[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65414-65445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-26768]



[[Page 65413]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Chlorogalum purpureum, a Plant From the South 
Coast Ranges of California; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2002 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 65414]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AG75


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation 
of Critical Habitat for Chlorogalum purpureum, a Plant From the South 
Coast Ranges of California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), for two varieties of purple amole: Chlorogalum purpureum 
var. purpureum (purple amole) and Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum 
(Camatta Canyon amole). A total of approximately 2,443 ha (5,910 ac) of 
land fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. 
Critical habitat is located in San Luis Obispo and Monterey counties, 
California. Located on Federal, State, and private lands, this critical 
habitat designation will require consultation by the Service under 
section 7 of the Act on 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 solicited data and comments from the public on all 
aspects of this proposal, including data on economic and other impacts 
of the designation.
    We have revised the proposal to eliminate lands at Camp Roberts 
under section 3(5)(A), and lands at Ft. Hunter Liggett under section 
4(b)(2). It is our policy that if any areas containing the primary 
constituent elements are currently being managed to address the 
conservation needs of Chlorogalum purpureum management or protection, 
these areas would not meet the definition of critical habitat in 
section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and would not be included in this final 
rule. We have determined that this is the case at Camp Roberts due to 
their having an approved Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 
which addresses the conservation needs of Chlorogalum purpureum.
    We have also determined that the direct and indirect costs to the 
Army, including reduction in military readiness, from designation of 
critical habitat at Ft. Hunter Liggett are such that the benefits of 
excluding those lands exceed the benefits of their inclusion.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on November 25, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used, in the preparation of this final rule will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA, 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, Ventura 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 805/644-
1766; facsimile 805/644-3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The genus Chlorogalum is a member of Liliaceae (lily family). 
Chlorogalum purpureum is endemic to clay soils that occur in the south 
coast ranges of Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties. Chlorogalum 
purpureum var. purpureum occurs in the Santa Lucia Range of southern 
Monterey County on lands managed by the U.S. Army Reserve (Army 
Reserve) at Fort Hunter Liggett, and in northern San Luis Obispo County 
on lands managed by the California Army National Guard (CANG) at Camp 
Roberts. Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum occurs in one region of 
the La Panza Range of San Luis Obispo County on both private lands and 
public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (the Los Padres 
National Forest (LPNF)) and California Department of Transportation 
(CalTrans). The two varieties of Chlorogalum were listed as threatened 
species on March 20, 2000 (65 FR 14878).
    Chlorogalum purpureum is a low-growing lily that forms a rosette at 
the base of the plant (basal rosette) that is made up of linear and 
flat, bright green leaves. It is the only member of the genus 
Chlorogalum with bluish-purple flowers that open during daylight hours. 
Chlorogalum purpureum produces a rosette of typically 4 to 7 basal 
leaves that are 2 to 5 millimeters (mm) (0.1 to 0.2 inch (in)) wide 
with wavy margins. The bulb is between 2.5 and 3 centimeters (cm) (0.98 
to 1.2 in) and is found in the upper few inches of soil. The 
inflorescence (flower-cluster of a plant or arrangement of the flowers 
on the flowering stalk) produces bluish-purple flowers in a raceme 
(single stem with multiple branches). Each flower has six ovules 
(structure that develops into a seed if fertilized), six tepals (petals 
and sepals that appear similar), and six stamens (pollen-producing male 
organs) with bright yellow anthers (pollen sacs). Most fruits that have 
been examined, both in the field and under cultivation, produce between 
three and six seeds (D. Wilken, Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, in litt., 
2001). Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum has an inflorescence that 
is 25 to 40 cm (10 to 16 in) high, in contrast to C. p. var. reductum 
which has a shorter inflorescence that is 10 to 20 cm (4 to 8 in) high 
(Hoover 1964, Jernstedt 1993, Wilken 2000). Studies are currently 
underway to examine the phylogenetic relationships within Chlorogalum 
species (D. Wilken, in litt., 2001).
    Chlorogalum purpureum is a summer-dormant perennial herb that forms 
a bulb. The inflorescence develops during early spring, followed by 
flowering and fruit development during May and June. By the time the 
fruit has matured, the leaves wither and the inflorescence dries and 
turns light brown in color. Reproduction is primarily by seed, and the 
seed set apparently increases with insect pollination (D. Wilken, in 
litt., 1998). Like other members of the lily family, C. purpureum is 
probably in a mycorrhizal relationship with a fungus (a close 
association between the plant and soil fungus, where the fungus aids in 
nutrient and water uptake), which can alter growth and competitive 
interactions between species (Allen 1991). The taxon has also been 
observed to grow on undisturbed soils that are cryptogamic or have 
cryptogamic crusts (E. L. Painter, pers. comm., 2002). Cryptogamic 
crusts consist of nonvascular photosynthetic plants (primarily 
cyanobacteria, green algae, lichens, and mosses) that protect the soils 
from erosion, aid in water infiltration, augment sites for seed 
germination, aid in carbon and nitrogen fixation, and increase soil 
nutrients (Beymer 1992, Belnap et al. 2001). These special crusts may 
enhance the habitat conditions (e.g., retain soil moisture, reduce wind 
and water erosion, contribute to soil organic matter, etc.), thus 
increasing the likelihood that young bulbs will survive over the long 
term. Although the relationship is not well understood and more 
research is needed, presence of cryptogamic crusts is also known to 
discourage annual weed growth by functioning as a living mulch (Belnap 
et al. 2001).
Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum
    Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum is located on Fort Hunter 
Liggett and Camp Roberts military

[[Page 65415]]

