[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8881-8890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4207]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AE40
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List
the Riparian Brush Rabbit and the Riparian, or San Joaquin Valley,
Woodrat as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), for the riparian brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani
riparius) and the riparian or San Joaquin Valley woodrat (Neotoma
fuscipes riparia). Only a single population of each subspecies has been
confirmed, in Caswell Memorial State Park (Park), San Joaquin County,
California. These two subspecies are threatened primarily by flooding,
wildfire, disease, predation, competition, clearing of riparian
vegetation, use of rodenticide, and loss of genetic variability.
Naturally occurring random events increase the risk to the single,
small population of each subspecies. This rule implements the Federal
protection and recovery provisions afforded by the Act for these two
subspecies.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective March 24, 2000.
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, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage
Way, Room W-2606, Sacramento, California 95825.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Bell, staff biologist, at the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES section), telephone 916/414-6464; facsimile 916/414-
6486.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Even though riparian brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius)
specimen records and sightings were known from along the San Joaquin
River near the boundary of San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties, Orr
(1935, in Orr 1940) believed, based on the presence of suitable
habitat, that the species' historical range extended along the
Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems, from Stanislaus County to the
Delta region. Historical records for the riparian woodrat (Neotoma
fuscipes riparia) are similarly distributed along the San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, and Tuolumne Rivers, and Corral Hollow, in San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, and Merced Counties (Hooper 1938; Williams 1986). Thus,
prior to the statewide reduction of riparian communities by nearly 90
percent (Katibah 1984), the riparian brush rabbit and riparian woodrat
probably ranged throughout the extensive riparian forests along major
streams flowing onto the floor of the northern San Joaquin Valley.
Today only one extant population of each of these subspecies is
known. The remnant population of each subspecies is in a 104.5 hectare
(ha) (258 acre (ac)) fragment of riparian forest on the Stanislaus
River at the Park (Williams 1993) situated on the border of San Joaquin
and Stanislaus Counties, northwest of Modesto, in the northern San
Joaquin Valley, California. Upstream and downstream of the Park, some
original riparian habitat remains on private property. However, the
fragments are small, isolated, and unlikely to be inhabited by either
riparian brush rabbits or riparian woodrats. In January of 1997, the
Park flooded, submerging most of the habitat of these two subspecies.
Evidence of only three riparian brush rabbits and six riparian woodrats
was seen immediately following this flooding episode (Daniel F.
Williams, California State University, Stanislaus, in litt. 1997). In
1998, only one riparian brush rabbit and nine riparian woodrats were
live-trapped (D. Williams, in litt. 1998). Other potential threats
include wildfire, disease, predation, competition, rodenticide use,
clearing of riparian vegetation, and the loss of genetic variability.
Naturally occurring events, such as drought and flooding, also increase
the risk to the single, small population of each subspecies. This rule
extends the protective provisions under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) to these animals.
Discussion of the Two Subspecies
Riparian Brush Rabbit
The riparian brush rabbit was described as a distinct subspecies by
Orr (1935, in Orr 1940) and is one of 13 subspecies of Sylvilagus
bachmani (Hall 1981), 8 of which occur in California. The specimen from
which the subspecies designation was described was collected from the
west side of the San Joaquin River west of Modesto in Stanislaus
County, California, less than 10 kilometers (km) (6 miles (mi)) from
the Park. S. bachmani belongs to the order Lagomorpha and family
Leporidae. The riparian brush rabbit is a medium to small cottontail
(total length 300 to 375 millimeters (mm) (11.8 to 14.8 inches (in)),
mass 500 to 800 grams (g) (1.1 to 1.8 pounds (lb)) and is unique in
that the sides of the rostrum (nasal/upper jaw region of the skull),
when viewed from above, are noticeably convex instead of straight or
concave as in other races of S. bachmani (Orr 1940). The color varies
from dark brown to gray above to white underneath. The subspecies is
visually similar to the desert cottontail (S. audubonii), which also
occurs in riparian habitats within the historical distribution of the
riparian brush rabbit. The riparian brush rabbit can be distinguished
from the desert cottontail by a smaller, more inconspicuous tail and
uniformly colored ears (no black tip). However, in-hand identification
is needed to separate juveniles of these subspecies definitively
(Williams 1993).
Breeding of the riparian brush rabbits is restricted to the period
of female receptivity, approximately January to
[[Page 8882]]
May, putting this subspecies at a competitive disadvantage to the
desert cottontails outside the Park that breed all year (Mossman 1955;
Service 1997). After a gestation period of 26 to 30 days, the young are
born in nest cavities lined mainly with fur and covered with a grass
plug (Davis 1936; Orr 1940). The young are born naked, blind, and
helpless and open their eyes in 10 days (Orr 1940). The young rabbits
remain in the nest about 2 weeks before venturing out, and the female
will continue to suckle her young 2 to 3 weeks after their birth. Orr
(1940) reported a mean litter size of 3 to 4, with extremes of 2 to 5,
while Mossman (1955) reported an average of 4, with a range of 2 to 6.
Riparian brush rabbits take 4 to 5 months to reach adult size but do
not reach sexual maturity until the winter following birth. Females
give birth to about 5 litters per season, averaging an estimated 9 to
16 young per breeding season (Basey 1990). The percentage of females
active during the breeding season is unknown, but in one study, 9 of 25
female adults examined showed no signs of reproductive activity (Basey
1990). Brush rabbits have relatively small home ranges that usually
conform to the size and shape of available brushy habitat (Basey 1990).
