Browse by Year
/ 2002
/ June
/ Tuesday, June 18, 2002
[Federal Register: June 18, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 117)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41367-41392]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18jn02-26]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AG96
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Critical Habitat
Designation for Two Larkspurs From Coastal Northern California
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act), for Delphinium bakeri (Baker's larkspur) and
Delphinium luteum (yellow larkspur). Approximately 1,786 hectares (ha)
(4,412 acres (ac)) are proposed for designation of critical habitat. We
are proposing to include approximately 740 ha (1,828 ac) within two
units located in Marin and Sonoma counties, California, as critical
habitat for Delphinium bakeri, and 1,046 ha (2,584 ac) within four
units also located in Marin and Sonoma counties, California, as
critical habitat for Delphinium luteum. Critical habitat receives
protection from destruction or adverse modification through required
consultation under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried
out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act
requires us to consider economic and other relevant impacts when
specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
We solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects of this
proposal, including data on the economic and other impacts of the
designation and our approaches to handling any future habitat
conservation plans. We may revise this proposal prior to final
designation to incorporate or address new information received during
the comment period.
DATES: We will accept comments until August 19, 2002. Public hearing
requests must be received by August 2, 2002.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
You may submit written comments and information or hand-deliver
comments to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W--2605,
Sacramento, CA 95825.
You may also send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to
fw1bakers--yellow--larkspur@fws.gov. See the Public Comments Solicited
section below for file format and other information about electronic
filing.
Comments and materials received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne White, Field Supervisor,
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address: telephone
916/414-6600; facsimile 916/414-6710.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Delphinium bakeri is a perennial herb in the buttercup family
(Ranunculaceae) that grows from a thickened, tuber-like, fleshy cluster
of roots. The stems are
[[Page 41368]]
hollow, erect, and grow to 65 centimeters (cm) (26 inches ( in)) tall.
Shallowly five-parted leaves occur primarily along the upper third of
the stem and are green (as opposed to withering) at the time the plant
flowers. The flowers are irregularly shaped. The five sepals (members
of the outermost set of flower parts) are conspicuous, bright dark blue
or purplish, with the rear sepal elongated into a spur (hollow, often
cone-shaped, projection). The inconspicuous petals occur in two pairs.
The lower pair is oblong and blue-purple; the upper pair is oblique
(having unequal sides or an asymmetric base) and white. Seeds are
produced in several dry, many-seeded fruits which split open at
maturity on only one side (i.e., follicles). Delphinium bakeri flowers
from April through May (Warnock 1993). Delphinium bakeri can be
differentiated from other members of the genus by its crenate leaf
margins (margins notched or scalloped so as to form rounded teeth),
leaves that are not withering at time of flowering, and flowers that
are loosely arranged (California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 1977).
Ewan (1942) described Delphinium bakeri based on type material
collected by Milo Baker in 1939 from ``Coleman Valley, Sonoma Co.,
California.'' In the most recent treatment, Warnock (1993) retained the
taxon as a full species. Delphinium bakeri has only been known from
three locations--Coleman Valley in southern Sonoma County; near the
town of Tomales in northern Marin County, and approximately 10
kilometers (km) (6 miles (mi)) east of Tomales Bay in northern Marin
County. Delphinium bakeri is thought to have been extirpated from
Coleman Valley and from near Tomales. At the only known extant
population, approximately 10 km (6 mi) east of Tomales Bay, the number
of individuals has varied from 0 to 64 individuals over the last 20
years (CNDDB 2001).
Delphinium bakeri occurs on decomposed shale from 90 to 205 meters
(m) (295 to 672 feet (ft)) in elevation (California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB) 2001). The collection from the type locality in
Coleman Valley was described by Joseph Ewan as growing ``along fence
rows and in heavy low brush'' (Ewan 1942). Two species listed as
growing with D. bakeri at the type locality were Potentilla elata [now
known as Horkelia californica ssp. dissita (California honeydew)] and
Ranunculus orthorynchus (straightbeak buttercup) (Ewan 1942). No
information is reported for the associated species or habitat for the
other occurrence from near Tomales that is thought to be extirpated
(CNDDB 2001).
The single extant (currently existing, not extirpated or destroyed)
occurrence of Delphinium bakeri grows in mesic (moderate moisture)
conditions along an extensive north-facing slope under an overstory
that includes Umbellularia californica (California bay), Aesculus
californica (California buckeye), and Quercus agrifolia (coastal live
oak). Other native plants associated with D. bakeri at this site
include--Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea (coyotebrush),
Symphorcarpos cf. rivularis (snowberry), Rubus ursinus (California
blackberry), Pteridium aquilinum (braken fern), Polystichum munitum
(Sword fern), Pityrogramma triangularis (goldback fern), Dryopteris
arguta (coastal woodfern), Adiantum jordanii (maidenhair fern), and
Polypodium glycyrrhiza (licorice fern) (CNDDB 2001). The property is
privately owned but Sonoma County has a right-of-way along the road.
Pollinators have not specifically been identified for D. bakeri, but
pollinators for species in the genus Delphinium typically are large
hymenoptera, especially Bombus ssp. (bumblebees) (Guerrant 1976).
Even in 1942, Ewan noted that the habitat of Delphinium bakeri was
formerly more abundant, but had been reduced by cultivation (Ewan
1942). Habitat conversion, grazing, and roadside maintenance activities
have extirpated two of the three known occurrences of D. bakeri in
Marin and Sonoma counties (CDFG 1994). The type locality is thought to
have been extirpated by a dairy ranch. The single extant population is
threatened by road work such as right-of-way maintenance (including use
of herbicides), overcollection, and sheep grazing (CNDDB 2001). Because
of its extreme range restriction to a single population and small
population size of the one remaining occurrence, D. bakeri is extremely
vulnerable to extinction from random natural events, such as unseasonal
fire or insect outbreaks (Shaffer 1981; Primack 1993).
Delphinium luteum is a perennial herb in the buttercup family
(Ranunculaceae) that grows from thin tuberous roots up to 30 cm (12 in)
long to a height of 55 cm (22 in) tall. The leaves are mostly basal,
fleshy, and green at the time of flowering. The flowers are cornucopia-
shaped. The five conspicuous sepals are bright yellow, with the
posterior sepal elongated into a spur. The inconspicuous petals occur
in two pairs. The upper petals are narrow and unlobed; the lower petals
are oblong to ovate (egg-shaped). The fruit is a follicle. D. luteum
flowers from March to May. Delphinium luteum is distinguished from
other Delphinium by its yellow flowers and its erect seed follicles
(CNPS 1977). In contrast to typical pollinators for the genus
Delphinium, potential pollinators for D. luteum are Allen's
hummingbirds, which have been observed visiting D. luteum flowers. In
addition, the flower shape and sucrose-dominated nectar are consistent
with characteristics of species that are typically pollinated by
hummingbirds (Guerrant 1976).
Heller (1903) described Delphinium luteum based on type material
collected from ``grassy slopes about rocks, near Bodega Bay, along the
road leading to the village of Bodega'' in Sonoma County. Although
Jepson (1975) reduced D. luteum to a variety of D. nudicaule (red
larkspur), it is currently recognized as a full species (Warnock 1993).
Delphinium luteum inhabits coastal prairie and coastal scrub, which
typically have no overstory, at elevations ranging from sea level to
about 100 m (300 ft) within northwestern Marin and southwestern Sonoma
counties, California (CNDDB 2001). The species occurs on moderate to
steep slopes with evidence of some level of disturbance, including
landslides of various ages, in close proximity (Guerrant 1976, CNDDB
2001). Roots of D. luteum are both tuberous, long and thin, an unusual
combination in this genus which may provide an advantage in thin,
unstable soils (Weaver 1919 as cited in Guerrant 1976). Typical soil
types supporting D. luteum include the Kneeland series in Sonoma County
and the Yorkville series in Marin County. These soils derive from
sandstone or shale, and share qualities of rapid runoff and high
erosion potential (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1972, Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) 1985). The most recently documented
populations of D. luteum (those seen in the 1980's or later) tend to
grow on north-facing slopes in canyon complexes with steep sides (LSA
Associates (LSA) 1997, CNDDB 2001). Presumably the more shaded north-
facing slopes provide a moister microclimate, while the steep-sloped
canyon walls increase the likelihood of erosion and landslides in the
vicinity. Only two potential exceptions to this trend are evident in
the CNDDB: one population near Tomales, California, is mapped on a
south-facing slope, while a relatively nearby population does not
appear to grow near any steep-sloped canyon walls. Both these
populations are in proposed critical habitat Unit L4,
[[Page 41369]]
described below. The first population has not been documented since
1983, and its mapped location is precise to a one-fifth mile (0.32 km)
radius. This could put its actual location across the canyon on a
north-facing slope. The other population is growing in a road cut,
which might provide erosional and soil disturbance characteristics
similar to those near canyon walls (CNDDB 2001).