lands, which are located on the eastern side of the Santa Lucia Range 
in southern Monterey and northern San Luis Obispo counties. The known 
populations primarily exist within an open grassland community, with a 
smaller number of individuals found within scattered oak woodland 
communities and open areas within shrubland communities. A low amount 
of cover of herbaceous species is present, possibly reducing 
competition for resources. Cryptogamic crusts are frequently found 
where C. p. var. purpureum occurs in areas that have had little to no 
disturbance (E. L. Painter, pers. comm., 2001).
    The species was first described by Townsend Stith Brandegee in 
1893. Following the initial collection and description, historic 
occurrences of plants were identified at ``Milpitas Ranch,'' ``the 
plain west of Jolon,'' ``near Jolon,'' ``open grassy areas near 
Jolon,'' and a number of other locations within what is currently Fort 
Hunter Liggett property (Hoover 1940, Skinner and Pavlik 1994, Matthews 
1997 and Painter 1999 in Wilken 2000). Although currently known to 
exist only on military property at Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp 
Roberts, recent surveys along the boundary of Training Area 13 at Fort 
Hunter Liggett suggest that the species may be found on privately-owned 
property adjacent to Fort Hunter Liggett (Wilken 2000).
    While a thorough survey of the installation has not yet been 
completed, Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum has been found at a 
number of sites on Fort Hunter Liggett, including the cantonment, 
Ammunition Supply Point (ASP), and Training Areas 10, 13, 22, 23, 24, 
and 25. Surveys of C. p. var. purpureum conducted at Fort Hunter 
Liggett have found the plants to occur in scattered clusters. Recent 
surveys have characterized the species' habitat, including general soil 
types, topography, and microhabitat communities. Depending on the 
location, plants may occur on both deep and relatively thin soils 
(Wilken 2000). Most of the soils are loamy, underlain by clay, and 
support fine gravel on the surface that is generally less than 5 mm 
(0.2 in) in diameter (Wilken 2000). Cryptogamic crusts with a dominant 
component of early-stage cyanobacteria have been observed frequently on 
the installation; advanced-stage cryptogamic crusts, that include 
mosses, have been observed in areas of the cantonment where little to 
no activities appear to have disturbed the sites (E. L. Painter, pers. 
comm., 2001, 2002). Cyanobacterial organisms within a cryptogamic crust 
may be visible as black filaments on or near the soil's surface, 
primarily when soil conditions are moist (Belnap et al. 2001).
    During surveys conducted in 1999, most (78 percent) of the sites 
where the species occurs were associated with flat topography (Wilken 
2000). The majority of the other sites were on slopes of less than 10 
percent (Wilken 2000). Sites were commonly associated with flat 
topography or found along the base of hills; a few populations occurred 
along ridge-top terraces (H. Crowell, Service, pers. obs., 2001; D. 
Wilken, in litt., 2001; Wilken 2000). These areas are between 300 and 
620 meters (m) (1,000 and 2,050 feet (ft)) in elevation. Examination of 
digital data shows a small percentage of plants occur on slopes up to 
50 percent at Fort Hunter Liggett. No strong association appears to 
exist between presence of plants and slope aspect (Wilken 2000).
    Of the known sites surveyed in 1999, approximately 42 percent were 
found in grassland communities, 29 percent were found between tree 
canopies in oak savanna or woodland communities, 13 percent were found 
to occur along ecotones between grassland and either oak woodland or 
shrubland communities, and the remaining were located within open areas 
between shrub species, most commonly Eriogonum fasciculatum (California 
buckwheat) and Adenostoma fasciculatum (chamise) (Wilken 2000). Within 
the grassland community, the most common grass species (e.g., nonnative 
A. caryophylla and B. hordeaceus) did not always dominate in terms of 
frequency or cover; the most frequent species were native annual forbs 
such as Lasthenia californica, Linanthus liniflorus, Micropus 
californicus, and Navarretia spp. (Navarretia) (Wilken 2000). Insect 
species, which may contribute to C. p. var. purpureum pollination, were 
observed during recent surveys and include unidentified native bees and 
an unidentified, small blue butterfly (L. Clark, Fort Hunter Liggett, 
pers. comm., 2002). Detailed studies of pollinators need to be 
conducted. During surveys conducted by the Fort Hunter Liggett 
Environmental Office since 1999, new patches of plants have been 
documented within the same range and localities of known occurrences 
(i.e., Training Areas 10, 13, 22, 25, the ASP and the Cantonment.)
    Surveys conducted at Camp Roberts have led to the discovery of 
Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum at one location on the west side 
of the installation. This occurrence is almost entirely restricted to 
claypan soils, which are frequently cryptogamic (CANG 2001a). The C. p. 
var. purpureum population (estimated at approximately 10,000 
individuals in 2000 and over 200,000 individuals in 2001) at Camp 
Roberts occupies approximately 81 ha (200 ac) and occurs in annual 
grasslands north of the Nacimiento River in Training Areas O2 and O3 
(CANG 2001a). Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum predominately occurs 
on soils with a high concentration of pebbles or gravel underlain by 
hard-packed clay (CANG 2001a). The claypan soils are of the Placentia 
complex (sandy loam soils, underlain by clay soils, which become very 
hard on a 5 to 9 percent slope), with a much smaller percentage of 
plants occurring on the Arbuckle-Positas complex (very deep, well-
drained sandy and gravelly loam soils with a 9 to15 percent slope) 
(USDA 2000, CANG 2001a). As at Fort Hunter Liggett, the frequently 
observed cryptogamic soil crusts are composed primarily of 
cyanobacteria (E. L. Painter, pers. comm., 2001). The elevation of the 
C. p. var. purpureum population is lower than what is found at Fort 
Hunter Liggett, ranging between 244 and 256 m (800 and 840 ft) at Camp 
Roberts. At Camp Roberts, C. p. var. purpureum occupies microhabitat 
sites found within open grasslands or surrounded by scattered oak 
woodlands. Little cover by other grasses and forbs is present where 
Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum is found. Common plant associates 
include Erodium spp., Hemizonia spp. (tarplant, tarweed), Trichostema 
lanceolatum (vinegar weed), Eremocarpus setigerus (turkey mullein, dove 
weed), Bromus spp. (brome), Amsinckia spp. (fiddleneck), and Nassella 
spp. (needlegrass) (J. Olson in CANG 2001a). During recent surveys, 
Erodium spp. were the most common associate (J. Olson in CANG 2001a). 
Based on their recent surveys, researchers at Camp Roberts believe 
grazing by sheep (through a Camp Roberts agricultural lease) may be 
beneficial to C. p. var. purpureum by reducing competition from 
nonnative herbaceous species and found that the direct impact to the 
plants was minimal during surveys (CANG 2000a). However, more research 
is needed to test this hypothesis.
Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum
    Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum has been found at only two 
sites in central San Luis Obispo County. The larger site, located near 
Camatta Canyon, is located on both sides of the two-lane State highway 
58 on a narrow, flat-topped ridge that supports blue oak savannah on 
Forest Service lands within

[[Page 65416]]

the LPNF. The population continues north of the highway on private 
lands. A few plants (213 individuals counted in 2000) also exist on the 
right-of-way along the highway, which is designated as a Botanical 
Management Area by CalTrans (J. Luchetta, CalTrans, in litt., 2001). 
The taxon occurs on hard, red claypan soils on flat or gently sloping 
terrain. Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum occupies microhabitat 
sites found within open grasslands, oak (Quercus douglasii) woodlands 
and oak savannah, and open areas between shrub species, most commonly 
chamise (Borchert 1981, Warner 1991). Cover from other herbaceous 
species is minimal, with most herbaceous species not growing above 10 
cm (4 in) high (Borchert 1981). As with C. p. var. purpureum, plants 
appear to be associated with a cryptogamic crust (E. L. Painter, pers. 
comm., 1998). The elevation of the larger site, located near Camatta 
Canyon, is between 305 and 625 m (1,000 and 2,050 ft). This population 
is estimated to cover approximately 3 ha (8 ac) on the south side of 
the highway, with additional plants found on private property on the 
north side of the highway covering likely a smaller amount of area 
(Gaskin 1990, Lopez 1992). Site visits during 2001 revealed a decrease 
in the number of flowering plants compared to 1994 and 1995 (A. Koch, 
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), pers. comm., 2001). The 
second site is located approximately 5 to 8 kilometers (km) (3 to 5 
miles (mi)) south of the large site and is estimated to occupy less 
than 0.1 ha (0.25 ac), consisting of several hundred plants in two or 
more patches on private land (D. Chipping, California Polytechnic State 
University, in litt., 1997; A. Koch, pers. comm., 2001).
    The well-drained red clay soils where this taxon occurs contain a 
large amount of gravel and pebbles (Hoover 1964, Lopez 1992). A soil 
survey at LPNF found this general area to be made up of the Modesto-
Yorba-Agua Dulce families of soils. Modesto soils (30 percent) are 
soft, grayish-brown coarse sandy loams with 10 percent pebbles. Yorba 
soils (30 percent) are slightly hard, light olive-brown loams with 10 
percent pebbles. Agua Dulce soils (25 percent) are soft, brown sandy 
loams with 10 percent pebbles and 2 percent cobbles (USDA 1993). 
However, this soil survey may have been too general to have captured 
the exact soil type at this site. A substantial amount of gopher 
activity has been observed surrounding, but not within, the large 
Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum population, suggesting that the 
hard soils where the plant occurs may be difficult for gophers to move 
through (M. Borchert, LPNF, pers. comm., 2001). Native plants 
associated with C. p. var. reductum include Achyrachaena mollis (blow-
wives); chamise; Allium spp. (onion); Brodiaea coronaria (crown 
brodiaea); Calystegia malacophylla (morning-glory, Sierra false 
bindweed); Clarkia purpurea (winecup clarkia); Crassula erecta (= 
Crassula connata var. connata, sand pygmy weed); Dichelostemma 
pulchellum (= Dichelostemma capitatum ssp. capitatum, blue dicks); 
Erigonum elongatum (wild or longstem buckwheat); Eriogonum fasciculatum 
(California buckwheat); Lasthenia chrysostoma (goldfields); Layia 
platyglossa (tidy-tips); Lepidium spp. (peppergrass); Linanthus 
liniflorus (narrow flowered flaxflower); Lupinus spp. (lupine), 
including L. concinnus (Bajada lupine); Malacothrix spp. (desert 
dandelion); Matricaria matricarioides (pineapple weed); Micropus 
californicus (slender cottonweed); Castilleja spp. (Indian paintbrush); 
Triphysaria spp. (owl's clover); Pinus sabiniana (gray or foothill 
pine); Plagiobothrys nothofulvus (popcorn flower); Poa spp. 
(bluegrass); Quercus douglasii (blue oak); Quercus lobata (valley oak); 
Sanicula spp. (sanicle), including Sanicula bipinnatifida (purple 
sanicle); Vulpia microtachys var. pauciflora (Pacific fescue); and 
Zigadenus spp. (death camas); and nonnative plants, including Avena 
barbata (slender wild oat), Bromus hordeaceus (soft brome), Bromus 
rubens (red brome), Erodium botrys and E. moschatum (storksbill, 
filaree), Hypochaeris glabra (smooth cat's ear), and Schismus barbatus 
(Mediterranean grass).
    Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum and C. p. var. reductum appear 
to be narrowly distributed. Some discontinuities in their distribution 
are likely due to unsuitable intervening habitat and establishment of 
roadways that fragment the existing patches of plants. In addition, C. 
p. var. purpureum distribution was likely affected by the settlement of 
Jolon in Monterey County, row crop farming, establishment of nonnative 
invasive plant species such as Centuarea solstitialis (yellow star-
thistle) and annual nonnative grasses, and possibly the establishment 
of the San Antonio Reservoir in southern Monterey County. Habitats for 
both varieties of Chlorogalum may change as a result of rainfall, 
fires, and other naturally occurring events. These factors may cause 
the habitat suitability of given areas to vary over time, thus 
affecting the distribution of C. p. var. purpureum and C. p. var. 
reductum.