In general, the home ranges of males are larger than those of females
but do not overlap the primary activity centers within female
territories (Basey 1990). Population estimates from the Park have
varied from 88 to 452 individuals (Williams 1988), 320 to 540
individuals (Basey 1990), and 170 to 608 individuals over 81 ha (200.1
ac) (Williams 1993), but recent flooding in 1997 and 1998 reduced
numbers severely. In 1997, no riparian brush rabbits were live-trapped,
one was sighted, and pellets from two others were seen; in 1998, one
rabbit was live trapped.
Habitat for the riparian brush rabbit consists of riparian forests
with a dense understory shrub layer. Forests with a closed canopy,
however, generally lack sufficient understory of shrubs to meet
riparian brush rabbits' needs. Brush rabbits frequent small clearings
where they bask in the sun and feed on a variety of herbaceous
vegetation, including grasses, sedges, clover, forbs, shoots, and
leaves. Where mats of low-growing Rosa californica (California wild
rose) and Rubus vitifolius (Pacific blackberry) occur, the brush
rabbits live in tunnels that run through the vines and shrubs. Other
common plants in this riparian forest community are Vitis californica
(wild grape), Baccharis douglasii (Douglas' coyote bush), and grasses
(Basey 1990; Williams 1988). Presence of more surface litter and lack
of willows in the understory signify areas of higher ground that are
not flooded regularly or heavily (Williams and Basey 1986).
Brush rabbits are closely tied to cover and usually remain for
several seconds to minutes just inside dense, brushy cover before
venturing into the open. They seldom move more than a meter from cover.
When pursued, they leap back into the cover of shrubs instead of
heading into open ground (Chapman 1974, in Service 1997). They will not
cross large, open areas and, therefore, are unable to disperse beyond
the dense brush of the riparian forest at the Park (Williams 1988). The
riparian brush rabbit can climb into bushes and trees, though its
climbing is awkward and limited. This trait probably has significant
survival value, given that riparian forests are subject to inundation
by periodic flooding. During periods of heavy flooding, when virtually
no suitable habitat remains available as refugia, the population has
dropped dramatically.
During the flooding of 1976, Park personnel used boats to rescue
rabbits from bushes. During the flood of 1986, which was short lived,
it was estimated that all but 10-25 rabbits at the Park were lost (D.
Williams, in litt. 1997). The population rebounded to 213-312
individuals by 1993 (Williams 1993), and the Park was considered at
carrying capacity (the maximum population that a particular environment
can sustain) under prevailing environmental conditions (following 7
years of drought). Surveys were conducted in May 1997, after extensive
winter flooding at the Park, but no riparian brush rabbits were live-
trapped. One brush rabbit was live-trapped in February 1998, following
a heavy and continuous rainfall.
Such extraordinarily low population levels subject this subspecies
to increased genetic risks and naturally occurring random events (see
discussion in Factor E of the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
section of this final rule). Surveys conducted in all potential habitat
along the Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne rivers during
1985 and 1986 failed to locate any additional populations of riparian
brush rabbits (Williams 1988).
Because the subspecies was not described until after it is believed
to have been extirpated from most of its historical range, definitive
information on its former distribution is lacking. It apparently has
been extirpated from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, as well as
most of the lower San Joaquin River and its tributaries, and the
Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers (Williams 1986). The range of
the subspecies probably extended farther upstream than the Merced
River, assuming that suitable habitat historically occurred along the
length of the San Joaquin River system (Williams and Basey 1986).
Riparian Woodrat
The riparian woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes riparia) was first described
by Hooper (1938), and is one of 11 subspecies of N. fuscipes in the
family Muridae (order Rodentia). The specimens from which the
subspecies designation was described were collected about 3 km (2 mi)
northeast of Vernalis, west of Modesto in Stanislaus County,
California, approximately 10 km (6 mi) from the Park. Although some
taxonomic studies of the genus Neotoma have been completed in recent
years, no further systematic revisions of N. fuscipes have been
published since Hooper's 1938 report (Hall 1981; Williams 1986;
Williams 1993). The genetic structure of selected populations of N.
fuscipes, including N. fuscipes riparia, is currently being examined
(James Patton, University of California, Berkeley, in litt. 1998). The
riparian woodrat is a medium-sized rodent, averaging 443 mm (17.4 in)
in total length, including its 217 mm (8.5 in.) furred tail (Hooper
1938), and ranges from 200 to 400 g (7.05 to 14.11 ounces (oz)) in
weight, with marked seasonal variation (Williams et al. 1992; Service
1997). Neotoma fuscipes riparia differs from other, adjacent subspecies
of woodrats by being larger, lighter, and more grayish in color, with
white hind feet instead of dusky on their upper surfaces, and a tail
more distinctly bicolored (lighter below and darker on top). In
addition, skull measurements and skull characteristics differ (Hooper
1938).
The following information is taken from a number of studies on
Neotoma fuscipes, including N. f. riparia and related subspecies. The
dusky-footed woodrat lives in loosely cooperative societies and has a
matrilineal (mother-offspring) social structure. Males are highly
territorial and aggressive, especially during the breeding season when
they will mate with more than one female (Kelly 1990, in Service 1997).
Females have 1 to 5 litters per year with 3 to 4 young in each litter.
