Service lists this species as occurring in the
States of Nevada and Texas, in addition to California, Arizona, and
Baja California (https://plants.usda.gov).
Nassella cernua
This taxon was first described as Stipa cernua by G. L. Stebbins
and R. M. Love (1941) based on a collection made from Alameda County,
CA. In 1990, M.E. Barkworth segregated the genus Nassella and included
the species cernua, from Stipa (Barkworth 1993).
The petition to list Nassella cernua comprises one page of
information about the species, including its habitat, distribution,
potential threats, and observations made by the petitioner at historic
locations for the species. No literature citations were included. The
information from the petition is summarized as follows: Nassella cernua
is a perennial grass restricted in distribution to the North Coast
Range, eastern San Francisco Bay area, San Joaquin Valley, the Coast
Ranges of southern California, and in Baja
[[Page 3506]]
California, Mexico. The petitioner states that the species occurs
principally in an average annual rainfall band between 5 and 14 in (13
to 36 cm), and in an elevational band between 20 and 4,500 ft (6 and
1,370 m).
The petitioner estimates that Nassella cernua historically ranged
across 10 million ac (4 million ha). He estimates that the range has
been reduced to 800 ac (324 ha) in California and 200 ac (81 m) in Baja
California. Causes cited for the decline of the species in the San
Joaquin Valley include a combination of overgrazing by cattle and two
extended droughts in the 1970s and 1980s. The petitioner states that
threats to Nassella cernua include commercial and residential
development, agricultural development, off-highway vehicle activity,
energy developments, grazing, fires, military activities, introduction
of nonnative plants, roadside herbicide use, roadside mowing, and
border patrol activities along the United States-Mexico border.
However, the petitioner did not provide any other information related
to the status of Nassella cernua, such as a list of historic locations
that were field-checked, maps, or an explanation of how estimates of
historic and current ranges were derived.
The information in our files indicates that in California, the
species is scattered in coastal sage scrub and chaparral in the western
half of the Santa Monica Mountains below 2000 ft. (Raven et al. 1986);
found in ``dry hills, open woods, and rocky slopes, chaparral, coastal
prairie, coastal sage scrub, etc.'' in Monterey County (Matthews 1997);
and ``common throughout the interior except in the most arid parts'' in
San Luis Obispo County (Hoover 1970). UC/JEPS (2003) indicates that the
species is principally found in grasslands, chaparral, and juniper
woodland in California at elevations of less than 4,600 ft (1,400 m),
and distributed within the inner North Coast Ranges, eastern San
Francisco Bay area, South Coast Ranges, Transverse Ranges, Peninsular
Ranges, and Baja California. The species has been collected in 30 of
California's 58 counties (UC/JEPS 2003).
NatureServe (2000; 2003) indicates that the global heritage status
rank for both Bromus arizonicus and Nassella cernua is G5, which means
that the species is common, widespread, and abundant (although it may
be rare in parts of its range, particularly on the periphery).
NatureServe (2000) defines this ranking as a species that is not
considered to be vulnerable in most of its range. The U.S. Forest
Service (2003) and Bureau of Land Management (2003) do not have Bromus
arizonicus or Nassella cernua on their sensitive species lists, and
neither the California Natural Diversity Data Base (2003) nor the
California Native Plant Society (2003) tracks these species or gives
them any special consideration. Additionally, neither the Arizona
Natural Heritage Program (2003) nor the Nevada Natural Heritage Program
(2003) tracks Bromus arizonicus or gives it any special consideration.
Although the petitioner mentioned a number of threats to both
Bromus arizonicus and Nassella cernua, he did not provide information
concerning specific threats and specific locations, other than the
reference to one site for Bromus arizonicus being converted to a
parking lot. Felger (in litt. 2003) indicated that Bromus arizonicus
was a very common grass in the Sonoran Desert and ``beyond any question
it is not in any way endangered.'' We contacted the petitioner and
inquired whether he could provide us with any additional information on
either species; he indicated he was not able to do so at this time (C.
Rutherford, Service, in litt. 2003). Based on the information provided
by the petitioner, and the information available to us, we find that
threats the petitioner mentioned cannot be adequately determined for
Bromus arizonicus or Nassella cernua.
Findings
We have reviewed the petitions, literature cited in the petitions,
other pertinent literature, and information available in our files. The
available information we were able to access concerning these species
indicates that they are widespread. Without additional information on
the life history, range, or population size of Bromus arizonicus and
Nassella cernua, such as an explanation of how estimates of historic
and current ranges were derived, information concerning specific
threats and specific locations, or any other references, we cannot
evaluate the seriousness of the potential threats to them.
After reviewing the best scientific and commercial information
available, and because of the lack of adequate data indicating a
biological vulnerability and presence of threats to these species, we
find the petitions do not present substantial information that listing
Bromus arizonicus or Nassella cernua may be warranted. However, we
welcome any additional information concerning the status of Bromus
arizonicus and Nassella cernua. Please submit any information to the
Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon
request, from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
Author
The primary author of this document is Constance Rutherford, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: January 7, 2005.
Steve Williams,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05-1261 Filed 1-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P