Previous Federal Action

    Federal actions for Chlorogalum purpureum began when a report 
(House Doc. No. 94-51) of plants considered to be endangered, 
threatened, or extinct in the United States was prepared by the 
Smithsonian Institution and presented to Congress on January 9, 1975. 
Both C. p. var. purpureum and C. p. var. reductum were included as 
endangered plant species. On July 1, 1975, the Service published a 
notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 27823) stating its acceptance of 
the report as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) 
(petition provisions are now found in section 4(b)(3)) of the Act and 
its intention to review the status of the plant taxa named therein.
    On June 16, 1976, the Service published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register (41 FR 24523) to determine approximately 1,700 
vascular plant species to be endangered species pursuant to section 4 
of the Act. This list included Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum and 
C. p. var. reductum based on comments and data received by the 
Smithsonian Institution and the Service in response to House Document 
No. 94-51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication. In 1978, 
amendments to the Endangered Species Act required that all proposals 
more than two years old be withdrawn. On December 10, 1979, the Service 
withdrew the portion of the June 16, 1976 proposal that had not been 
made final, including C. p. var. purpureum and C. p. var. reductum.
    On December 15, 1980, the Service published an updated Candidate 
Notice of Review for plants (45 FR 82480) which included Chlorogalum 
purpureum var. purpureum and C. p. var. reductum as category 2 
candidates (species for which data in our possession indicated listing 
may be appropriate, but for which additional biological information was 
needed to support a proposed rule). Both Chlorogalum taxa were included 
in the revised plant notices of review that were published on September 
27, 1985 (50 FR 39526), February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), and September 
30, 1993 (58 FR 51144) as category 1 candidates (species for which we 
had on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and 
threats to support the preparation of listing proposals, but issuance 
of the proposed rule was precluded by other pending listing proposals 
of higher priority). In the Notice of Review published February 28, 
1996 (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the use of

[[Page 65417]]

different categories of candidates, and defined ``candidate species'' 
as those meeting the definition of former category 1. We maintained C. 
purpureum var. purpureum and C. p. var. reductum as candidate taxa in 
that Notice.
    The proposed rule to list both varieties of Chlorogalum purpureum 
as threatened species was published in the Federal Register on March 
30, 1998 (63 FR 15158). The final rule listing them as threatened was 
published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2000 (65 FR 14878).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time 
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical 
habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations 
exist--(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical 
habitat would not be beneficial to the species. At the time Chlorogalum 
purpureum was listed, we found that designation of critical habitat was 
prudent but not determinable and stated that we would designate 
critical habitat once we had gathered the necessary data.
    On June 17, 1999, our failure to issue final rules for listing 
Chlorogalum purpureum and eight 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. Babbitt 
(Case No. C99-2992 (N.D.Cal.)). On May 22, 2000, the judge signed an 
order for the Service to propose critical habitat for the species by 
September 30, 2001, and to make a final critical habitat designation 
for the species by May 1, 2002. Subsequently, the parties agreed to 
extend the deadline to submit a proposed critical habitat designation 
for publication in the Federal Register to November 2, 2001 and a final 
critical habitat designation to October 11, 2002. The proposed rule to 
designate critical habitat for the species was published on November 8, 
2001 (67 FR 56508). In the proposal, we proposed to designate 
approximately 8,898 ha (21,980 ac) of land in Monterey and San Luis 
Obispo counties as critical habitat. The publication of the proposed 
rule opened a 60-day public comment period, which was scheduled to 
close on January 7, 2002. Due to unforeseen circumstances resulting 
from the closure of the Department of the Interior's internet service 
and subsequent inability for public comments to be sent through 
electronic mail by the closing date, comments were accepted until 
January 14, 2002. On May 7, 2002 we published a notice of availability 
of the draft economic analysis on the proposed determination (67 FR 
30644). On May 15, 2002, we published a notice in the Monterey Herald 
and the San Luis Obispo Telegram Tribune announcing the reopening of 
the comment period on the proposal to designate critical habitat for C. 
purpureum. This second public comment period closed on June 6, 2002.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We solicited comments from appropriate Federal, State, and local 
agencies, scientific organizations, and other interested parties. 
Additionally, we invited public comment through the publication of a 
notice in the Monterey Herald on November 15, 2001, and in the San Luis 
Obispo Telegram Tribune on November 16, 2001, on the proposed critical 
habitat; we invited public comment again on May 15, 2002, for the 
publication of the draft economic analysis. We received individually 
written letters from 24 parties, which included 5 designated peer 
reviewers, 5 Federal agencies, 1 county jurisdiction outside of 
California, and 13 private citizens or interested nonprofit 
organizations. One Federal agency provided a letter commenting on the 
proposed critical habitat and one commenting on the draft economic 
analysis. One additional letter was received from a private party after 
the closing date. Of the 24 parties responding individually, 20 
supported the proposed designation, 4 were opposed, and no responses 
were neutral. Ten of the individual letters that supported the proposal 
appeared to be identical. The four commenters opposing the proposal 
specifically opposed designation of critical habitat on lands they own 
or manage on Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts and requested that 
these areas be excluded from critical habitat designation.
    We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues and new 
information regarding critical habitat and Chlorogalum purpureum. 
Similar comments were grouped into four general issues (i.e., 
Biological Justification and Methodology, Economic Analysis, Site-
specific Areas and Other Comments, Legal and Procedural Comments) 
relating specifically to the proposed critical habitat determination 
and draft economic analysis on the proposed determination. These are 
addressed in the following summary.

Issue 1: Biological Justification and Methodology

    Comment 1: The proposed rule was not based on the best scientific 
data available, thus resulting in a ``broad-brush'' approach to the 
critical habitat proposal. The commenter believed the proposed critical 
habitat includes lands that do not contain the primary constituent 
elements (especially soils and plant communities).
    Our Response: We disagree that the rule was not based on the best 
scientific data available. As stated in the proposed rule, we are 
required to make decisions based on the best information available at 
the time of designation. Our policy on information standards is found 
under the section entitled ``Critical Habitat'' in the rule. It states 
that we should use the listing package for the species as well as 
additional information obtained from recovery plans, articles in peer-
reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by states and counties, 
scientific status surveys and studies, and biological assessments or 
other unpublished materials (i.e., gray literature). In addition, we 
have consulted with biologists and experts who are familiar either with 
the species or the geographic area in which it occurs. The final 
critical habitat rule also incorporates new life-history information 
submitted during the comment periods by Fort Hunter Liggett and various 
individuals. Many new locations of Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum 
were reported to us following the publication of the proposed rule. In 
all cases, these sites occurred within the proposed critical habitat 
boundary. Therefore, we are confident that the GIS model we used to 
identify the proposed critical habitat boundaries represents the best 
current assessment of habitat that is essential for the long-term 
conservation of this taxon.
    As stated in the proposed and final rules under the section 
entitled ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat,'' we made an 
effort to avoid developed areas, structures, facilities, or unsuitable 
areas that are unlikely to contain the primary constituent elements of 
Chlorogalum purpureum habitat. However, we did not map critical habitat 
in sufficient detail to exclude all areas not likely to contain the 
primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of the 
species (i.e., too small a scale). Federal actions conducted in areas 
within the boundaries of the mapped