Reproduction occurs in all months, with the fewest pregnancies in
December and the most in February. Numbers of juveniles appearing
outside the nest is greatest in July and least in January and February
(Williams et al. 1992). The young are born in stick nest houses, or
[[Page 8883]]
lodges, on the ground, which measure 0.6 to 0.9 meters (m) (2 to 3 feet
(ft)) high and 1.2 to 1.8 m (4 to 6 ft) in diameter. Most houses are
positioned over or against logs (Cook 1992). Unoccupied houses can
persist 20-30 years (Linsdale and Tevis 1951, in Service 1998) if not
destroyed by flooding (D. Williams, pers. comm. 1998). Unlike other
subspecies, the riparian woodrat occasionally builds nests in cavities
in trees and in artificial wood duck nest boxes (Williams 1986). Nest
houses typically are occupied by an individual adult. Unlike males,
females remain in or near natal areas (birthplace) throughout their
life (Williams et al. 1992). At the Park, Williams (1993) reported a
mean density of 8.32 houses per hectare (ha) (20.55 houses per acre
(ac)), or 757 houses on 91 ha (225 ac) of suitable habitat; occupancy
was not verified. In a study of another subspecies of N. fuscipes,
Linsdale and Tevis (1951, in Service 1998) found that 70 percent of the
population survived less than 1 year, 27 percent survived 2 years, and
3 percent survived 3 years or more. Williams et al. (1992) also cited a
number of studies that indicated woodrats are highly responsive to
habitat alteration, with populations fluctuating widely in response to
a variety of natural or manmade factors, such as fire, flood, drought,
habitat modification, and browsing and trampling by ungulates. Cook
(1992) estimated the Park population at 637 woodrats over 102 ha (252
ac) of habitat. Williams (1993) estimated a peak population at Caswell
of 437 animals, based on mean density of 4.8 woodrats per ha on 91 ha
(225 ac) of suitable habitat. A woodrat population was reported from
the early 1970s near the type locality at Vernalis, but the current
status of the population is unknown (Williams 1986). Between April 1,
1997, and March 20, 1998, 15 riparian woodrats were live-trapped at the
Park (D. Williams in litt. 1998).
Riparian woodrats are common where there are deciduous valley oaks
but few live oaks. Riparian woodrats are most numerous where shrub
cover is dense and least abundant in open areas. In riparian areas,
highest densities of woodrats and their houses are often encountered in
willow thickets with an oak overstory (Linsdale and Tevis 1951, in
Service 1998). Mostly active at night, the woodrat's diet is diverse
and principally herbivorous, with leaves, fruits, terminal shoots of
twigs, flowers, nuts, and fungi comprising the bulk of ingested
material (Williams et al. 1992).
The range of the riparian woodrat is far more restricted today than
it was in 1938 (Williams 1986). The only verified population is
restricted to about 102 ha (252 ac) of riparian forest at the Park on
the Stanislaus River. Loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat
are the principal reasons for the decline of the riparian woodrat
(Service 1997). The most immediate threats include flooding of Park
lands and wildfires. Because the riparian woodrat is able to climb
trees more easily than the brush rabbit, the woodrat may not be
directly affected by flooding to the degree the riparian brush rabbit
is. Woodrat houses, which are essential to survival, can, however, be
severely impacted by flooding, thus affecting the viability of the
population. Wildfires are of concern because of the potential for
severe degradation of habitat and the loss of individuals unable to
escape the fire. In addition to the threat of random natural events
such as flooding and fire, the riparian woodrat is also prone to the
effects of ongoing threats such as disease, predation, and potential
competition with the exotic black rat (Rattus rattus) (D. Williams, in
litt. 1998; D. Williams, pers. comm. 1998). No specific conservation
measures for the riparian woodrat are in place, but the species does
receive some protection through the management plan for the riparian
brush rabbit at the Park. The California Department of Parks and
Recreation has supported some general small-mammal studies and woodrat
population studies at the Park (Cook 1992; Williams 1993).
Today, riparian communities of the lower San Joaquin River and its
tributaries outside the Park have virtually been eliminated. The
remaining habitat patches are small, narrow fragments confined within
levees. The placement of these levees has eliminated the natural
floodplain of the Stanislaus River, increasing the severity of the
flooding that occurs within the confines of the levees. Therefore, the
Park, which is on the river side of the levees, is prone to flood
completely during major storms or heavy flow releases from New Melones
dam (D. Williams, pers. comm. 1998). Because remaining riparian forests
are small, isolated, and vulnerable to major flood events (Williams and
Basey 1986), whether they can support viable populations of these
subspecies over the long-term is questionable. Historical habitat and
refugia from flooding in surrounding lands are now unsuitable for these
subspecies, as these lands consist primarily of cultivated fields,
orchards, and vineyards (Williams and Basey 1986). Wildfire, flooding,
brush clearing, predation, competition, disease, and use of
rodenticides imperil the continued existence of these two subspecies in
their last known population center.
Previous Federal Action
Federal action on these two subspecies began on September 18, 1985,
when we published the Vertebrate Wildlife Notice of Review (50 FR
37958), which included the riparian brush rabbit and riparian woodrat
as category 2 candidate species. Category 2 candidates, a designation
discontinued in a Notice of Review published by us on February 28, 1996
(61 FR 7596), were taxa for which we had information in our possession
indicating that proposing to list as endangered or threatened was
possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological
vulnerability and threats were not currently available. In the January
6, 1989, Animal Notice of Review (54 FR 554), we elevated the riparian
brush rabbit to a category 1 candidate species as a result of more
intensive field work by Williams and Basey (1986) that identified only
a single remaining population of this subspecies. Category 1 taxa were
those for which we had substantial information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support preparation of listing proposals.
We retained the riparian brush rabbit as a category 1 candidate and
elevated the status of the riparian woodrat to category 1 in the
November 21, 1991, Animal Notice of Review (56 FR 58804). This change
was based on a re-evaluation of the information contained in the study
conducted by Williams and Basey (1986). The November 15, 1994, Animal
Notice of Review (59 FR 58987) included both subspecies in category 1.
Upon publication of the February 28, 1996 combined Animal and Plant
Notice of Review (61 FR 7596), we ceased using category designations
and included both subspecies as candidates. Candidate species are those
for which we have on file sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list the species as
threatened or endangered. Candidate status for these animals was
continued in the September 19, 1997, Notice of Review (62 FR 49398).