Temperatures in the region inhabited by Delphinium luteum are
moderated by fog, which keeps summers relatively cool and winters
relatively warm compared to inland habitats. Much of the coastal
prairie in this species' range has been grazed for over a century, and
is now characterized by a mixture of non-native annuals and forbs and
native prairie plants. Native plants listed as occurring with D. luteum
include Arabis blepharophylla (rose rockcress), Calochortus tolmei
(Tolmei startulip), Mimulus aurantiacus (orange bush monkeyflower),
Dudleya caespitosa (sea lettuce), Polypodium californicum (California
polyploidy), and Eriogonum parviflorum (sea cliff buckwheat) (CNDDB
2001).
Eleven occurrences of Delphinium luteum have been reported in the
CNDDB (2001). Only six of these have been documented since the early
1980's, however. Of the remaining five occurrences, three have not been
documented since 1935 or earlier, another is based entirely on
unsupported and undated information found on a 1979 map, and the fifth
was a questionable identification never confirmed by a second siting
(CNDDB 2001). The six more recently documented occurrences grow in
three separate drainages; one in Sonoma County and two in Marin County.
These groupings form the basis of three of the four critical habitat
units we are proposing. (See Units L1, L2 and L4, below). A final
population, not yet documented in CNDDB, occurs in a third Marin County
drainage (David Amme, California Department of Transportation, in litt.
2002; D. Amme, pers. comm. 2002), and forms the basis of critical
habitat Unit L3, as described below.
Recent surveys have not found many plants in any of these
populations. The largest number recorded by CNDDB is 134 plants for one
of the Marin County populations in 1993. The total number of Delphinium
luteum individuals may be less than 300 (CNDDB 2001, David Amme, pers.
comm. 2002). Each recently documented population faces one or more
potential threats to its existence, including overcollection, road
widening, unmanaged sheep grazing, fire suppression, and hybridization
with another Delphinium species (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995; CNDDB
2001). Additionally, the combination of few populations, small numbers
of individuals within each population, narrow range, and restricted
habitat makes D. luteum susceptible to extirpation in significant
portions of its range from random natural events such as unseasonal
fire, drought, disease, or other natural occurrences (Shaffer 1981;
Primack 1993).
Previous Federal Action
Federal actions on the two plant species began when the Secretary
of the Smithsonian Institution, as directed by section 12 of the Act,
prepared a report on those native U.S. plants considered to be
endangered, threatened, or extinct in the United States. This report
(House Document No. 94-51), was presented to Congress on January 9,
1975, and included Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum as endangered. On
July 1, 1975, we published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR
27823) accepting the report as a petition within the context of section
4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3)) of the Act and of our intention to review
the status of the plant taxa named in the report. On June 16, 1976, we
published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (41 FR 24523)
determining approximately 1,700 vascular plant species to be endangered
species pursuant to section 4 of the Act. Delphinium bakeri and D.
luteum were included in this June 16, 1976, Federal Register document.
In 1978, amendments to the Act required that all proposals over 2
years old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to those
proposed rules already more than 2 years old. On December 10, 1979, we
published a notice (44 FR 70796) of the withdrawal of the portion of
the June 16, 1976, proposed rule that had not been made final, along
with four other proposals that had expired. We published an updated
Notice of Review (NOR) for plants on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480).
This NOR included Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum as category 1
candidates (species for which data in our possession was sufficient to
support proposals for listing).
On February 15, 1983, we published a notice (48 FR 6752) of our
prior finding that the listing of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum was
warranted but precluded in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of
the Act as amended in 1982. Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the
Act, this finding must be recycled annually, until the species is
either proposed for listing or the petitioned action is found to be not
warranted. Each October from 1983 through 1994, further findings were
made that the listing of D. bakeri and D. luteum were warranted, but
that the listing of these species was precluded by other pending
proposals of higher priority.
On November 28, 1983, we published a supplement to the plant NOR
(48 FR 53640). This supplement changed Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum
from category 1 to category 2 candidates (species for which data in our
possession indicate listing was possibly appropriate, but for which
substantial data on biological vulnerability and threats were not
currently known or on file to support proposed rules).
The plant NOR was revised again on September 27, 1985 (50 FR
39526). Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum were again included as category
2 candidates. Another revision of the plant NOR was published on
February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184). In this revision D. bakeri and D.
luteum were included as category 1 candidates and remained as category
1 candidates in the plant NOR published on September 30, 1993 (58 FR
51144). Upon publication of the February 28, 1996, NOR (61 FR 7596), we
ceased using category designations and included D. bakeri and D. luteum
as candidate species. Candidate species are those for which we have on
file sufficient information on the biological vulnerability and threats
to support proposals to list them as threatened or endangered. On June
19, 1997, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (62 FR
33383) to list D. bakeri and D. luteum as endangered.
On June 17, 1999, our failure to issue final rules for listing
Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum and seven other plant species as
endangered or threatened, and our failure to make a final critical
habitat determination for the nine species was challenged in Southwest
Center for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bruce Babbitt (Case No. C99-2992
(N.D.Cal.). The final rule listing D. bakeri and D. luteum as
endangered species was published in the Federal Register on January 26,
2000 (65 FR 4156). On May 22, 2000, the judge signed an order for the
Service to propose critical habitat for the species by September 30,
2001. In mid-September 2001, plaintiffs agreed to an extension of this
due date for D. bakeri and D. luteum until June 10, 2002, for the
proposed critical habitat designation and March 10, 2003, for the final
critical habitat designation.
[[Page 41370]]
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of
the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I)
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific
areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time
it is listed in accordance with section 4 of this Act, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to
the point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult
with the Service to insure that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of habitat determined to be critical to a species. Section
7 of the Act also requires conferences on Federal actions that are
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. In our regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or
adverse modification as ``a direct or indirect alteration that
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the
survival and recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include,
but are not limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those
physical or biological features that were the basis for determining the
habitat to be critical.'' Aside from the added protection that may be
provided under section 7, the Act does not provide other forms of
protection to lands designated as critical habitat. Because
consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply to activities on
private or other non-Federal lands that do not involve a Federal nexus,
critical habitat designation would not afford any additional
protections under the Act against such activities.
In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the
habitat must first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.''
Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the
best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that
provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which
are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR
424.12(b)).
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat at
the time of listing, to the extent such habitat is determinable at the
time of listing. When we designate critical habitat at the time of
listing or under short court-ordered deadlines, we often may not have
sufficient information to identify all areas which are essential for
the conservation of the species. Nevertheless, we are required to
designate those areas we know to be critical habitat, using the best
information available to us.
Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we will
designate only areas currently known to be essential. Essential areas
should already have the features and habitat characteristics that are
necessary to sustain the species. We will not speculate about what
areas might be found to be essential if better information became
available, or what areas may become essential over time. If the
information available at the time of designation does not show that an
area provides essential life-cycle needs of the species, then the area
should not be included in the critical habitat designation. Within the
geographic area occupied by the species, we will attempt to not
designate areas that do not now have the primary constituent elements,
as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b), which provide essential life-cycle
needs of the species. However, we may be restricted by our minimum
mapping unit or mapping scale.
Our regulations state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as
critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied
by the species only when a designation limited to its present range
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.'' (50
CFR 424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific and
commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the
species require designation of critical habitat outside of occupied
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographic area occupied by the species.
Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271),
provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides guidance to
ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial
data available. It requires our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of
information should, at a minimum, be the listing package for the
species. Additional information may be obtained from a recovery plan,
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological
assessments or other unpublished materials, and discussions with
experts.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat
based on what we know at the time of designation. Habitat is often
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time.