[[Page 65418]]

units that do not contain any of the primary constituent elements 
therefore would not trigger a section 7 consultation unless those 
activities may affect the species or primary constituent elements in 
the adjacent critical habitat.
    Comment 2: Eleven commenters (including 10 identical comment 
letters) recommended that we conduct thorough surveys (preferably 
before the final designation) for plants at Fort Hunter Liggett and 
Camp Roberts to ascertain the full extent of the range of Chlorogalum 
purpureum var. purpureum. They suggested that optimal habitat for C. 
purpureum appears to be associated with the presence of cryptogamic 
crusts (biological soil crusts composed of cyanobacteria, green algae, 
lichens, mosses, microfungi, and other bacteria). Therefore, it seems 
appropriate to survey and map the occurrences of such crusts at both 
installations. Additionally, they recommended that surveys should be 
focused on areas with other suitable habitat features and species 
compositions, and with known historical occurrences.
    Our Response: Both the Army Reserve at Fort Hunter Liggett and the 
CANG at Camp Roberts have conducted surveys for Chlorogalum purpureum 
var. purpureum in multiple areas containing suitable habitat with 
associated species (R. Root, pers. comm. 2002, L. Clark, pers. comm. 
2002, D. Wilken 2000). Additional distribution surveys are expected by 
both installations according to the Service's review of recent draft 
INRMP documents or conversations with installation biologists (H. 
Crowell, pers. comm. 2002). In the last decade, surveys conducted for 
the military by Colorado State University, the Santa Barbara Botanic 
Garden, Jones and Stokes Associates, and the Fort Hunter Liggett 
Environmental Office have documented approximately 685 acres of C. p. 
var. purpureum of varying densities on the Fort Hunter Liggett 
installation (Fort Hunter Liggett unpublished digital data, 2002). Each 
year, the Fort Hunter Liggett Environmental Office continues to 
discover new sites where Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum occurs 
during their environmental review process for ongoing activities on the 
installation. However, new sites identified are generally clustered 
within the known range on Fort Hunter Liggett.
    Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum was first discovered at Camp 
Roberts in 2000 (CANG 2001b). Approximately 200 acres of varying 
densities of plants have been documented in one location on the Camp 
Roberts installation based on surveys conducted by biologists from the 
Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, the Jepson Herbarium, and the Camp 
Roberts Environmental Office. Fairly thorough surveys have been 
conducted at Camp Roberts in 2000 and 2001 by the Santa Barbara Botanic 
Garden and the Camp Roberts Environmental Office staff and consultants; 
sensitive plant surveys will continue throughout the installation 
regularly (R. Root, CANG, pers. comm., 2002). According to their 
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP), an amendment to 
their INRMP, and recent coordination meetings, Camp Roberts also plans 
to survey and monitor impacts of rotational grazing, effects of 
military training activities on Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum, 
and the taxon's association with cryptogamic soils (CANG 2001b; R. 
Root, pers. comm., 2002). These studies and surveys will be conducted 
as part of their long-term Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum 
monitoring program.
    Based on the life-history characteristics of the species (e.g., 
timing of flowering, annual dormancy, etc.) there is a narrow period 
each year when the taxon is identifiable and within which surveys can 
be conducted. In addition, surveys are needed for multiple years to 
determine presence or absence of the species due to its potential to 
remain seasonally dormant for an extended period of time. The ongoing 
life-history study conducted at Fort Hunter Liggett has found known 
individual mature plants to be dormant for at least three years, 
indicating that it is likely common for this species to remain dormant 
during the growing season (Liz Clark, Fort Hunter Liggett, pers. comm., 
2002). During dormancy, Chlorogalum purpureum is not detectable on the 
surface. Thus, thorough surveys to document the full range of C. 
purpureum in suitable habitat throughout the installation will likely 
require multiple years to be completed. In summary, new C. p. var. 
purpureum sites are being found within previously known locations at 
Fort Hunter Liggett, and the 2000 discovery of the Camp Roberts 
population is concentrated within one location. Additional surveys and 
research studies are expected to occur at both installations during the 
next five years that will assist both the Service and the military 
agencies in determining additional occurrences of C. purpureum, impacts 
of activities, and the taxon's association with other biological 
features (e.g., cryptogamic crusts). While additional survey 
information would be helpful, we are using the best information 
available at this time, and we do not believe the lack of additional 
surveys hinders our ability to evaluate which areas should be 
designated as critical habitat.
    Comment 3: One commenter questioned why Camp Roberts was included 
in the proposed critical habitat designation when the Service did not 
know Chlorogalum purpureum occurred there at the time the species was 
listed. The commenter specifically asked ``why critical habitat within 
the geographic area occupied by the taxon at the time the species was 
listed would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.''
    Our Response: While we were unaware of the Camp Roberts population 
at the time the species was listed, we believe that, based on 
information we have received regarding the Camp Roberts population and 
the species' life history, the population at Camp Roberts falls within 
the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it was listed. 
Although there are no historical records of the taxon C. p. purpureum 
at the Camp Roberts location, the location of its discovery in 2000 
still falls within the range of the species, which, at the time of 
listing, ranged from Fort Hunter Liggett in southern Monterey County to 
the La Panza Range, LPNF, in San Luis Obispo County where C. p. var. 
reductum is known to occur. Because C. p. var. purpureum also has such 
a restricted range (i.e., found at only two locations), it was 
important to include both locations in the proposed critical habitat. 
However, we have removed the Camp Roberts Unit from the final critical 
habitat because adequate conservation measures are now in place for the 
taxon. This removal is discussed further in comment 17 and the 
``Relationship of Critical Habitat to Military Lands'' and ``Summary of 
Changes from the Proposed Rule'' sections of this document.
    Comment 4: One commenter questioned the Service's statement that 
``* * *some areas not included in the critical habitat designation * * 
*may include habitat appropriate for introduction of Chlorogalum 
purpureum in the future.'' The commenter questioned whether the Service 
refers to ``introduction'' of C. purpureum into unoccupied, suitable 
habitat in the future as an introduction by natural or human means.
    Our Response: If an event triggers a decline in the Chlorogalum 
purpureum population to such an extent that human-induced introduction 
is warranted to prevent extinction of the

[[Page 65419]]

species, it may be necessary for the recovery of the species to 
``introduce'' plants by human means. Introduction of plants would occur 
in suitable areas that the plant could naturally re-colonize, but is 
impeded by existing threats. These types of actions are more 
appropriately addressed as part of recovery planning for this species.
    Comment 5: One commenter stated ``scientific data is lacking to 
support the Service's conclusion that military activities are likely to 
destroy any crypotgamic crusts and that Chlorogalum purpureum relies on 
cryptogamic crusts.''
    Our Response: We disagree with the commenter's interpretation that 
the Service stated that Chlorogalum purpureum relies on cryptogamic 
crusts in the proposed critical habitat designation. We stated that 
``the taxon frequently grows on soils that are cryptogamic or have 
cryptogamic crusts;'' ``these special crusts may enhance the habitat 
conditions, thus increasing the likelihood that young bulbs will 
survive over the long term;'' and that certain activities ``will likely 
destroy any cryptogamic crusts that are present, thus negatively 
affecting vascular plant germination and decreasing the amount of 
nutrients available for proper plant development.'' While we believe 
there may be an association between the species and cryptogamic crusts, 
we have no evidence demonstrating the relationship.
    At least one species expert has identified a possible relationship 
between Chlorogalum purpureum and the presence of cryptogamic crusts 
(E. L. Painter, pers. comm., 1998, 2001, 2002). Therefore, we believe 
it is important to examine this association further when considering 
the long-term conservation and recovery of this species. Cryptogamic 
crusts are good indicators of physical disturbance, such as livestock, 
human foot traffic, and motorized vehicles (Belnap 1995 in Belnap et 
al. 2001). These activities can destroy the soil structure by 
compacting it into an impermeable surface layer that causes reduced 
infiltration rates and increased surface runoff (Belnap et al. 2001). 
Vehicles can also turn soils over and bury crustal organisms. 
Disturbance that removes or kills crustal organisms results in greater 
impact and slower recovery of the soil surface than disturbance that 
leaves crushed crust in place (Belnap et al. 2001). In addition, 
preliminary Land Condition Trend Analysis (LCTA) data from Fort Lewis, 
Washington, has documented negative impacts to cryptogamic crusts and 
vegetation in grassland ecosystems due to uses by M1A1 Abrams tanks, 
which are also used at Camp Roberts and Fort Hunter Liggett. We believe 
it is important to consider these potential vehicles impacts on 
cryptogamic soils (during C. purpureum monitoring and LCTA monitoring 
at Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts) when examining long-term 
effects on C. purpureum and its habitat, and potential impacts to other 
federally threatened and endangered species.
    Comment 6: One commenter stated that scientific data is lacking to 
support the Service's conclusion that the model used for the proposed 
critical habitat designation for Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum 
(based on soil type) should be expanded to include additional areas 
beyond those identified in the model (i.e., areas between the model 
boundaries and the nearest ridgeline). Additionally, the commenter 
stated that the Service inappropriately included formerly cultivated 
areas within the proposed critical habitat boundary.
    Our Response: We disagree with the comment that formerly cultivated 
areas were inappropriately included within the proposed critical 
habitat boundary. We believe that habitat within formerly cultivated 
areas still contains the appropriate soil and vegetation types (which 
are crucial physical components the species requires) that could 
support Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum. These areas are essential 
to the conservation of the species because the species will require 
areas for dispersal. Some formerly cultivated areas are identified 
within a zone that provides connectivity between populations, and thus 
supports pollinator activity and gene flow between patches of plants, 
and are thus also essential to the conservation of the species.
    During preparation of the proposed critical habitat designation for 
this species, we used SPOT Corporation 30 meter Imagery, dated June 
1993, in an attempt to exclude areas that we knew were under 
cultivation or were formerly cultivated and were likely not essential 
to the conservation of the species. For the final critical habitat 
designation, we also excluded all areas identified by the military who 
provided additional information that was not available for the proposed 
rule. These excluded areas are formerly cultivated lands found 
throughout the proposed critical habitat on FHL property, or areas that 
do not provide population connectivity between patches of plants.