Based on the decline in numbers of both these subspecies as
identified during the live-trapping surveys of 1997 (D. Williams, in
litt. 1997) and the threats to their continued existence, the riparian
brush rabbit and riparian woodrat were proposed for listing as
endangered on November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62276).
The processing of this final rule conforms with our Listing
Priority
[[Page 8884]]
Guidance published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1999 (64 FR
57114). The guidance clarifies the order in which we will process
rulemakings. Highest priority is processing emergency listing rules for
any species determined to face a significant and imminent risk to its
well-being (Priority 1). Second priority (Priority 2) is processing
final determinations on proposed additions to the lists of endangered
and threatened wildlife and plants. Third priority is processing new
proposals to add species to the lists. The processing of administrative
petition findings (petitions filed under section 4 of the Act) is the
fourth priority. The processing of critical habitat determinations
(prudency and determinability decisions) and proposed or final
designations of critical habitat will no longer be subject to
prioritization under the Listing Priority Guidance. This final rule is
a Priority 2 action and is being completed in accordance with the
current Listing Priority Guidance. We have updated this rule to reflect
any changes in information concerning distribution, status, and threats
since the publication of the proposed rule. This additional information
did not alter our decision to list the two subspecies.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62276), we
requested that all interested parties submit factual reports or
information that might contribute to the development of a final rule
for the riparian brush rabbit and the riparian woodrat. The public
comment period closed on January 21, 1998. We contacted appropriate
State agencies, county and city governments, Federal agencies,
scientific organizations, and other interested parties and requested
comments. We published a newspaper notice in The Modesto Bee on January
20, 1998, which invited general public comment. Given the flood events
of 1997 and 1998, on April 13, 1998, the public comment period was
reopened (63 FR 17981) to consider any new survey information or other
new information prior to making the final status determinations. This
comment period ended May 28, 1998.
We received 11 comments concerning the proposed rule during the
comment period, from a total of 10 commenters. Some commenters
submitted more than one comment to us. Six commenters supported the
listing; four commenters were neutral. No commenters opposed the
proposed listing. Several commenters provided additional information
that, along with other clarifications, has been incorporated into the
``'Background''' or ``'Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'''
sections of this final rule. Comments have been organized into specific
issues. These issues and our responses are summarized as follows:
Issue 1: Two commenters expressed concern that the area around the
Park should be protected from further urban development.
Our Response: Habitat protection afforded by the Act (under section
7) to species listed as threatened or endangered requires Federal
agencies to consult with us on any action that is funded, authorized,
or carried out by a Federal agency. The concerns for the subspecies
will be addressed and measures may be implemented to ensure that the
proposed action will not jeopardize the continued existence of either
the riparian brush rabbit or the riparian woodrat. For detailed
discussions of the section 7 consultation process, see the Available
Conservation Measures section of this final rule. In addition, once the
subspecies are listed, a recovery plan (or plans) is drafted (for a
discussion of the recovery planning process, see the Available
Conservation Measures section of this final rule).
Issue 2: The Department of Parks and Recreation, which owns and
manages the Park, was concerned about restrictions the listing of these
two subspecies may have on the recreational and maintenance activities
at the Park.
Our Response: We recognize these concerns and anticipate continuing
to work closely with the Department of Parks and Recreation and staff
at the Park in furthering protective measures, many of which have
already been voluntarily implemented. We are confident that the
protection and recovery of these two subspecies will be compatible with
recreational and maintenance activities at the Park.
Peer Review
In accordance with our Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer
Review published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited the expert
opinions of four independent and appropriate specialists regarding
review of pertinent scientific or commercial data and issues relating
to the taxonomy, population models, and supportive biological and
ecological information for the riparian brush rabbit and the riparian
woodrat.
We received comments from two of the four requested peer reviewers.
Both reviewers stated that the proposed rule contained an accurate
summary of the natural history, current status, and current threats to
survival of the two subspecies and that listing was warranted. One
reviewer was concerned that the listing may be too late to prevent
extinction by natural factors alone. The other reviewer suggested
clarifications or changes within the text. The reviewer suggests that
(1) low population numbers of the brush rabbit clearly make it
extremely vulnerable to detrimental genetic processes and random
events, while the proposed rule suggested such populations may be only
somewhat vulnerable; (2) decreased survivorship of young is the best
known of the effects of inbreeding (deleterious genes). Inbreeding
actually reduces all of the following: fecundity, juvenile
survivorship, and adult lifespan; and (3) the reviewer provided a
reference to a new study by Saccheri et al. (1998) that states ``* * *
inbreeding can contribute significantly to the extinction of wild
populations' (Katherine Ralls, Smithsonian Institution, in litt. 1998).
Information and suggestions provided by the reviewers have been taken
into consideration during the development of this final rule and
incorporated where appropriate.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) that
implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures
for adding species to the Federal lists of endangered and threatened
species. We determine if a species is endangered or threatened due to
one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act. These factors and how we applied them to the riparian brush rabbit
and to the riparian woodrat are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Their Habitat or Range
Sylvilagus bachmani riparius and Neotoma fuscipes riparia inhabit
riparian forest communities, and both apparently have been extirpated
from their entire historical range except for a single known population
of each along the Stanislaus River. Katibah (1984) estimated that only
41,300 ha (102,052 ac) remain of an estimated 373,000 ha (921,170 ac)
of presettlement riparian forest in California's Central Valley, a
reduction of 89 percent. He attributed the loss and modification of
riparian forests along valley floor river systems to urban, commercial,
and agricultural development; wood cutting; reclamation and flood
control activities; groundwater pumping; river channelization; dam
construction; and water diversions (Katibah 1984).