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons,
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Areas
that support newly discovered populations in the future, but are
outside the critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to
conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and
to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard and the section 9 prohibitions, as determined on the basis of
the best available information at the time of the action. Federally
funded or assisted projects affecting listed species outside their
designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings
in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the
basis of the best available information at the time of designation will
not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans,
habitat conservation plans, or other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls
for a different outcome.
Methods
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR
424.12, we used the best scientific information available to determine
areas that contain the physical and biological features that are
essential for the conservation of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum. We
reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat
requirements of these species including data from research and survey
observations; regional Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages
(e.g., soils, known locations, vegetation, land ownership); information
from herbarium collections such as CalFlora ((http://www.calflora.org);
data from CNDDB
[[Page 41371]]
(2001); and data collected from project-specific and other
miscellaneous reports submitted to us. This included information from
our final rule listing D. bakeri and D. luteum as endangered (65 FR
4156), the CNDDB (2001), soil survey maps (Soil Conservation Service
1972, 1985), certified soil GIS layers for Marin County, geologic
formation maps, 1993 digital orthophotoquarterquads, and discussions
with botanical experts who have worked closely with these plant
species. We also conducted site visits at one historical occurrence of
D. bakeri and five historical occurrences of D. luteum; and one extant
occurrence of D. bakeri and three extant occurrences of D. luteum (to
the extent we could visit the habitat without going onto private land).
Mapping
We delineated the proposed critical habitat units by using data
layers in a GIS format with all the known Delphinium bakeri and D.
luteum occurrences from the CNDDB (2001) and other sources (D. Amme, in
litt. 2002; D. Amme, pers. comm. 2002). We created additional data
layers to reflect vegetation types using aerial photographs, GIS data
for Marin soils (Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 2001),
and recent development using satellite imagery (CNES/SPOT Image
Corporation (SPOT) 2001). We created an additional data layer by
digitizing Kneeland soils data for Sonoma County from USGS 1972. These
data layers were laid over a base of USGS 3.75' digital
orthophotographic quarter quadrangle images.
In selecting areas of proposed critical habitat, we made an effort
to avoid developed areas such as houses, intensive agricultural areas
such as row crops, vineyards and orchards, and lands unlikely to
contain the primary constituent elements for Delphinium bakeri or D.
luteum. However, we did not map critical habitat in sufficient detail
to exclude all developed areas. Developed areas within the boundaries
of the mapped units, such as buildings, roads, parking lots, railroads,
airport runways and other paved areas, lawns, and other urban
landscaped areas will not contain one or more of the primary
constituent elements. Federal actions limited to these areas,
therefore, would not trigger a section 7 of the Act consultation,
unless they affect the species or primary constituent elements in
adjacent critical habitat.
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas to propose as critical
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (primary
constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation of the
species and that may require special management considerations or
protection. These include, but are not limited to--space for individual
and population growth, and for normal behavior; food, water, air,
light, minerals or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
cover or shelter, germination, or seed dispersal; and habitats that are
protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic
geographical and ecological distributions of a species. All areas
proposed as critical habitat for Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum are
within the historical range and contain one or more of these physical
or biological features (primary constituent elements) essential for the
conservation of the species.
Much of what is known about the specific physical and biological
requirements of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum is described in the
Background section of this proposed rule. The proposed critical habitat
is designed to provide sufficient habitat to maintain self-sustaining
populations of D. bakeri and D. luteum throughout their ranges and to
provide those habitat components essential for the conservation of
these species. These habitat components provide for--(1) Individual and
population growth, including sites for germination, pollination,
reproduction, and seed dispersal; (2) areas that allow gene flow and
provide connectivity or linkage between populations including open
spaces and disturbed areas that in some instances may also contain non-
native plant species; (3) areas that provide basic requirements for
growth such as water, light, minerals; and (4) areas that support
populations of pollinators and seed dispersal organisms.
The conservation of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum is dependent
upon a number of factors, including the conservation and management of
sites where existing populations grow, the establishment of D. bakeri
at a new location to provide insurance against stochastic (randomly
occurring) events, the maintenance of normal ecological functions
within these sites, and the preservation of the connectivity between
sites to maintain recent levels of gene flow between sites through
pollinator activity and seed dispersal agents.
Based on our knowledge to date, the primary constituent elements of
critical habitat for Delphinium bakeri consist of:
(1) Soils that are derived from decomposed shale;
(2) Plant communities that support associated species, including,
but not limited to: Umbellularia californica (California bay), Aesculus
californica (California buckeye), and Quercus agrifolia (coastal live
oak). Other native plants associated with D. bakeri include--Baccharis
pulularis ssp. consanguinea (coyotebrush), Symphorcarpos cf. rivularis
(snowberry), Rubus ursinus (California blackberry), Pteridium aqulinum
(braken fern), Polystichum munitum (Sword fern), Pityrogramma
triangularis (goldback fern), Dryopteris arguta (coastal woodfern),
Adiantum jordanii (maidenhair fern), and Polypodium glycyrrhiza
(licorice fern); and
(3) Mesic (moderate moisture) conditions on extensive north-facing
slopes.
Based on our knowledge to date, the primary constituent elements of
critical habitat for Delphinium luteum consist of:
(1) Plant communities that support the appropriate associated
species, including north coastal scrub or coastal prairie communities;
(2) Soils derived from sandstone or shale, with rapid runoff and
high erosion potential, such as Kneeland or Yorkville series soils;
(3) Generally north aspected areas near steep-sloped canyon walls;
and
(4) Habitat upslope and downslope from known populations to
maintain disturbance such as occasional rock slides or soil slumping
that the species appears to require.
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat
We identified critical habitat areas essential for the conservation
of Delphinium bakeri in the one location it currently is known to occur
in Marin County, as well as in the Coleman Valley area in Sonoma
County, where the species was historically found. We are including the
Coleman Valley site in our proposal, despite the fact that D. bakeri is
thought to be extirpated from this location because it is one of very
few locations where D. bakeri has ever been observed. We did not
include the third such location near Tomales, California, however,
because our information is too vague to accurately identify the site.
We believe that reintroduction of D. bakeri at the Coleman Valley site
(Unit B1) is essential for the species' survival due to the extremely
limited range of D. bakeri, its small population size (0 to 64
individuals over the last 20 years), and the high degree of threat from
chance
[[Page 41372]]
catastrophic events (Shaffer 1981, 1987; Primack 1993, Meffe and
Carroll 1994). Such events are a concern when the number of populations
or geographic distribution of a species is severely limited, as is the
case with D. bakeri. Establishment of a second location for D. bakeri
is important in reducing the risk of extinction due to such
catastrophic events.
We identified critical habitat for Delphinium bakeri by mapping the
distribution of the known occurrences of the species with respect to
distance from the coast, location within watersheds, soil series
associations, aspect of the slopes and watersheds, position on slopes,
our field observations of the soil conditions at each location, and our
field observations of the plant associations found in the area of each
location. We then drew an initial critical habitat demarcation that
included the appropriate soils, vegetation, and watershed. We mapped
the proposed units to include the upslope and downslope areas that
would be important to the maintenance of the primary constituent
elements essential for the conservation of the species.
We identified critical habitat areas essential to the conservation
of Delphinium luteum in the areas where it is known to occur in Marin
and Sonoma counties. Due to the limited number of populations of D.
luteum and the high degree of threat from catastrophic events, we
believe that all areas with recently documented occurrences are
essential for the conservation of this species. In addition, the Center
for Plant Conservation (2002) recommends that additional populations be
established and managed for this species. Some areas within the
proposed critical habitat units may be suitable sites for such
introductions. All four D. luteum units (L1, L2, L3 and L4) are
occupied by the species.
Five of the six proposed critical habitat units for Delphinium
bakeri and D. luteum contain at least one extant occurrence of the
species for which the unit was drawn. All of the units also contain
areas that are currently considered unoccupied or that are of uncertain
occupancy. These unoccupied areas are included within the units because
they provide areas into which populations might expand, provide
connectivity or linkage between populations within a unit, maintain
ecological and landscape processes upon which the species depend, and
support populations of pollinators and seed dispersal organisms. They
also provide areas into which the species may be introduced. As
discussed above, we believe that establishing a second location for D.
bakeri is essential for the conservation of the species because it will
reduce the probability that the plant may be extirpated by catastrophic
events. The one unoccupied unit proposed encompasses the type location
(Colman Valley location) for D. bakeri. We believe that this is
appropriate, when considering establishment of new locations, to look
first to areas where the species was once known to occur, rather than
to completely new areas. Establishment of additional D. luteum
locations has been recommended by the Center for Plant Conservation
(2002).