Issue 2: Economic Comments

    Comment 7: Two commenters believed the negative economic impact on 
the CANG, the Army Reserve, and their military missions outweighs the 
benefit of the proposed critical habitat designation. The commenters 
believed a critical habitat designation would cause adverse economic 
impacts, disrupt the military's ability to perform their mission, and 
require additional consultation and technical support for new 
consultations. One of the commenters believed the critical habitat 
designation at Fort Hunter Liggett would require rescheduling of 
military training until consultations are completed, thus increasing 
the costs for modifying or moving the existing infrastructure to 
support relocated training activities, and diverting resources from 
conservation management to administrative efforts for the Army and the 
Service.
    Our Response: We recognize the direct costs identified by the 
military are significant, and indirect costs and impacts on military 
training and readiness are even greater.
    The proposed critical habitat area on Camp Roberts military 
installation is essential to the conservation of Chlorogalum purpureum 
var. purpureum. However, designation of critical habitat is not 
necessary due to the long-term conservation measures that the CANG has 
agreed to implement as part of their INRMP. This is further discussed 
in the section entitled ``Relationship of Critical Habitat to Military 
Lands.''
    The lands proposed to be designated on Fort Hunter Liggett are 
essential for the conservation of Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum. 
These lands currently provide habitat for the species, and have done so 
since military training commenced there in the 1940s. The conservation 
needs on these lands will likely also be adequately addressed under the 
management plan currently being developed by Ft. Hunter Liggett and the 
Service. This is further discussed in the section entitled 
``Relationship of Critical Habitat to Military Lands.'' Fort Hunter 
Liggett has already reinitiated consultation on their programmatic 
biological opinion, including a conference opinion on the proposed 
critical habitat for C. p. var. purpureum. This reinitiation was 
necessitated by new information on federally listed species in addition 
to the listing of C. purpureum, not by the proposal of critical habitat 
for C. purpureum. Therefore, rescheduling of military training would 
not be necessary regarding ongoing military activities

[[Page 65420]]

that have been addressed as part of the programmatic consultation.
    Comment 8: Fort Hunter Liggett stated they believe the draft 
economic analysis is based on considerations and factors that the 
Service is no longer considering. The commenter also stated the Service 
recommended curtailing military training and land use, and the new 
restrictions proposed by the Service are qualitatively different from 
those found in the draft economic analysis or the proposed critical 
habitat designation.
    Our Response: The Service met with Fort Hunter Liggett on multiple 
occasions to discuss the status of Chlorogalum purpureum var. 
purpureum, the Service's concerns, the Service's recommended strategy 
for the long-term conservation of the taxon on the installations, and 
the adequacy of their draft INRMP. The Service identified a number of 
military activities that may influence critical growth stages of C. p. 
var. purpureum and recommended that Fort Hunter Liggett minimize the 
adverse effects and severity of those effects. The Service proposes to 
continue to work with the military to ensure that implementation of 
such recommended minimization measures would not curtail training.
    Comment 9: Fort Hunter Liggett stated the increased monitoring 
recommended by the Service would require the new employment of two GS-
11 equivalent biologists for 10 years, costing Fort Hunter Liggett 
approximately $2,100,000.
    Our Response: As discussed in Comment 8, the Service provided long-
term conservation recommendations to Fort Hunter Liggett for 
Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum. Regarding monitoring, the Service 
recommended that Fort Hunter Liggett develop management strategies to 
minimize threats to C. p. var. purpureum based on research, life 
history monitoring, and the species' responses to vegetation 
management. We recognize this is a real cost to the Army.
    Comment 10: Fort Hunter Liggett stated the cordon required to 
permanently restrict the proposed critical habitat areas recommended by 
the Service would cost the Army Reserve approximately $250,000 plus 
additional maintenance costs over 10 years.
    Our Response: As discussed in Comments 8 and 9, the Service 
provided long-term conservation recommendations in a consultation with 
Fort Hunter Liggett for Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum that 
should be considered regardless of a critical habitat designation and 
as part of their long-term management plans in their INRMP. Regarding 
protection of C. p. var. purpureum, the Service recommended that 
patches of plants be protected from those types of activities that are 
known to damage vegetation (e.g., crushing seeds with the wheels or 
tracks of vehicles, bivouacking activities, soil surface scraping, 
introducing or spreading nonnative plant species, etc.).
    Comment 11: Fort Hunter Liggett stated that increased restrictions 
on training would make many Army Reserve, National Guard, and other 
military units incapable of training at Fort Hunter Liggett. They 
stated that units would be forced to travel to another state to meet 
their training requirements and the cost for units to travel extensive 
distances to train would be significant. Fort Hunter Liggett stated the 
direct economic costs to the installation would be $2,350,000 if the 
Service's recommendations were implemented, and the costs to military 
readiness would be much higher. Types of training that the Army 
believes would no longer be viable at Ft. Hunter Liggett with the 
proposed designation of critical habitat include: training in the 
establishment of emergency airfields; training in the defense of 
emergency and established airfields; use of the machine gun and grenade 
ranges; use of the long-established tank trail between Camp Roberts and 
the Fort; and staging for a variety of other types of training, 
including live-fire exercises.
    Our Response: We will continue to work with Fort Hunter Liggett to 
identify conservation measures and adaptive management considerations 
for Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum. The conservation 
recommendations provided to Fort Hunter Liggett during our consultation 
on their draft INRMP were designed to be implemented without 
necessitating the relocation of military training units to another 
state. However, we are not military experts, and defer to their 
judgement regarding the actual, as opposed to intended, impacts of the 
recommendations.
    We recognize and have considered fully the concerns of Fort Hunter 
Liggett that critical habitat on their installation would impact the 
training mission and cause adverse economic impacts and adverse impacts 
to military readiness.

Issue 3: Site-Specific Areas and Other Comments

    Comment 12: One commenter urged the Service to support Fort Hunter 
Liggett's effort to control Centuarea solstitialis (yellow star-
thistle) and to consider this in the implementation of the critical 
habitat designation, suggesting that the Service should not restrict 
the installation's efforts to control such an invasive species.
    Our Response: The Service has participated in meetings and 
discussions with Fort Hunter Liggett and supports the control efforts 
that the installation has made for Centuarea solstitialis. The Service 
has also expressed concerns to Fort Hunter Liggett regarding the use of 
herbicides on the installation due to potential adverse effects to 
federally-listed species, including Chlorogalum purpureum var. 
purpureum, vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and arroyo 
toad (Bufo californicus).
    Comment 13: Due to the absence of historical occurrences, one 
commenter questioned the Service's suggestion that Chlorogalum 
purpureum var. purpureum could re-colonize both occupied and adjacent 
unoccupied habitat at Camp Roberts.
    Our Response: Because historical records are not available for the 
Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum population at Camp Roberts, there 
is no data available to estimate if C. p. var. purpureum could re-
colonize areas of the installation. However, future annual monitoring 
may show that the population could increase by natural means into 
adjacent unoccupied habitat.
    Comment 14: One commenter stated that the Service did not take into 
account efforts being made by the Army at Fort Hunter Liggett to 
protect Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum through distribution 
surveys, life history research, military land stewardship, and 
carnivore management (e.g., wild pig control) that protects against 
excessive herbivory.
    Our Response: We disagree. Fort Hunter Liggett biologists provided 
us with what they indicated were the most current data on Chlorogalum 
purpureum var. purpureum occurrences at Fort Hunter Liggett during the 
time the proposed rule was being prepared. We also used biological 
assessments, environmental assessments, and annual reports submitted to 
us by the Directorate of Public Works at Fort Hunter Liggett when 
reviewing areas we believed were essential for the proposed critical 
habitat designation. We also reviewed additional surveys conducted by 
the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden (Wilken 2000) and data from the life 
history study conducted by the Fort Hunter Liggett Environmental 
Office. However, based on our review of the management actions and 
conservation measures described in Fort Hunter Liggett's recent 
programmatic biological assessment (Army Reserve 2002) and