[[Page 8885]]
Several land use practices and related human activities contributed
to the decline of the riparian brush rabbit and riparian woodrat
throughout their historical ranges. During the past 10 to 20 years,
cultivation has expanded along the floodplain of the main tributaries
of the lower San Joaquin River system (Basey 1990). Increased habitat
conversion to agricultural uses has resulted from the recent
construction of the following dams on tributaries that individually and
collectively have altered the timing, frequency, duration, and
intensity of flooding--Exchequer Dam on the Merced River, New Melones
Dam on the Stanislaus River, and New Don Pedro Dam on the Tuolumne
River. Before these dams and flood control projects (levees) were
constructed, much of the natural floodplain was used as pasture land
for livestock grazing (Basey 1990). Uneven topography in these areas,
before the dams were constructed, provided escape cover because some
land remained above typical flood levels and contained patches of
shrubs and trees for cover. Such sites likely provided refuge from
flooding for these subspecies. Williams and Basey (1986) state that ``*
* * virtually all areas outside of flood control levees now have been
cleared, leveled, and planted to orchards, vineyards, or annual row
crops.'' Conversion from pasture to cultivated fields also eliminated
hedgerows and other residual patches of cover that provided travel
corridors and refuge sites for the two subspecies. The severity of
flooding likely increased as the habitat for these two subspecies was
incorporated by flood control levees. The effects of catastrophic
flooding are discussed further under Factor E of this section.
Although brush clearing adversely affected the habitat of the
riparian brush rabbit and the riparian woodrat populations at the Park
in the mid-1980s (Williams 1986), these populations are no longer
directly threatened by brush clearing, tree cutting, or the conversion
of land to agricultural uses. Because the only known populations of
these subspecies occur within the boundaries of the Park, such
activities outside of Park boundaries do not currently pose a direct
threat to either subspecies. Such activities continue, however, to
eliminate and fragment patches of remnant habitat within the historical
range of these subspecies.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization is not known to be a threat to either subspecies.
However, the very small population at the remaining site makes the
riparian brush rabbit vulnerable to extinction from unauthorized
recreational hunting and collection for scientific or other purposes.
The brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani) is designated as a resident
small game species in California and is hunted from July 1 through
January 30 with a daily bag limit of five animals (Williams and Basey
1986). Hunting regulations set by the California Fish and Game
Commission do not distinguish the riparian brush rabbit from other
subspecies of S. bachmani. Therefore, riparian brush rabbits that
disperse beyond the boundaries of the Park (as they may, especially
during times of flooding) face the potential threat of being hunted.
C. Disease or Predation
Like most rabbits, the riparian brush rabbit is subject to a
variety of common diseases, including tularemia, plague, encephalitis,
and brucellosis. These contagious, and generally fatal, diseases could
be transmitted easily to riparian brush rabbits from neighboring
populations of desert cottontails (Williams 1988). A suspected outbreak
of plague in 1966-67 decimated woodrat populations in foothills of the
southern Sierra Nevada, the Tehachapi Mountains, and the Coast Range
(Murray and Barnes 1969, in Williams et al. 1992). The small population
size and restricted distribution of both the riparian brush rabbit and
riparian woodrat increase their vulnerability to epidemic diseases.
However, the significance of the threat of disease to the riparian
brush rabbit and riparian woodrat is not known.
Coyotes (Canis latrans), gray foxes (Vulpes cinereoargenteus),
long-tailed weasels (Mustela frenata), raccoons (Procyon lotor), feral
domestic cats (Felis catus) and dogs (Canis familiaris), hawks
(Accipitridae), and owls (Strigidae) are known predators of brush
rabbits and woodrats (Orr 1940; Williams 1988). At currently depleted
population levels, any predation could substantially affect the
survival of these two subspecies.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is a Federal law that
potentially affords some attention and protection for these subspecies.
However, brush clearing, tree cutting, and the conversion of riparian
habitat to agricultural uses, all of which adversely affect both
subspecies, are generally unregulated, and this law does not provide
protection from these activities. For example, pursuant to 33 CFR
323.4, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has promulgated
regulations that exempt some farming, forestry, and maintenance
activities from the regulatory requirements of section 404. Although
the Corps administers flowage (flooding) and restoration easements
along the lower reaches of the Stanislaus River, the difficulty of
enforcing the conditions of the easements and inadequate funding for
restoration impedes appropriate habitat restoration activities.
The California Department of Parks and Recreation developed a
riparian brush rabbit management plan for the Park (Williams 1988).
This management plan provides some measure of protection to the
riparian brush rabbit population and incidental protection for the
riparian woodrat. Despite the existence of a management plan, both the
riparian brush rabbit and riparian woodrat remain vulnerable to threats
and hazards originating outside of the Park as well as threats that
continue within the Park's boundaries (see Factor E below).
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public
Resources Code Secs. 21000-21177), full disclosure of the potential
environmental impacts of proposed projects is required. The public
agency with primary authority or jurisdiction over the project is
designated as the lead agency and is responsible for conducting a
review of the project and consulting with the other agencies concerned
with the resources affected by the project. Section 15065 of the
guidelines that guide CEQA implementation requires a finding of
significance if a project has the potential to ``reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.'' Species
that are eligible for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered but
are not so listed are given the same protection as those species that
are officially listed with the State. However, once significant effects
are identified, the lead agency has the option to require mitigation
for effects through changes in the project or to decide that overriding
considerations, such as overriding social or economic considerations,
make mitigation infeasible (CEQA Sec. 21002). In the latter case,
projects may be approved that cause significant environmental damage,
such as destruction of endangered species, their habitat, or
[[Page 8886]]
their continued existence. Protection of listed species through CEQA
is, therefore, dependent upon the discretion of the agency involved.
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) affords the riparian
brush rabbit some conservation benefits. The State of California listed
the riparian brush rabbit as an endangered species in May 1994.