As a rule, we drew boundary lines for Delphinium luteum critical
habitat units to include all areas of the same soil type and in the
same canyon system as the enclosed population(s). Although all but one
recently documented population of D. luteum occurs on basically north-
facing slopes, we consistently included as critical habitat both sides
of the canyons which contain D. luteum. This was because the folds and
side canyons common to these sites can produce localized north aspected
areas even on generally south aspected canyon walls. Including both
sides of the canyons where the plant occurs can also make management of
the units easier, and provide a wider range of microhabitats for
potential population expansion.
Some units contained features which caused us to modify our general
rule of drawing boundaries based on the same soil type and canyon
system as the known population. In Unit L3, the soil boundaries
conformed well to the canyon boundaries, and also included areas of
steep-sloped canyon walls, so no further manipulation was necessary.
Unit L1 soil boundaries included several branching canyons with
numerous coastal drainage outlets, so we included those canyons which
drained to roughly the same location and excluded the others. In Unit
L2, the soil boundaries conformed well to the drainage, but because the
area thus enclosed was very small and unbranched, and because the same
soil type also occurred with suitable habitat in a separate drainage
less than half a mile away, we extended the boundaries of the unit to
include the north-facing slopes of the second drainage as bounded by
the suitable soil type. The resulting unit is still the smallest of the
four, and by including this small area of nearby habitat we can provide
the resident D. luteum population an opportunity to colonize a new
area. Given the susceptibility of D. luteum populations to extirpation
by random, uncontrollable events, the establishment of new populations
is essential to the continuing survival of the species.
Unit L4 contains the population growing in a road-cut away from
steep-sloped canyon walls, as well as the population mapped on a south-
facing slope. It also includes a third population which is located in
typical habitat but which the CNDDB lists as ``possibly extirpated''
due to the inability of several surveys to relocate it since 1982. All
three populations are mapped as growing on different soil types (CNDDB
2001). However, with two exceptions, all soil types in the area share
the rapid run-off and high erosion potential with which D. luteum is
associated. The two exceptions are the canyon floor and a small area at
the head of the canyon where the walls are not steeply sloped. We are
including these areas for contiguity of the unit and because both of
them abut the location of the population located in the road cut. Taken
together, the various soil types conform well to the main canyon
boundaries (SCS 1985) and include all the habitat requirements of the
species, so we have drawn Unit L4 largely according to the soil
boundaries as they extend down the main canyon. We did not extend the
unit up either of two large side canyons because those areas neither
contain D. luteum populations nor a soil type common to all the
populations in the unit.
Special Management Considerations
As noted in the Critical Habitat section, ``special management
considerations or protection'' is a term that originates in the
definition of critical habitat. We believe the proposed areas may
require special management considerations or protection because
Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum occupy an extremely localized range.
Potential threats to the habitat of D. bakeri include overcollection,
application of herbicides, and sheep grazing. Potential threats to the
habitat of D. luteum include overcollection, road widening, sheep
grazing, fire suppression and hybridization.
Additional special management is not required if adequate
management or protection is already in place. Adequate special
management considerations or protection is provided by a legally
operative plan or agreement that addresses the maintenance and
improvement of the primary constituent elements important to the
species and manages for the long-term conservation of the species.
Currently, no plans meeting these criteria have been developed for
Delphinium bakeri or D. luteum.
[[Page 41373]]
Special management considerations or protections may be needed to
maintain the primary constituent elements for Delphinium bakeri or D.
luteum within the units being proposed as critical habitat. In some
cases, protection of the existing habitat and current ecological
processes may be sufficient to ensure that populations of the plants
are maintained at those sites, and that they have the ability to
reproduce and disperse in surrounding habitat. In other cases, however,
active management may be needed to maintain the primary constituent
elements for the two Delphinium species. We have outlined below the
most likely kinds of special management and protection that these taxa
may require. The following actions apply to both Delphinium species,
unless otherwise noted.
(1) In all plant communities where these taxa occur, invasive,
nonnative species need to be actively controlled.
(2) The quality of water must be maintained to keep it free from
deleterious levels of herbicides or other chemical or organic
contaminants.
(3) Certain areas where these species occur may need to be fenced
to protect them from accidental or intentional trampling by humans and
livestock.
(4) Aerial application of herbicides and insecticides need to be
curtailed in the critical habitat. Exposure from drift needs to be
avoided.
(5) The appropriate level of soil disturbance needs to be
maintained (this applies only to Delphinium luteum).
(6) Existing hydrologic conditions may need to be protected by
avoiding activities that cause a change in surface or subsurface water
flows.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
The proposed critical habitat areas described below constitute our
best assessment at this time of the areas needed for the conservation
of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum. Critical habitat being proposed for
D. bakeri includes one occupied unit in Marin County, which contains
the only currently known location of D. bakeri and a second unit in
Sonoma County we believe includes the type locality for D. bakeri. The
second unit is essential because establishment of a second location for
D. bakeri is important in reducing the risk of extinction due to
catastrophic events. Critical habitat being proposed for D. luteum
includes four units that currently are occupied. These units together
contain all the D. luteum populations documented since the 1980's.
Critical habitat proposed for D. bakeri includes 740 ha (1,828 ac),
with 418 ha (1,032 ac) in Marin County and 322 ha (796 ac) in Sonoma
County. Critical habitat proposed for D. luteum includes 1,046 ha
(2,584 ac), with 554 ha (1,369 ac) in Sonoma County and 492 ha (1,215
ac) in Marin County.
Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum are known only to occur on private
lands. We are not aware of any Tribal lands in or near our proposed
critical habitat units for D. bakeri and D. luteum. However, should we
learn of any Tribal lands in the vicinity of the critical habitat
designation subsequent to this proposal, we will coordinate with the
Tribes before making a final determination as to whether any Tribal
lands should be included as critical habitat for D. bakeri or D.
luteum.
A brief description of each unit and our reasons for proposing
those areas as critical habitat are presented below.
Unit B1: Coleman Valley, Sonoma County, California
This unit is located near Coleman Valley Road west of the town of
Occidental, approximately 8.3 km (5 mi) from the coast. The 322 ha (796
ac) unit is bounded on the north side by Coleman Valley Road and
represents an area either near or at the original type locality for
Delphinium bakeri. The location of the type locality for D. bakeri was
somewhat vague, and only identified the location as Coleman Valley.
However, this unit contains an extensive north-facing slope with mesic
vegetation similar to the extant location of D. bakeri, with the
addition of coastal redwood. The Coleman Valley location of D. bakeri
represented the northern most extent of the range of this species. As
discussed above, this unit is essential for the conservation of D.
bakeri because it provides a second area separate from the existing
population for D. bakeri into which it can be reintroduced. We believe
it is important to have a second unit to reduce the likelihood that the
species may become extinct as the result of a catastrophic event. A
second geographically separate unit can provide protection from chance
events such as disease that can destroy the only remaining population.
Unit B2: Salmon Creek, Marin County, California
This unit is near the Marshall-Petaluma Road in Marin County
approximately 10 km (6 mi) from the coast. This 418 ha (1,032 acre)
unit is bounded on the north side by Salmon Creek and contains an
extensive north-facing slope that is essential to maintaining the mesic
conditions needed for Delphinium bakeri. Land in this unit is privately
owned with a County right-of-way along the road. This unit is essential
for the survival of D. bakeri because it contains the only known extant
occurrence of D. bakeri and represents the southernmost extent of the
range of this species.
Unit L1: Bodega Bay, Sonoma County, California
Unit L1 consists of 554 ha (1,369 ac) south of Bay Hill Road, near
the town of Bodega in Sonoma County, California. This unit is comprised
of Kneeland series soils, coastal prairie and scrub habitat, and is
within the fog belt that moderates the climate. This unit is essential
to the conservation of D. luteum because it contains about thirty
percent of the roughly 220 total remaining individual plants (based on
the most recent population totals provided by CNDDB and by the
discoverer of the Unit L3 population (CNDDB 2001; D. Amme, pers. comm.