[[Page 65421]]

draft INRMP, we conclude that areas on the installation would still 
benefit from special management as described in the Act and to that end 
we continue to work with the military to develop an INRMP. This is 
further discussed in the section entitled ``Relationship of Critical 
Habitat to Military Lands.''
    Comment 15: One commenter stated that data and indicator species 
show the compatibility of military training and sensitive species. They 
suggested that the presence of sensitive species and cryptogamic crusts 
amidst low levels of disturbance at established monitoring plots at 
Fort Hunter Liggett are evidence of their compatibility. The commenter 
stated that the presence of many sensitive species on Fort Hunter 
Liggett is an indicator that the installation's stewardship maintains 
ecosystem functions and processes, compared to the agricultural 
practices on surrounding lands that have reduced habitat for many of 
these listed species. In addition, the commenter stated that military 
training results in a patchy distribution of temporary soil surface 
disturbance that typically recovers within a growing season for annual 
vascular plants and within three to five years for fully formed 
cryptogamic crusts. They stated that scientific data are also lacking 
to support the Service's conclusions that soil surface disturbance from 
military training will likely result in death of seeds, seedlings, and 
adult plants through burial or grinding, and that tracked vehicles will 
turn over soils, thus killing any adults or seedlings that are in their 
first year of growth and burying any crustal organisms that were 
present. The commenter stated that C. p. var. purpureum thrives in 
heavily-used training areas and protected sites on Fort Hunter Liggett. 
The commenter was concerned about the inclusion of lands containing the 
taxon that were recently and formerly heavily used for military 
training.
    Our Response: The Service commends the Army Reserve for efforts 
they have made to date to reduce further losses of sensitive species 
and other species native to the San Antonio Valley, Nacimiento Valley, 
and the Santa Lucia Mountains. We agree that much of the surrounding 
habitat has been lost due to agricultural use, including crop farming 
and vineyard development, likely resulting in the loss of Chlorogalum 
purpureum var. purpureum plants and other sensitive species. Indicators 
of C. p. var. purpureum compatibility with military training include 
such parameters as recruitment or survivorship. Although Fort Hunter 
Liggett has conducted monitoring since 1998, the monitoring was not 
designed to assess the effects of military training activities on C. p. 
var. purpureum, according to Fort Hunter Liggett staff (Liz Clark, FHL, 
pers. comm., 2002). Moreover, changes to the monitoring program in 2000 
have resulted in the availability of only two years of data to assess 
such factors as survivorship and recruitment. Based on the biology of 
this species and our preliminary analysis of data collected at 
monitoring plots at Fort Hunter Liggett, additional data are needed to 
accurately assess levels of recruitment. While it has survived through 
many years of military training, monitoring focused on military 
activities or a rigorous assessment of population trends is needed to 
determine the effect of military activities conducted at Fort Hunter 
Liggett on C. purpureum.
    Studies conducted at other military installations have shown that 
military activities such as bivouacking and soil surface disturbance 
(e.g., excavations, grading) do have adverse effects on vegetation and 
the soil surface (Trame and Harper 1997, Whitecotton et al. 1999, 
Wolford 2001). Activities in Training Area 25 (a heavily-used training 
area) at Fort Hunter Liggett have caused soil compaction and soil ruts 
that alter microhabitat characteristics (Painter and Neese 1998; D. 
Steeck, pers. obs., 1998; J. Chesnut, consulting biologist, in litt., 
1998), and loss of most herbaceous vegetation (D. Steeck, pers. obs., 
1997, 1998, aerial photography). Vehicle tracks were also evident in 45 
of 188 patches of Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum visited during 
1999 surveys (Wilken 2000). Tracks or roads were adjacent to another 35 
patches (Wilken 2000). Tracks in populations of C. p. var purpureum 
have also been reported by others familiar with Fort Hunter Liggett 
(Painter and Neese 1998; J. Chesnut, in litt., 1998). These types of 
activities damage seedlings and adult plants, especially if they occur 
during the growing season. However, we are unable to confirm the 
commenter's statement that cryptogamic crusts are fully formed within 
three to five years. According to the reports and data available to us 
at this time, we are unaware of any data collected on cryptogamic 
crusts or the extent of cryptogamic crusts on Fort Hunter Liggett. 
Species experts have identified a possible relationship between 
Chlorogalum purpureum and the presence of cryptogamic crusts. Thus, we 
recommend studies and surveys to provide a better understanding of 
cryptogamic crusts at Fort Hunter Liggett. The first biological soil 
crusts to develop following a disturbance are cyanobacteria, appearing 
in colonies that are black to blue-green and are visible primarily when 
the surface is moist (Belnap et al. 2001). The development of these 
crusts is followed by growth of algae, bryophytes (mosses, liverworts), 
and lichens. Timing, the type of soil surface disturbance, and its 
intensity can influence the composition of these cyptogamic crusts. 
Repeated disturbances to cryptogamic soils will generally keep the 
crusts at an early-successional stage (i.e., cyanobacteria-dominated) 
by preventing lichen or moss colonization (Belnap et al. 2001). 
Recovery rates to fully formed crusts (mosses, liverworts, and lichens) 
are dependent on many factors. Visual assessments can be used to assess 
moss and lichen cover, but cannot be used to measure the degree of 
recovery of cyanobacterial biomass and soil stability (Belnap et al. 
2001). Studies have found various linear recovery rates which differ 
from region to region. These studies have determined that shady sites 
with less sandy soils are quicker to recover than exposed sites with 
sandier soils (Belnap et al. 2001). Unfortunately, we are currently 
unaware of available data that identifies the recovery rates of 
cryptogamic crusts in the California coastal areas.
    Comment 16: One commenter stated that scientific data is lacking to 
support the Service's conclusion that Fort Hunter Liggett could support 
a larger population of purple amole. They believed that special 
management considerations should focus on agricultural and urban 
development.
    Our Response: Unoccupied areas (located adjacent to or between 
occupied habitat) that are not fully protected or currently known to 
support the taxon likely contain favorable habitat conditions for 
plants to occur. These areas also support the surrounding habitat by 
helping maintain ecosystem processes and functions, such as 
connectivity between patches of plants, pollinator activity between 
existing colonies, and seed dispersal mechanisms between existing 
colonies and other potentially suitable sites. Thus, the area may 
support additional Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum occurrences 
provided proper management occurs. We agree that management for C. 
purpureum should include consideration of the needs of the species in 
management of cultivation and control of nonnative vegetation. However, 
when considering the long-term conservation and recovery of this 
species we must consider all threats to the species, which also

[[Page 65422]]