Although the CESA provides a measure of protection to the subspecies,
resulting in the formulation of mitigation measures to reduce or offset
impacts for any projects proposed in riparian brush rabbit habitat,
this law has not adequately prevented the ongoing loss of riparian
forest. Riparian forests outside of the Park are important for recovery
implementation to succeed, as neither the riparian brush rabbit nor the
riparian woodrat can be recovered on Park lands alone (Service 1997).
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence
Small, isolated populations are especially at risk from random
events as there is little or no possibility of recolonization if the
random event, whether natural or manmade, affects the entire
population. Random events that may be catastrophic to the riparian
brush rabbit or the riparian woodrat include the threat of wildfire,
severe flooding, and prolonged drought. Although the Park initiated a
fire management plan to reduce fuel load and create firebreaks in an
effort to protect habitat, the threat of fires originating outside of
the Park boundaries and accidentally within the Park boundaries from
recreational activities still exists. Wildfire exposes the riparian
brush rabbit and the riparian woodrat to habitat destruction and death
(Basey 1990). The brushy areas most vulnerable to fire also are
important areas of habitat for riparian brush rabbits and riparian
woodrats (Basey 1990). Between 1975 and 1987, 10 wildfires were
reported within the Park. After 0.2 ha (0.5 ac) were burned in 1981, no
evidence of brush rabbits was found in the area (Basey 1990). Fire is
known to kill other species of woodrats, such as the closely related
dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes), and thus presumably poses the
same threat to the riparian woodrat. After a fire burned a canyon
bottom dominated by oaks and sycamores in south-coastal California,
Chew et al. (1959, in Williams et al. 1992) found 16 dead dusky-footed
woodrats per acre.
Although flooding of low-lying riparian forests is a naturally
occurring event, the changes to the river systems which began around
the 1940s have altered natural flooding and its frequency, timing, and
severity, due to manmade levees, dams, and water diversions. The
Stanislaus River, for example, has manmade levees built to keep high
flows channelized and dams upstream for flood control and water
storage. The riparian habitat at the Park is confined entirely within
levees, offering little protection from flooding during periods of high
stream flow that routinely occur during the wet winter season. Major
flooding likely drowns riparian brush rabbits and riparian woodrats,
eliminates foraging habitat and shelter for prolonged periods, and
exposes brush rabbits and woodrats to increased predation by stranding
them in trees or on high ground where there is little or no cover
(Nolan 1984, in Service 1997). Ironically the levees themselves now
function as high ground during flooding events.
Surveys have confirmed that after major flooding events the numbers
of riparian brush rabbits and riparian woodrats decrease, sometimes
dramatically. Basey (1990) concluded, based on visual sightings and
pellet surveys, that the riparian brush rabbit population may have been
reduced to fewer than 15 to 20 individuals during flooding in 1983.
Only about 3.6 ha (9 ac) in five small areas of the 104.5 ha (258 ac)
Park showed regular use by brush rabbits in the summer of 1986 after
floods in February and March of that year (Williams 1988). Williams
(1986) found that riparian brush rabbits sometimes gain temporary
shelter from floods by climbing trees, but he estimated that only 10 or
fewer individual rabbits survived the severe winter flooding in 1985-86
(Williams 1988).
The floods of January 1997 left about 85 percent of the Park under
0.6-3.0 m (2-10 ft) or more of water in most areas for at least 2 weeks
and, in lower areas, for as long as 7 weeks. Efforts in January to
locate and potentially rescue stranded riparian brush rabbits resulted
in the observation of only a single rabbit pellet (D. Williams, in
litt. 1997). In areas of the Park searched visually in March 1997, no
rabbits or pellets were found, although searchers did find two mounds
containing fresh grass. Such mounds or ``forms'' are typically made by
rabbits. In April 1997, searchers documented two rabbit fecal pellets
but found no other sign of rabbits or woodrat activity. Trapping
surveys were initiated in early May, well after floodwaters had
receded, in hopes that any surviving rabbits would be located. During
22 nights of trapping, no rabbits were caught, one rabbit was visually
sighted, and at another location, fresh rabbit tracks were found (D.
Williams, in litt. 1997).
The riparian woodrat also is vulnerable to flooding events,
although its ability to nest in trees and wood duck nest boxes
(Williams 1993) suggests some ability to avoid the negative effects of
flooding. Nonetheless, the large majority of woodrat nests occur on the
ground (Williams 1993). After the January 1997 floods inundated the
Park for 2 to 7 weeks, trapping and survey efforts in May 1997 resulted
in the capture of only eight woodrats (D. Williams, in litt. 1997).
Trapping efforts of similar intensity in 1993 resulted in the capture
of 57 woodrats (D. Williams, in litt. 1997). Severe flooding could
eliminate the Park populations of both the riparian brush rabbit and
the riparian woodrat and result in the extinction of these subspecies.
Flooding is also likely to increase competition between riparian brush
rabbits and desert cottontails, a subspecies that occurs in a wider
range of habitats, including riparian zones, within the same geographic
area (Basey 1990). Riparian brush rabbits cannot return to their home
areas if displaced more than about 340 m (1,115.5 ft) (Chapman 1971, in
Basey 1990). Desert cottontails, in contrast, may return home when
displaced as much as 4.8 km (3 mi) (Bowers 1954, in Basey 1990).
Therefore, if displaced by flooding more than about 340 m (1,115.5 ft)
from their home areas, riparian brush rabbits may be stranded in
habitats where desert cottontails have a competitive advantage.