2002)). Because so few D. luteum plants remain, all are essential to
the continued survival and recovery of the species. In addition, this
unit is important to the conservation of the species because it
contains two of very few remaining sites at which the species has been
recently observed. Due to the limited number of populations of D.
luteum and the high degree of threat from catastrophic events, we
believe that all recently documented occurrences are essential for the
conservation of this species.
Unit L2: Estero Americano, Marin County, California
Unit L2 is located just south of Estero Americano on the Marin
County coast. This 133 ha (328 ac) unit contains one occurrence of
Delphinium luteum, with about 134 individual plants at last count
(CNDDB 2001). It is located on Yorkville series soils that support
coastal prairie and coastal scrub habitat, and is within the fog belt
that moderates the climate. This unit is essential for the survival of
D. luteum because it contains the single largest population of the
plant, with more than half of all the individuals in the entire
species. Because so few D. luteum plants remain, all are essential to
the continued survival and recovery of the species. In addition, this
unit is important to the conservation of the species because it
contains one of very few remaining sites at which the species has been
recently observed. Due to the limited number of populations of D.
luteum and the high degree of threat from catastrophic events, we
believe that all recently documented occurrences are essential for the
conservation of this species.
[[Page 41374]]
Unit L3: Estero de San Antonio, Marin County, California
Unit L3 is located near the mouth of the Estero de San Antonio in
Marin County, and includes steep sloped canyon walls composed of
Yorkville series soils on both sides of the water channel, with coastal
prairie and coastal scrub habitat and temperatures moderated by fog.
This 166 ha (411 ac) unit contains one population of Delphinium luteum
discovered in 1993 and not yet recorded in the CNDDB. This unit is
important because it contains a recently documented but little known
population, and its position roughly halfway between Unit L4 to the
south and Units L1 and L2 to the north may help to prevent the genetic
isolation of Unit L4. It also contains the largest continuous area of
Yorkville soils of all the units. Yorkville soils are important
because, between units L2 and L3, these soils support roughly two
thirds of all individual D. luteum plants. Because a large proportion
of the remaining D. luteum individuals occur on Yorkville soils, we
believe these soils are an indicator of situations in which the plants
are likely to survive and reproduce. Therefore, we believe it is
important to protect areas which contain these soils.
Unit L4: Tomales, Marin County, California
Unit L4 is located approximately 1.4 km (1 mi) south of the town of
Tomales in Marin County. This 193 ha (476 ac) unit consists of coastal
prairie and coastal scrub within the fog belt. It contains three
populations of Delphinium luteum, but two of the populations have not
been documented since the early 1980's and one of these has been listed
as ``possibly extirpated'' by the CNDDB. The ``possibly extirpated''
population may also have actually consisted of hybrids of D. luteum and
D. nudicaule (red larkspur). The third population occurs on a road
embankment rather than in the vicinity of canyon walls. This population
was documented as recently as 2000, and was genetically tested and
confirmed to be a non-hybrid, but only one plant was seen at that time
(CNDDB 2001). This unit is important to the conservation of the species
because it contains one of very few remaining sites at which the
species has been recently observed. Due to the limited number of
populations of D. luteum and the high degree of threat from
catastrophic events, we believe that all recently documented
occurrences are essential for the conservation of this species. In
addition, this unit is important because it represents the southernmost
extent of the range of D. luteum. The population growing in the road
embankment may also provide important information on the
characteristics of managed soil disturbances which can support D.
luteum. Such information would be of great help in recovering the
species.
Table 1.--Approximate Areas of Proposed Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum Critical Habitat in Hectares (ha) (Acres
(ac)) by Land Ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species (unit) Private Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. bakeri (B1)............................ 322 ha (796 ac).................. 322 ha (796 ac)
D. bakeri (B2)............................ 418 ha (1,032 ac)................ 418 ha (1,032 ac)
D. luteum (L1)............................ 554 ha (1,369 ac)................ 554 ha (1,369 ac)
D. luteum (L2)............................ 133 ha (328 ac).................. 133 ha (328 ac)
D. luteum (L3)............................ 166 ha (411 ac).................. 166 ha (411 ac)
D. luteum (L4)............................ 193 ha (476 ac).................. 193 ha (476 ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, permit, or carry
out do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat to the extent
that the action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical
habitat for the survival and recovery of the species. Individuals,
organizations, States, local governments, and other non-Federal
entities are affected by the designation of critical habitat only if
their actions occur on Federal lands, require a Federal permit,
license, or other authorization, or involve Federal funding.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, 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 designated or proposed. 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 proposed species or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to assist
Federal agencies in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by their
proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a conference
report are advisory. We may issue a formal conference report, if
requested by the Federal action agency. Formal conference reports
include an opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if
the species was listed or critical habitat designated. We may adopt the
formal conference report as the biological opinion when the species is
listed or critical habitat designated, if no substantial new
information or changes in the action alter the content of the opinion
(see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation we
would ensure that the permitted actions do not destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the
project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives
are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during
consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the
intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of
the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are
economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director
believes would avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. Reasonable and prudent
[[Page 41375]]
alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive
redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with
implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly
variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated
critical habitat, or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical
habitat.
Activities on Federal lands that may affect Delphinium bakeri or D.
luteum or their critical habitat will require section 7 of the Act
consultation. Activities on private, State, county, or lands under
local jurisdictions requiring a permit from a Federal agency, such as a
permit from the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act permit from the
Service, or some other Federal action, including funding (e.g., Federal
Highway or Federal Emergency Management Act funding), will continue to
be subject to the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not
affecting listed species or critical habitat and actions on non-Federal
and private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or
permitted do not require section 7 consultation.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to evaluate briefly and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat or that may be affected by such
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat include those that appreciably reduce the value of critical
habitat for both the conservation of Delphinium bakeri or D. luteum.
Within critical habitat, this pertains only to those areas containing
the primary constituent elements. We note that such activities may also
jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency may directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat for Delphinium luteum or D. bakeri include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Ground disturbances which destroy or degrade primary
constituent elements of the plant (e.g., clearing, tilling, grading,
construction, road building, mining, etc.);
(2) Activities which directly or indirectly affect Delphinium
bakeri or D. luteum plants (e.g., herbicide application, heavy off-road
vehicle use, introductions of non-native herbivores, significant
unmanaged grazing during times when D. bakeri or D. luteum is producing
flowers or seeds, etc.);
(3) Activities which significantly degrade or destroy Delphinium
bakeri pollinator populations (e.g., pesticide applications); and
(4) Activities that would appreciably change the rate of erosion of
soils for Delphinium luteum such as slope stabilization; residential
and commercial development, including road building and golf course
installation; and vegetation manipulation such as clearing and grubbing
upslope from D. luteum.
Designation of critical habitat could affect the following agencies
or actions--development on private lands requiring permits from Federal
agencies, such as 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or
permits from other Federal agencies such as Housing and Urban
Development, authorization of release of biological control agents by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, road construction by Federal
Highway Administration, watershed management activities of the Natural
Resource Conservation Service, and authorization of Federal grants or
loans.
Where federally listed wildlife species occur on private lands
proposed for development, any habitat conservation plans submitted by
the applicant to secure a permit to take according to section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act would be subject to take authorization within
the Service's internal section 7 consultation on the habitat
conservation plan. Other listed species that occur in the same general
area as the Delphinium luteum include the Myrtle's silverspot butterfly
(Speyeria zerene myrtleae) and the California red-legged frog (Rana
aurora draytonii).
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will
constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the Field
Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section). Requests for copies of the regulations on
listed wildlife, and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Regional
Office, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 (telephone 503/231-
6131; FAX 503/231-6243).
Relationship to Habitat Conservation Plans and Other Planning Efforts
Currently, no habitat conservation plans (HCPs) exist that include
Delphinium bakeri or D. luteum as covered species. Subsection 4(b)(2)
of the Act allows us to exclude from critical habitat designation areas
where the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation,
provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the
species. We believe that in most instances, the benefits of excluding
HCPs from critical habitat designations will outweigh the benefits of
including them. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue
permits for the take of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful
activities. An incidental take permit application must be supported by
an HCP that identifies conservation measures that the permittee agrees
to implement for the species to minimize and mitigate the impacts of
the permitted incidental take. Although ``take'' of listed plants is
not prohibited by the Act, listed plant species may also be covered in
an HCP for wildlife species.