include potential threats from military training activities.
    Comment 17: Two commenters believed that a critical habitat 
designation for Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum would not provide 
any net benefit to the species because ``assured management'' is 
already in place at Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts. One commenter 
stated that Camp Roberts has completed an INRMP and Endangered Species 
Management Plan (ESMP), that Fort Hunter Liggett is coordinating with 
the Service on development of their INRMP and associated ESMP, and that 
the plans from both installations are certain to be implemented, as 
they are requirements that are given ``resourcing priority.'' The 
second commenter stated that existing management actions at Fort Hunter 
Liggett are currently protecting purple amole, the ecosystem, and the 
functions listed by the Service. Additionally, they suggested that Fort 
Hunter Liggett's INRMP and ESMP, although currently in draft form, 
provide an adequate method for Fort Hunter Liggett and the Service to 
actively promote the protection and recovery of C. p. var. purpureum.
    Our Response: We agree that the military is currently implementing 
special management on the lands. INRMPs can provide special management 
for lands such that they no longer meet the definition of critical 
habitat when the following criteria are met: (1) A current INRMP must 
be complete and provide a conservation benefit to the species, (2) the 
plan must provide assurances that the conservation management 
strategies will be implemented, and (3) the plan must provide 
assurances that the conservation strategies will be effective (i.e., 
provide for periodic monitoring, adaptive management, and revisions as 
necessary). If all of these criteria are met, then the lands covered 
under the plan would likely no longer meet the definition of critical 
habitat and designation would not be necessary.
    To date, Camp Roberts has amended their final INRMP to provide for 
sufficient conservation management and protection for Chlorogalum 
purpureum var. purpureum. An ESMP has not been prepared for C. p. var. 
purpureum at Camp Roberts. As a result of the Camp Roberts INRMP, we 
are not designating critical habitat on Camp Roberts.
    Adequate management for the conservation of Chlorogalum purpureum 
var. purpureum is currently under development at Fort Hunter Liggett 
though an INRMP. The installation has prepared a draft INRMP that is 
being revised. Fort Hunter Liggett's ESMP expired in September 2001 and 
is not scheduled to be updated until 2003. Nevertheless, Fort Hunter 
Liggett does continue to implement conservation measures and management 
actions. We believe that the additional protection and management are 
necessary, as well as a structured monitoring program that provides 
information on recruitment, survival, and effects of military actions 
on the species and its habitat and will be addressed in the INRMP.
    Comment 18: If critical habitat is designated at Camp Roberts, the 
commenter requested that the proposed acreage be reduced to minimize 
adverse effects on military training activities. Part of this request 
was based on the absence of purple amole on 90 percent of the proposed 
critical habitat.
    Our Response: We have removed Camp Roberts from the final 
designation of critical habitat. See the section entitled 
``Relationship of Critical Habitat to Military Lands'' for further 
information.
    Comment 19: One commenter questioned the use of the word 
``recovery'' regarding Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum at Camp 
Roberts military installation because it implies a historical presence, 
even though there is no historical record of the taxon at the 
installation.
    Our Response: As mentioned in Comment 13 above, we acknowledge that 
historical records are not available for the Chlorogalum purpureum var. 
purpureum population at Camp Roberts. For conservation of the species 
to occur, all methods and procedures should be utilized to bring C. p. 
purpureum to the point at which the measures provided by the Act are no 
longer necessary. These measures include, but are not limited to, all 
activities associated with scientific resources management such as 
research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, 
propagation, and transplantation. Because C. p. var. purpureum is only 
known to occur at Camp Roberts and Fort Hunter Liggett at this time, 
the CANG and Army Reserve are in the best and primary position to 
influence the long-term conservation of this species. In addition, 
according to section 2(c) of the Act, Federal agencies shall seek to 
conserve endangered and threatened species and shall utilize their 
authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    Comment 20: One commenter recommended that the Service request 
access from private landowners for annual surveys.
    Our Response: The Act requires that the best available data be used 
to make decisions on critical habitat designations. Conducting new 
surveys falls outside of this requirement. Further, the Service must 
have specific permission of private landowners to conduct surveys on 
private property. Funding and timing limitations also preclude the 
collection of new information at this time. However, as part of the 
recovery process for this species, additional survey needs may be 
identified and implemented.

Issue 4: Legal and Procedural Comments

    Comment 21: Camp Roberts stated that they should be excluded from 
the critical habitat designation because the benefit of excluding 
military lands from critical habitat designation outweighs the benefits 
of including military lands in the designation. Fort Hunter Liggett 
requested to be excluded from the final critical habitat designation 
because they believe the proposed critical habitat will preclude 
military training on 11,840 acres of land at Fort Hunter Liggett, 
resulting in a severe impact to Fort Hunter Liggett's military mission, 
operations, and protection of cultural and natural resources. Fort 
Hunter Liggett stated they believe the continued use of military 
training sites and the operations and maintenance activities of 
existing facilities are at risk, including established conservation 
measures. They also stated that future training missions are at risk, 
and compounding mitigation and conservation measures are eroding 
training capabilities.
    Our Response: We address the issue of military lands and the role 
of INRMPs in detail in the section entitled ``Relationship of Critical 
Habitat to Military Lands.'' As discussed in that section, subsection 
4(b)(2) of the Act allows us to exclude areas where the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. In addition, under 
subsection 3(5)(A) of the Act, areas where an INRMP provides a 
conservation benefit to the species, such that additional special 
management is unnecessary, may not meet the definition of critical 
habitat.
    Our analysis of the costs and benefits leads us to conclude that 
the benefits of including lands on Fort Hunter Leggett do not outweigh 
the costs. Camp Roberts' lands have been removed based on their INRMP. 
Our analysis is discussed in comment 18 above, the section entitled 
``Relationship of Critical Habitat to Military Lands.'' And the section 
entitled, ``Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule''.
    Fort Hunter Liggett has recently initiated formal consultation with 
us on both Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum and its proposed 
critical

[[Page 65423]]

habitat. Once consultation is complete, Fort Hunter Liggett will not 
need to reinitiate it unless their proposed actions have changed or new 
information becomes available on the species that would warrant a re-
evaluation. The population of Chlorogalum pupureum var. purpureum found 
in Fort Hunt Liggett has survived in the midst of military training. 
There is little basis for expecting this circumstance will change in 
the absence of a critical habitat designation, particularly in light of 
the fact that the military and the Service are developing an INRMP to 
ensure special management. Conversely, the cost of disruption of 
military training is large in terms of both additional expenditures and 
adverse impacts to military readiness.
    Comment 22: Eleven commenters recommended that the Service initiate 
section 7 consultation with the Army as soon as possible, and on an 
ongoing basis.
    Our Response 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 jeopardize the continued existence 
of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of habitat determined to be critical to a species. 
Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Army Reserve, the CANG, and 
LPNF to initiate consultation with the Service for those actions that 
may jeopardize the continued existence of Chlorogalum purpureum.
    Comment 23: Based on survey results, eleven commenters suggested 
that changes in the critical habitat designation should be considered 
on an ongoing basis.
    Our Response We have taken into account additional information, 
including additional survey results, that were provided to us during 
the comment period on the proposed rule. We will continue to monitor 
and collect new information and may revise the critical habitat 
designation in the future if new information supports a change.
    Comment 24: One commenter suggested that it is possible that the 
proposed designation has minimized the review of scientific data 
available at the installations in an attempt to comply with court-
ordered schedules.
    Our Response We disagree with this comment. We agree that we are 
required under a court approved settlement agreement to finalize this 
critical habitat designation by October 11, 2002. When developing any 
listing proposal or proposed critical habitat designation we use the 
best information available at the time, and solicit information from a 
variety of sources. We use information from Federal and State agencies, 
consultants, and researchers during the development of the proposal. 
When available, we incorporate information from recovery plans as well. 
These plans often have information that was not available at the time a 
species was listed. Comments received on the proposed designation, the 
draft economic analysis, and additional information received during the 
comment periods have been taken into account in the development of this 
final determination.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we solicited independent opinions from six experts who have 
knowledge of the species, the geographic region where the species 
occurs, and/or familiarity with the principles of conservation biology. 
Five of the peer reviewers responded and supported the proposal, 
providing us with comments which were summarized in the previous 
section and incorporated into the final rule. One reviewer did not 
respond.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Based on a review of public comments and the draft economic 
analysis, we reevaluated our proposed critical habitat designation and 
made changes as necessary. These include the following:
    (1) We modified the description of the primary constituent 
elements. These modifications include a more defined soil surface 
definition, and removal of the wording ``frequently cryptogamic soils'' 
and the proposed primary constituent element No. 3, which are addressed 
in further detail in the ``Special Management Considerations or 
Protections'' section below.
    (2) We added a section describing the special management 
considerations or protections that Chlorogalum purpureum may require. 
We believe that this new section will help to identify activities that 
address section 3(5)(A)(i)(II) of the Act, and also assist land 
managers in developing management strategies for C. purpureum.
    (3) We removed the Camp Roberts Unit from the final designation. 
Camp Roberts' INRMP includes long-term conservation measures and 
adaptive management for Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum on Camp 
Roberts property and because information received since proposing 
critical habitat for this species indicates that the private lands 
proposed within this unit are not essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    A survey was conducted in 2002 by the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden 
within suitable habitat on adjacent private land (i.e., Palm property) 
north of the known Camp Roberts population. This survey confirmed the 
absence of the taxon on the property during the peak flowering season 
and the lower likelihood of the plants to occur on the property due to 
less suitable habitat (e.g., different soil type, high density of 
cobbles and rocks) interspersed throughout most of the suitable areas 
(D. Wilken, in litt., 2002). Review of recent aerial photographs 
unavailable at the time of the critical habitat proposal revealed a 
significant amount of ground disturbance (i.e., grading, excavation) on 
other private land areas proposed as critical habitat north of Camp 
Roberts (H. Crowell, pers. obs., 2002). Therefore, we have determined 
that the private lands proposed within this unit do not currently 
provide the primary constituent elements that are essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    Camp Roberts' INRMP includes an assessment of the species' 
ecological needs on the installation, a statement of goals and 
priorities, a detailed description of management actions to be 
implemented to provide for the ecological needs of the taxon, and a 
monitoring and adaptive management plan that will be peer-reviewed and 
approved by the Service. Since Camp Roberts' INRMP addresses the needs 
of the species, we have concluded that no additional special management 
or protection of the habitat is necessary, and that the Camp Roberts 
portion of this unit does not meet the definition of critical habitat.
    (4) Military lands at Fort Hunter Liggett were removed because the 
costs associated with loss of training areas and traveling to alternate 
training sites outweighs the benefit of inclusion as critical habitat. 
In addition, we note that the military is developing an INRMP and 
undertaking other measures designed to provide special management for 
the species. This INRMP and the other measures would most likely 
justify exclusion of this area under section 3(5)(A) in the near 
future, but the actual decision was based on our decision that the 
benefits of exclusion exceed the benefits of designation. For clarity 
we have renamed the proposed Fort Hunter Liggett Unit to Jolon Unit to 
reflect these changes.
    (5) The boundary for the Camatta Canyon critical habitat unit was 
reduced