Drought may decrease the carrying capacity of riparian forest
habitat for the riparian brush rabbit and the riparian woodrat. By
1993, following seven years of drought, riparian forest habitat at the
Park was considered to be at carrying capacity for the riparian brush
rabbit (Williams 1993). Depressed population densities of woodrats have
been reported due to drought (Linsdale and Tevis 1951, in Service
1998). Because riparian forest habitat at the Park is an isolated area
of habitat, decreased carrying capacity may affect the populations of
riparian brush rabbits and riparian woodrats because more individuals
compete for the same resources, such as food and shelter. In some
mammals, long periods of drought and increased competition among
individuals can affect individual survivorship and reproductive success
(Service 1997). Surveys to determine the effects of prolonged drought
on the carrying capacity of Park habitat for the riparian woodrat,
however, have not been conducted.
[[Page 8887]]
Other factors that are a concern are the use of rodenticides in
areas outside of the Park (rodenticides are no longer applied in Park
habitat) and competition from exotic or invading species, such as the
desert cottontail or the black rat, which may compete with the riparian
brush rabbit or the riparian woodrat, respectively (Service 1997).
Additionally, the extent to which recreational activities such as
vehicular and pedestrian traffic and predation by domestic dogs and
cats may affect these subspecies has not been studied. With severely
low populations of both subspecies, these activities may have a
significant effect on their survival.
The population numbers of both subspecies are now sufficiently low
that the effects of inbreeding are highly likely to result in the
expression of deleterious genes in the population (i.e., inbreeding
depression) (Gilpin 1987; K. Ralls, in litt. 1998). Such deleterious
genes can reduce individual fitness in various ways, including
decreased survivorship of young, reduced fecundity (reproductive
capacity), and reduced adult lifespan (K. Ralls, in litt. 1998). Small
populations are also at greater risk from the effects of genetic drift,
a decrease in genetic variability due to random changes in gene
frequency from one generation to the next. This reduction of
variability within a population limits the ability of that population
to respond to environmental changes.
Presently, a multispecies habitat conservation plan (HCP) is being
developed for San Joaquin County, California. The riparian brush rabbit
and riparian woodrat will be considered in this HCP, and some
conservation measures that will likely minimize adverse impacts and/or
benefit these two subspecies. A draft HCP will be available for public
review in the future. Until the HCP is released for public comment, we
cannot determine how the HCP will affect these two subspecies.
In developing this final rule, we have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past,
present, and future threats faced by these subspecies. Based on this
evaluation, the preferred action is to list the riparian brush rabbit
and the riparian woodrat as endangered. The small population size and
single locality of these two subspecies render them extremely
vulnerable to a wide array of threats. These subspecies currently face
immediate threats from wildfire, flooding events, and drought. In
addition, they face threats from habitat destruction, competition,
predation, and the use of rodenticides. The riparian forest is reduced
along the San Joaquin River system to the point that the few remaining
habitat remnants outside of the Park are small and isolated and cannot
support viable populations of these subspecies that can persist over
time. Thus, even in the event that the few remaining unsurveyed
fragments of habitat do support these subspecies, the recommended
listing status of the riparian brush rabbit and riparian woodrat would
not change and their listing as endangered would be warranted.
Projected increases in human population within the San Joaquin Valley
and pressures associated with urban development, as well as the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, suggest action is needed
to successfully recover the riparian brush rabbit and the riparian
woodrat. Threatened status is not appropriate for either subspecies,
considering the extent of loss and degradation of their habitat and the
vulnerability of the remaining population.
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.
In the proposed rule, we indicated that designation of critical
habitat was not prudent for the riparian brush rabbit and riparian
woodrat because we believed it would not provide any additional benefit
beyond that provided through listing as endangered since the species
are only found within the State park.
In the last few years, a series of court decisions have overturned
Service determinations regarding a variety of species that designation
of critical habitat would not be prudent (e.g., Natural Resources
Defense Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior 113 F. 3d 1121 (9th
Cir. 1997); Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F. Supp. 2d
1280 (D. Hawaii 1998)). Based on the standards applied in those
judicial opinions, we have reexamined the question of whether critical
habitat for the riparian brush rabbit and riparian woodrat would be
prudent.
In the absence of a finding that critical habitat would increase
threats to a species, if there are any benefits to critical habitat
designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. In the case of these
species, there may be some benefits to designation of critical habitat.
The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section 7
requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any action that
destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. While a critical
habitat designation for habitat currently occupied by these species
would not be likely to change the section 7 consultation outcome
because an action that destroys or adversely modifies such critical
habitat would also be likely to result in jeopardy to the species,
there may be instances where section 7 consultation would be triggered
only if critical habitat is designated. Examples could include
unoccupied habitat or occupied habitat that may become unoccupied in
the future. There may also be some educational or informational
benefits to designating critical habitat. Therefore, we find that
critical habitat is prudent for the riparian brush rabbit and riparian
woodrat.
The Final Listing Priority Guidance for FY 2000 (64 FR 57114)
states that the processing of critical habitat determinations (prudency
and determinability decisions) and proposed or final designations of
critical habitat will no longer be subject to prioritization under the
Listing Priority Guidance. Critical habitat determinations, which were
previously included in final listing rules published in the Federal
Register, may now be processed separately, in which case stand-alone
critical habitat determinations will be published as notices in the
Federal Register. We will undertake critical habitat determinations and
designations during FY 2000 as allowed by our funding allocation for
that year. As explained in detail in the Listing Priority Guidance, our
listing budget is currently insufficient to allow us to immediately
complete all of the listing actions required by the Act. Deferral of
the critical habitat designation for the riparian brush rabbit and
riparian woodrat will allow us to concentrate our limited resources on
higher priority critical habitat and other listing actions, while
allowing us to put in place protections needed for the conservation of
the riparian brush rabbit and riparian woodrat without further delay.
However, because we have successfully
[[Page 8888]]
reduced, although not eliminated, the backlog of other listing actions,
we anticipate in FY 2000 and beyond giving higher priority to critical
habitat designation, including designations deferred pursuant to the
Listing Priority Guidance, such as the designation for these species,
than we have in recent fiscal years.