In the event that future HCPs covering Delphinium bakeri or D.
luteum are developed within the boundaries of the designated critical
habitat, we will work with applicants to ensure that the HCPs provide
for protection and management of habitat areas essential for the
conservation of these species. This will be accomplished by either
directing development and habitat modification to nonessential areas,
or appropriately modifying activities within essential habitat areas so
that such activities will not adversely modify the primary constituent
elements. The HCP development process would provide an opportunity for
more intensive data collection and analysis regarding the use of
particular habitat areas by D. bakeri or D. luteum. The process would
also enable us to conduct detailed evaluations of the importance of
such lands to the long-term survival of the species in the context of
constructing a biologically configured system of interlinked habitat
blocks.
We will provide technical assistance and work closely with
applicants throughout the development of any future HCPs to identify
lands essential for the long-term conservation of Delphinium bakeri or
D. luteum and appropriate management for those lands. Furthermore, we
will complete intra-Service consultation on our issuance of section
10(a)(1)(B) permits for these HCPs to ensure permit
[[Page 41376]]
issuance will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as part of
critical habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat
when such exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. We
will conduct an analysis of the economic impacts of designating these
areas as critical habitat prior to a final determination. When
completed, we will announce the availability of the draft economic
analysis with a notice in the Federal Register, and we will open a 30-
day public comment period on the draft economic analysis and proposed
rule at that time.
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined
to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including
whether the benefits of designation will outweigh any threats to the
species due to designation;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of
Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum and their habitats, and which habitats
are essential to the conservation of these species and why;
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
(4) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the
proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on
small entities or families;
(5) Economic and other values associated with designating critical
habitat for Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum such as those derived from
non-consumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, bird-watching, enhanced
watershed protection, improved air quality, increased soil retention,
``existence values,'' and reductions in administrative costs); and
(6) Whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating
public concern and comments.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials
concerning this proposal by any one of several methods: (1) You may
submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor at the
address provided in the ADDRESSES section above; (2) You may also
comment via the electronic mail (e-mail) to bakers--yellow--
larkspur@fws.gov. Please submit e-mail comments as an ASCII file
avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
Please also include ``Attn: [1018-AG96] and your name and return
address in your e-mail message.'' If you do not receive a confirmation
from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us
directly by calling our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at phone
number (916) 414-6600. Please note that the Internet address bakers--
yellow--larkspur@fws.gov will be closed out at the termination of the
public comment period; and (3) You may hand-deliver comments to our
Sacramento office (see ADDRESSES section above).
Our practice is to make comments available for public review during
regular business hours, including names and home addresses of
respondents. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their
home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the
extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold from
the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If
you wish for us to withhold your name or address, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not
consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with applicable
law, we will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and
from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials
of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in
their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available,
during normal business hours at the above address.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we will solicit the expert opinions of at least three
appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule.
The purpose of this review is to ensure listing decisions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send
these peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following
publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer
reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of
critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information received during the
60-day comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a
final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final determination may differ from
this proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if requested. Requests for public hearings must be made within 45 days
of the date of publication of this proposal within the Federal
Register. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are
requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings
in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days prior to
the first hearing.
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to
make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain
technical jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format
of the proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description
of the proposed rule in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of
the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? What else
could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address:
Exsec@ios.doi.gov.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant
[[Page 41377]]
rule and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The
Service is preparing a draft economic analysis of this proposed action.
The Service will use this analysis to meet the requirement of section
4(b)(2) of the ESA to determine the economic consequences of
designating the specific areas as critical habitat and excluding any
area from critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of
such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as part
of the critical habitat, unless failure to designate such area as
critical habitat will lead to the extinction of Delphinium bakeri or D.
luteum. This analysis will be available for public comment before
finalizing this designation. The availability of the draft economic
analysis will be announced in the Federal Register.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
This discussion is based upon the information regarding potential
economic impact that is available to the Service at this time. This
assessment of economic effect may be modified prior to final rulemaking
based upon development and review of the economic analysis being
prepared pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and E.O. 12866. This
analysis is for the purposes of compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and does not reflect the position of the Service on the
type of economic analysis required by New Mexico Cattle Growers Assn.
v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001).
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to provide
a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. SBREFA also amended the RFA to require a certification
statement. In today's rule, we are certifying that the rule will not
have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
The following discussion explains our rationale.
We must determine whether the proposed rulemaking will affect a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
organizations, such as independent non-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town
governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as small
businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and
mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities
with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less
than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction
businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special
trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. If the
proposed rulemaking will affect a substantial number of small entities,
we must determine if there will be a significant economic impact on
them.
To determine if the rule would affect a substantial number of small
entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing development,
grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting, etc.). We apply the
``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine
if certification is appropriate. In some circumstances, especially with
proposed critical habitat designations of very limited extent, we may
aggregate across all industries and consider whether the total number
of small entities affected is substantial. In estimating the numbers of
small entities potentially affected, we also consider whether their
activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by
critical habitat designation.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are
not affected by the designation. In areas where these species are
present, Federal agencies are already required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities that they fund, permit, or implement
that may affect Delphinium bakeri or D. luteum. If this critical
habitat designation is finalized, Federal agencies must also consult
with us if their activities may affect designated critical habitat.
However, we do not believe this will result in any additional
regulatory burden on Federal agencies or their applicants because
consultation would already be required due to the presence of the
listed species, and the duty to avoid adverse modification of critical
habitat would not trigger additional regulatory impacts beyond the duty
to avoid jeopardizing the species.
Even if the duty to avoid adverse modification does not trigger
additional regulatory impacts in areas where these species are present,
designation of critical habitat could result in an additional economic
burden on small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation for ongoing Federal activities. However, we have only
completed one conference and one consultation on Delphinium bakeri and
D. luteum since they were proposed for listing. As a result, the
requirement to reinitiate consultation for ongoing projects will not
affect a substantial number of small entities.
When the species are clearly not present, designation of critical
habitat could trigger additional review of Federal activities under
section 7 of the Act. Because Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum have been
listed only a relatively short time and there have been few activities
with Federal involvement in these areas during this time, there is not
a detailed history of consultations based on the listing of these
species. Therefore, for the purposes of this review and certification
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we are assuming that any future
consultations in the area proposed as critical habitat will be due to
the critical habitat designation.
No Federal lands are included in this proposed critical habitat
designation, so this rule will not affect any small entities involved
in grazing or other activities on Federal lands. On private lands,
activities that lack Federal involvement would not be affected by the
critical habitat designation. Current activities of an economic nature
that occur on private lands in the area encompassed by this proposed
designation are primarily agricultural, such as livestock grazing and
farming. Because these areas are zoned rural and not near cities or
towns, multiple-unit residential or commercial development is unlikely.
Therefore, Federal agencies such as the Economic Development
Administration, which is occasionally involved in funding municipal
projects elsewhere, is unlikely to be involved in projects in these
areas. In rural regions of Sonoma and Marin counties, previous
consultations under section 7 of the Act between us and other Federal
agencies
[[Page 41378]]
most frequently involved the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) or the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). In FHWA consultations, the
applicant is either the California State Department of Transportation
or the County, neither of which is considered a small entity as defined
here. The ACOE consultations involve wetlands or waterways and occur
due to the presence of species (or their critical habitat) that spend
at least part of their life in aquatic habitats. Delphinium bakeri and
D. luteum are upland plant species and unlikely to be the subject of
consultations with the ACOE, unless the project is very large and would
include wetlands otherwise not associated with these species. In
agricultural areas, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
occasionally funds activities on farms or ranches that require
consultation with us. We have not had any formal consultations with the
NRCS on this type of project within Marin or Sonoma counties over the
past 5 years. Sonoma and Marin counties encompass about 1.3 million
acres of land and support over 35 listed species. Based on the low
level of past activity, we expect few consultations with the NRCS or
other Federal agencies on the 4,412 acres of non-Federal lands proposed
in this rule. For these reasons, the Service determines that the number
of small entities likely to be affected by this rule will not be
substantial.