We plan to employ a priority system for deciding which outstanding
critical habitat designations should be addressed first. We will focus
our efforts on those designations that will provide the most
conservation benefit, taking into consideration the efficacy of
critical habitat designation in addressing the threats to the species,
and the magnitude and immediacy of those threats. We will develop a
proposal to designate critical habitat for the riparian brush rabbit
and riparian woodrat as soon as feasible, considering our workload
priorities. Unfortunately, for the immediate future, most of Region 1's
listing budget must be directed to complying with numerous court orders
and settlement agreements, as well as due and overdue final listing
determinations (like the one at issue in this case).
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, local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land
acquisition and cooperation with the State and requires that recovery
actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required
of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities
involving listed species 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) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or to
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with us. As part of
our outreach efforts, we will notify the Corps and U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR), as well as affected landowners, to ensure they are
aware of the species' presence and clarify their obligations in
protecting both species under the Act.
Federal actions that may require conference or consultation with us
include activities by the Corps that fund or authorize levee and
channel maintenance projects along the lower San Joaquin River and its
tributaries, the operation of upstream water storage facilities and
dams by the Corps and BOR, and oversight of flowage (flood) and
restoration easements by the Corps over riparian lands downstream from
these dams. Additionally, the Federal Emergency Management Agency may
be required to consult if an emergency action affected either of these
subspecies.
Listing the riparian brush rabbit and riparian woodrat as
endangered triggers the development of a recovery plan. Such a plan
establishes a conservation framework for State, Federal, and local
governmental planning. The plan sets recovery priorities and estimates
costs of various tasks necessary to accomplish them. The plan also
would describe site-specific management actions necessary to achieve
conservation and survival of these subspecies. The riparian brush
rabbit and the riparian woodrat are both included in the final
``Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley,
California'' (Service 1998), and thus the recovery planning process is
already under way.
The Act and implementing regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered wildlife. The
prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, in part, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import or export,
ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed
species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally.
Certain exceptions apply to our agents and State conservation agencies.
We may be able to issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited
activities involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances.
Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23.
Such permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in
connection with otherwise lawful activities. Under some circumstances,
we can issue permits for a specified period for species in trade in
order to relieve undue economic hardship that would be suffered if such
relief were not available.
Our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34272), is to identify to the maximum extent practicable at the
time a species is listed those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within the species' range and to assist
the public in identifying measures needed to protect the species. We
believe that, based on the best available information, the following
actions would not likely result in a violation of section 9:
(1) Possession of legally acquired riparian brush rabbits and
riparian woodrats;
(2) Light to moderate livestock grazing that prevents or minimizes
the encroachment of invasive plant species;
(3) Federally approved projects that involve activities such as
discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, tiling, pond
construction, stream channelization or diversion, or alteration of
surface or ground water into or out of riparian areas (i.e., due to
roads, impoundments, discharge pipes, storm water detention basins,
etc.), or wildlife habitat restoration, when such activity is conducted
in accordance with any reasonable and prudent measures given by us in
accordance with section 7 of the Act;
(4) Ongoing activities at the Park that are compatible with
sustaining a viable population of both subspecies. These activities
include camping and recreational activities such as picnicking,
swimming, hiking, and fishing, as well as routine operations such as
wildfire management, mowing, trail clearing, repairing water and sewer
lines, removing hazardous trees, and the application of insecticides
and herbicides rodenticides consistent with label instructions and
restrictions.
Activities that we believe could potentially harm the riparian
brush rabbit and the riparian woodrat and
[[Page 8889]]
result in a violation of section 9 include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, or holding in captivity of
either of these subspecies;
(2) Unauthorized destruction/alteration of the subspecies habitat
through the discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, tiling,
pond construction, stream channelization or diversion, or the
alteration of surface or ground water flow into or out of a riparian
area (i.e., due to roads, impoundments, discharge pipes, storm water
detention basins, etc.);
(3) Violation of discharge permits;
(4) Burning, cutting, or mowing of riparian vegetation, repairing
water and sewer lines, and the spraying of insecticides or herbicides,
if conducted in an untimely or inappropriate manner (e.g., when
individuals of these subspecies would be killed or injured, when
reproductive efforts would be disrupted);
(5) Rodenticide applications if conducted in an untimely or
inappropriate manner, or in violation of label restrictions;
(6) Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals, silt, or other
pollutants (i.e., sewage, oil, and gasoline) onto land supporting these
subspecies; and
(7) Interstate and foreign commerce (commerce across State lines
and international boundaries) and import/export (as discussed earlier
in this section) without prior obtainment of an endangered species
permit. Permits to conduct these activities are available for purposes
of scientific research and enhancement of propagation or survival of
the species.
Questions regarding whether specific activities may constitute a
violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of
our Sacramento Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests for
copies of the regulations concerning listed wildlife 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
We have determined that we do not need to prepare Environmental
Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Required Determinations
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
for which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. is required. An
information collection related to the rule pertaining to permits for
endangered and threatened species has OMB approval and is assigned
clearance number 1018-0094. This rule does not alter that information
collection requirement. For additional information concerning permits
and associated requirements for endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.22.
References Cited
A complete list of all references we cited, as well as others, is
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
Author. The primary authors of this final rule are Heather Bell and
Diane Windham, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section), telephone 916/414-6600.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Final Regulation Promulgation
We amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend section 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical
order under MAMMALS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Rabbit, riparian brush........... Sylvilagus bachmani U.S.A. (CA)........ Entire............. E 687 NA NA
riparius.
* * * * * * *
Woodrat, riparian (San Joaquin Neotoma fuscipes U.S.A. (CA)........ Entire............. E 687 NA NA
Valley). riparia.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8890]]
Dated: January 31, 2000.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 00-4207 Filed 2-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P