In general, two different mechanisms in section 7 consultations
could lead to additional regulatory requirements. First, if we
conclude, in a biological opinion, that a proposed action is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a species or adversely modify its
critical habitat, we can offer ``reasonable and prudent alternatives.''
Reasonable and prudent alternatives are alternative actions that can be
implemented in a manner consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and
technologically feasible, and that would avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of listed species or would result in adverse
modification of critical habitat. A Federal agency and an applicant may
elect to implement a reasonable and prudent alternative associated with
a biological opinion that has found jeopardy or adverse modification of
critical habitat. An agency or applicant could alternatively choose to
seek an exemption from the requirements of the Act or proceed without
implementing the reasonable and prudent alternative. However, unless an
exemption were obtained, the Federal agency or applicant would be at
risk of violating section 7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed
without implementing the reasonable and prudent alternatives.
Secondly, if we find that a proposed action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed animal species, we may
identify reasonable and prudent measures designed to minimize the
amount or extent of take and require the Federal agency or applicant to
implement such measures through non-discretionary terms and conditions.
However, the Act does not prohibit the take of listed plant species or
require terms and conditions to minimize adverse effect to critical
habitat. We may also identify discretionary conservation
recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a
proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, help implement
recovery plans, or to gather information that could contribute to the
recovery of the species.
Based on our experience with section 7 consultations for all listed
species, virtually all projects--including those that, in their initial
proposed form, would result in jeopardy or adverse modification
determinations in section 7 consultations--can be implemented
successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and prudent
alternatives. These measures, by definition, must be economically
feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal agency
involved in the consultation. As we have a very limited consultation
history for Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum we can only describe the
general kinds of actions that may be identified in future reasonable
and prudent alternatives. These are based on our understanding of the
needs of the species and the threats they face, especially as described
in the final listing rule and in this proposed critical habitat
designation, as well as our experience with similar listed plants in
California. In addition, the State of California listed D. bakeri and
D. luteum as rare species under the California Endangered Species Act
in 1978, and we have also considered the kinds of actions required
through State consultations for this species. The kinds of actions that
may be included in future reasonable and prudent alternatives include
conservation set-asides, management of competing non-native species,
restoration of degraded habitat, construction of protective fencing,
and regular monitoring. These measures are not likely to result in a
significant economic impact to project proponents.
In summary, we have considered whether this proposed rule would
result in a significant economic effect on a substantial number of
small entities. It would not affect a substantial number of small
entities. The entire designation likely involves fewer than 100
privately owned parcels; many of these parcels are located in areas
where likely future land uses are not expected to result in Federal
involvement or section 7 consultations. As discussed earlier, most of
the private parcels within the proposed designation are currently being
used for agricultural purposes and, therefore, are not likely to
require any Federal authorization. In the remaining areas, Federal
involvement--and thus section 7 consultations, the only trigger for
economic impact under this rule--would be limited to a subset of the
area proposed. The most likely Federal involvement could include ACOE
permits, permits we may issue under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act,
FHWA funding for road improvements, and voluntary watershed management
and restoration project funding by NRCS.
This rule would result in project modifications only when proposed
Federal activities would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
While this may occur, it is not expected frequently enough to affect a
substantial number of small entities. Even when it does occur, we do
not expect it to result in a significant economic impact, as the
measures included in reasonable and prudent alternatives must be
economically feasible and consistent with the proposed action. We
anticipate that the kinds of reasonable and prudent alternatives that
we would provide can usually be implemented at low cost. Therefore, we
are certifying that the proposed designation of critical habitat for
Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, and an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))
In the economic analysis we will determine whether designation of
critical habitat would cause (a) any effect on the economy of $100
million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or
geographic regions, or (c) any significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O.
13211) on
[[Page 41379]]
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Although this rule is
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
The Service will use the economic analysis to evaluate consistency
with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for the two Delphinium species from Marin
and Sonoma counties, California in a preliminary takings implication
assessment. This preliminary assessment concludes that this proposed
rule does not pose significant takings implications. However, we have
not yet completed the economic analysis for this proposed rule. Once
the economic analysis is available, we will review and revise this
preliminary assessment as warranted.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with the Department of the Interior policy, we
requested information from, and coordinated development of this
critical habitat designation with, the appropriate State resource
agencies in California. Where the species are present, the designation
of critical habitat imposes no additional restrictions to those
currently in place, and therefore, has little environmental impact on
State and local governments and their activities. The designation may
have some benefit to these governments in that the areas essential to
the conservation of these species are more clearly defined, and the
primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the survival
of the species are identified. While this definition and identification
does not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur
it may assist these local governments in long range planning (rather
than waiting for case-by-case section 7 consultation to occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the
Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does
not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are proposing to designate
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered
Species Act. The rule uses standard property descriptions and
identifies the principal constituent element within the designated
areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of
Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not
impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local
governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined we do not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement, as defined by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with regulations adopted
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. We
published a notice outlining our reason for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This proposed rule
does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with
federally recognized Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. We
have determined that there are currently no Tribal lands essential for
the conservation of Delphinium bakeri or D. luteum because they do not
support populations, nor do they provide essential habitat. Therefore,
critical habitat for D. bakeri and D. luteum has not been designated on
Tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section)
Author
The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff of the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to 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. In Sec. 17.12(h) revise the entries for ``Delphinium luteum''
and for ``Delphinium bakeri,'' under ``FLOWERING PLANTS,'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
[[Page 41380]]
* * * * * * *
Delphinium bakeri................ Baker's larkspur.... U.S.A. (CA)........ Ranunculaceae...... E 681 17.96(b) NA
Delphinium luteum................ Yellow larkspur..... U.S.A. (CA)........ Ranunculaceae...... E 681 17.96(b) NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 17.96, as proposed to be amended at 65 FR 66865,
November 7, 2000, amend paragraph (b) by adding critical habitat for
Delphinium bakeri and for Delphinium luteum in alphabetical order under
Family Ranunculaceae to read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Family Ranunculaceae: Delphinium bakeri (Baker's larkspur)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Sonoma and Marin
counties, California, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Delphinium bakeri are the habitat components that provide:
(i) Soils that are derived from decomposed shale;
(ii) Plant communities that support associated species, including,
but not limited to: Umbellularia californica (California bay), Aesculus
californica (California buckeye), and Quercus agrifolia (coastal live
oak). Other native plants associated with D. bakeri include--Baccharis
pulularis ssp. consanguinea (coyotebrush), Symphorcarpos cf. rivularis
(snowberry), Rubus ursinus (California blackberry), Pteridium aqulinum
(braken fern), Polystichum munitum (Sword fern), Pityrogramma
triangularis (goldback fern), Dryopteris arguta (coastal woodfern),
Adiantum jordanii (maidenhair fern), and Polypodium glycyrrhiza
(licorice fern); and
(iii) Mesic conditions on extensive north-facing slopes.
(3) Critical habitat does not include existing man-made features
and structures, such as buildings, roads, aqueducts, railroads, airport
runways and buildings, other paved areas, lawns, and other urban
landscaped areas not containing one or more of the primary constituent
elements.
(4) Critical Habitat Map Units.
(i) Data layers defining map units were created on a base of USGS
7.5' quadrangles obtained from the State of California's Stephen P.
Teale Data Center. Proposed critical habitat units were then mapped
using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
(ii) Map 1--Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 41381]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JN02.011
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 41382]]
(5) Unit B1: Sonoma County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Camp Meeker and Duncan
Hills, California, land bounded by the following UTM10 NAD83
coordinates (E,N): 498360, 4249440; 498030, 4249650; 498040, 4249990;
498160, 4250150; 498430, 4250320; 498420, 4250440; 499140, 4250680;
499380, 4250710; 499510, 4250490; 499840, 4250710; 499880, 4250840;
500250, 4250840; 500580, 4250770; 500730, 4250780; 501020, 4250950;
501080, 4251070; 501360, 4251270; 501520, 4251370; 501730, 4251520;
502100, 4251370; 502190, 4251180; 502120, 4251090; 501830, 4251060;
501570, 4250750; 501380, 4250720; 501400, 4250360; 501230, 4250330;
501090, 4250220; 501070, 4250030; 500720, 4249960; 500550, 4249990;
500220, 4249930; 500190, 4249700; 499680, 4249760; 499520, 4249850;
499250, 4249830; 499210, 4249730; 498880, 4249750; 498620, 4250050;
498600, 4249490; 498360, 4249440
(ii) Map 2--Unit B1 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 41383]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JN02.012
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 41384]]
(6) Unit B2: Marin County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Petaluma and Point Reyes NE,
California, land bounded by the following UTM10 NAD83 coordinates
(E,N): 521780, 4222900; 521560, 4223000; 521350, 4223070; 521230,
4223130; 520980, 4223320; 520890, 4223460; 520680, 4223430; 520220,
4223440; 520100, 4223460; 519940, 4223460; 519870, 4223360; 519720,
4223280; 519510, 4223340; 519400, 4223480; 519350, 4223630; 519360,
4223760; 519410, 4223800; 519530, 4223970; 519640, 4224090; 519830,
4224140; 519980, 4224160; 520440, 4224100; 520760, 4224100; 520990,
4224170; 521130, 4224160; 521460, 4224080; 521740, 4223960; 521820,
4223870; 521960, 4223770; 522130, 4223810; 522290, 4224000; 522320,
4224070; 522480, 4224160; 522550, 4224310; 522830, 4224380; 523160,
4224240; 523340, 4224250; 523470, 4224360; 523660, 4224430; 523750,
4224480; 523920, 4224510; 524070, 4224620; 524460, 4224710; 524860,
4224530; 525010, 4224370; 525030, 4224250; 524690, 4224190; 524590,
4224200; 524360, 4224100; 524280, 4223950; 524050, 4223780; 523920,
4223650; 523700, 4223480; 523600, 4223640; 523480, 4223720; 523210,
4223700; 522880, 4223510; 522650, 4223450; 522370, 4223230; 522170,
4223120; 522050, 4223080; 521860, 4222980; 521780, 4222900
(ii) Map 3--Unit B2 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 41385]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JN02.013
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 41386]]
Family Ranunculaceae: Delphinium luteum (Yellow larkspur)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Sonoma and Marin
counties, California, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Delphinium luteum are the habitat components that provide:
(i) Plant communities that support the appropriate associated
species, including north coastal scrub or coastal prairie communities;
(ii) Soils derived from sandstone or shale, with rapid runoff and
high erosion potential, such as Kneeland or Yorkville series soils;
(iii) Generally north aspected areas near steep sloped canyon
walls; and
(iv) Habitat upslope and downslope from known populations to
maintain disturbance such as occasional rock slides or soil slumping
that the species appears to require.
(3) Critical habitat does not include man-made existing features
and structures, such as buildings, roads, aqueducts, railroads, airport
runways and buildings, other paved areas, lawns, and other urban
landscaped areas not containing one or more of the primary constituent
elements.
(4) Critical Habitat Map Units.
(i) Data layers defining map units were created on a base of USGS
7.5' quadrangles obtained from the State of California's Stephen P.
Teale Data Center. Proposed critical habitat units were then mapped
using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
(i) Index map follows.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 41387]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JN02.014
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 41388]]
(5) Unit L1:-Bodega Bay, Sonoma County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Bodega Head. Lands bounded by
the following UTM10 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 496820, 4241560; 496870,
4241690; 497130, 4241990; 497110, 4242130; 497170, 4242240; 497250,
4242220; 497470, 4242550; 497440, 4242700; 497930, 4242940; 498340,
4242940; 498430, 4243040; 498640, 4242960; 498720, 4243080; 499110,
4243090; 499410, 4242960; 499690, 4242760; 499650, 4242560; 500250,
4242210; 500030, 4241880; 500140, 4241320; 499900, 4240730; 499750,
4240650; 498690, 4240750; 498220, 4241010; 497940, 4241050; 497590,
4241010; 497450, 4241220; 497500, 4241630; 497750, 4241830; 497760,
4241970; 497720, 4242010; 497630, 4242010; 497520, 4241940; 497480,
4241850; 497320, 4241860; 497170, 4241680; 497100, 4241500; 497030,
4241410; 496910, 4241440; 496820, 4241560;
(6) Unit L2: Estero Americano, Marin County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Valley Ford. Lands bounded by
the following UTM10 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 499970, 4238100; 500010,
4238150; 500010, 4238240; 499870, 4238480; 500010, 4238710; 500140,
4238860; 500280, 4238940; 500470, 4238970; 500580, 4239030; 500630,
4239070; 500720, 4239040; 500850, 4238840; 500890, 4238860; 500970,
4238830; 501050, 4238740; 501170, 4238740; 501180, 4238650; 501300,
4238460; 501440, 4238320; 501510, 4238120; 501340, 4238000; 501270,
4238010; 501190, 4238000; 501120, 4238010; 500900, 4237990; 500870,
4237960; 500860, 4237860; 500730, 4237850; 500570, 4237760; 500470,
4237800; 500380, 4237730; 500250, 4237890; 500240, 4237940; 500180,
4237980; 499990, 4238060; 499970, 4238100
(ii) Map 2--Units L1 and L2 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 41389]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JN02.015
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 41390]]
(7) Unit L3: Estero de San Antonio, Marin County, California.
From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Valley Ford. Lands bounded by the
following UTM10 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 502060, 4235600; 502110,
4235750; 502230, 4235770; 502300, 4235840; 502350, 4235930; 502370,
4236030; 502410, 4236100; 502510, 4236150; 502700, 4236150; 502900,
4235910; 503010, 4235860; 502900, 4236160; 502870, 4236120; 502700,
4236260; 502880, 4236400; 503060, 4236370; 503130, 4236240; 503070,
4236180; 503090, 4236010; 503200, 4235950; 503260, 4235990; 503170,
4236090; 503280, 4236180; 503410, 4236100; 503470, 4236040; 503430,
4235810; 503460, 4235720; 503600, 4235580; 503800, 4235490; 503950,
4235300; 504020, 4235010; 504030, 4234810; 504000, 4234630; 503920,
4234390; 503780, 4234410; 503780, 4234890; 503710, 4234990; 503610,
4234970; 503520, 4234840; 503560, 4234620; 503580, 4234470; 503520,
4234440; 503350, 4234580; 503360, 4234710; 503250, 4234860; 502990,
4234970; 502950, 4235100; 502700, 4235170; 502710, 4235260; 502810,
4235330; 502800, 4235510; 502580, 4235480; 502510, 4235510; 502530,
4235580; 502390, 4235560; 502310, 4235470; 502200, 4235470; 502060,
4235600;
(8) Unit L4: Tomales, Marin County, California
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Tomales. Lands bounded by the
following UTM10 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 506200, 4229650; 506000,
4229960; 506040, 4230020; 506330, 4230130; 506450, 4230630; 506550,
4230640; 506760, 4230830; 506840, 4231090; 507070, 4231150; 507230,
4231260; 507340, 4231460; 507170, 4231740; 507270, 4231860; 507400,
4231820; 507550, 4231930; 507660, 4231930; 507780, 4232080; 507810,
4232220; 507870, 4232340; 507990, 4232290; 508250, 4232250; 508320,
4232050; 508110, 4231810; 508090, 4231660; 507960, 4231700; 507920,
4231670; 507950, 4231580; 507630, 4231410; 507520, 4231200; 507560,
4230830; 507560, 4230620; 507510, 4230590; 507490, 4230470; 507440,
4230300; 507440, 4230220; 507330, 4230050; 507300, 4229930; 507320,
4229820; 507310, 4229770; 507230, 4229730; 507060, 4229730; 506960,
4229740; 506780, 4229830; 506710, 4229840; 506580, 4229790; 506600,
4229860; 506720, 4230150; 506770, 4230340; 506640, 4230230; 506460,
4230020; 506200, 4229650;
(ii) Map 7--Units L3 and L4 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 41391]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JN02.016
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 41392]]
* * * * *
Dated: June 11, 2002.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-15340 Filed 6-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Browse by Year
/ 2002
/ June
/ Tuesday, June 18, 2002
Loans - Debt Consolidation - Phoenix Pools - Credit Cards
|
|