[[Page 65424]]

in size from 1,933 ha (4,770 ac) to 1,772 ha (4,378 ac). The 159 ha 
(392 ac) reduction is a result of more defined and detailed mapping 
using aerial photographs to exclude those areas where unsuitable 
habitat types (e.g., dense woodland or scrub vegetation) exist.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the 
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations 
or protection; and, (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, 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 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 ensure that any action it authorizes, funds, or 
carries 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 proposed 
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.
    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 requires that we designate critical habitat for a 
species, 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 will not often have sufficient 
information to identify all areas 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.
    Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we will 
designate only areas currently known to be essential to the 
conservation of the species. We will not speculate about what areas 
might be found to be essential if better information becomes 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 will 
not be included in the critical habitat designation. Within the 
geographic area occupied by the species, we will 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 minimum mapping unit or map 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, we will not designate critical habitat in 
areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species when the best 
available scientific and commercial data do not demonstrate that the 
conservation needs of the species require designation of those areas.
    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 rule 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, unpublished materials, and expert opinions.
    Habitat is often dynamic, and populations 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, it should be understood that critical 
habitat designations do not suggest that habitat outside the 
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Areas 
outside the critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to 
conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) and 
to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard and the prohibitions of section 9, as determined on the basis 
of the best available information at the time of the action. We 
specifically anticipate that 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 to these 
planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

    As required by the Act and regulations (section 4(b)(2) and 50 CFR 
424.12) we used the best scientific information available to determine 
areas that contain the physical and biological features essential for 
the conservation of Chlorogalum purpureum. This included information 
from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2000), soil 
survey maps (Soil Conservation Service 1978, 1980), recent biological 
surveys and reports, additional information provided by interested 
parties, and discussions with botanical experts.
    We believe that future conservation and recovery of this species 
depends not only on protection of areas it currently occupies, but also 
the opportunity to increase its current distribution. This is

[[Page 65425]]

supported by the historic loss of the habitats that likely harbored 
additional populations of Chlorogalum purpureum.
    The private property adjacent to the Camatta Canyon critical 
habitat unit is occupied by above-ground plants and most likely a seed 
bank. In addition, each of the units includes areas that are considered 
unoccupied by the species. ``Occupied'' is defined here as any area 
with above-ground Chlorogalum purpureum plants or a seed or bulb bank 
of indefinite boundary. All occupied sites contain the primary 
constituent elements and are essential to the conservation of the 
species, as described below. ``Unoccupied'' is defined here as an area 
that contains no above-ground Chlorogalum purpureum plants and for 
which it is unknown if dormant plants exist or a seed or bulb bank is 
present. Both occupied and unoccupied areas that are designated as 
critical habitat are essential to the conservation of the species.
    Determining the specific areas that this species occupies is 
difficult for two reasons: (1) The way the current distribution of 
Chlorogalum purpureum is mapped can be variable, depending on the scale 
at which patches of individuals are recorded (e.g., many small patches 
versus one large patch); and (2) depending on the climate and other 
annual variations in habitat conditions, the extent of the 
distributions may either appear to shrink or temporarily disappear due 
to the dormancy characteristics of the species, or, if there is a 
residual seed bank present, enlarge and cover a more extensive area. 
Because it is logistically difficult to determine how extensive the 
seed bank is at any particular site and because above-ground plants may 
or may not be present in all patches within a site each year, we cannot 
quantify in a meaningful way what proportion of each critical habitat 
unit may actually be occupied by C. purpureum. Therefore, patches of 
unoccupied habitat are interspersed among patches of occupied habitat; 
the inclusion of unoccupied habitat in our critical habitat units 
reflects the dynamic nature of the life history characteristics of this 
species. Unoccupied areas provide habitat into which populations might 
expand, provide connectivity or linkage between colonies within a unit, 
and may support populations of pollinators and seed dispersal 
organisms.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, when 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 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; sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of 
offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and habitats that are 
protected from disturbance or are representative of the known historic 
geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
    Changes in habitat for both varieties of Chlorogalum purpureum have 
occurred due to alteration of lands, direct loss of plants due to 
construction, widening of roads, displacement by nonnative annual 
grasses, inappropriate livestock grazing, and potentially by alteration 
of fire cycles. Livestock grazing may be detrimental to this taxon 
depending on the intensity of livestock use and the extent to which 
livestock congregate in the area. Special management for critical 
habitat may also be needed for conditions where indirect, negative 
impacts from recreation, military activities, and competition or 
predation from nonnative species (i.e., pigs, nonnative annual grasses, 
etc.) occur. Most if not all of these activities may destroy any 
cryptogamic crusts that are present, and could potentially affect 
vascular plant germination and decrease the amount of nutrients 
available for proper plant development (Belnap et al. 2001). However, 
as noted earlier, additional research is necessary to confirm this. In 
addition to indirect impacts, direct loss of individual plants can 
occur from military training activities at Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp 
Roberts, and off-road vehicle use at LPNF. Ideally, the habitat that 
supports both varieties of C. purpureum should have little to no soil 
surface disturbance. Death of seeds, plants and any cryptogamic crust 
organisms can occur depending on the severity, size, frequency, and 
timing of soil disturbance. Soil surface disturbance can result in the 
death of seeds, seedlings and adult plants through burial or grinding.
    Based on our knowledge to date, the primary constituent elements of 
critical habitat for Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum consist of, 
but are not limited to:
    (1) Soils that are sandy clay to loamy clay, well drained on the 
surface, and are often overlain with fine gravel; and, (2) plant 
communities in functioning ecosystems that support associated plant and 
animal species (e.g., pollinators, predator-prey species, etc.), 
including valley and foothill grassland (most similar to the 
needlegrass series and California annual grassland series in Sawyer and 
Keeler-Wolf (1995)), blue oak woodland or oak savannahs (Holland 1986), 
and open areas within shrubland communities (most similar to the 
Chamise series in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995), although percent cover 
of chamise at known Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum areas is 
unknown). Within these vegetation community types, C. p. var. purpureum 
typically appears where there is little cover from other species which 
compete for resources available for growth and reproduction.
    Based on our knowledge to date, the primary constituent elements of 
critical habitat for Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum consist of, 
but are not limited to:
    (1) Well-drained, red clay soils with a large component of gravel 
and pebbles on the upper soil surface; and,
    (2) Plant communities in functioning ecosystems that support 
associated plant and animal species (e.g., pollinators, predator-prey 
species, etc.), including grassland (most similar to the California 
annual grassland series in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995) or the pine 
bluegrass grassland, non-native grassland and wildflower field 
descriptions in Holland (1986)), blue oak woodland or oak savannahs 
(Holland 1986), oak woodland, and open areas within shrubland 
communities (most similar to the Chamise series in Sawyer and Keeler-
Wolf (1995), although percent cover of chamise at known Chlorogalum 
purpureum var. reductum areas is unknown). Within these vegetation 
communities C. p. var. reductum appears where there is little cover of 
other species which compete for resources available for growth and 
reproduction.
    At least one of the primary constituent elements must be present in 
order for an area to be considered critical habitat. Because 
Chlorogalum purpureum is documented to occur within trails (i.e., 
passageways that are established, not graded, and do not support a 
paved surface) that support the appropriate soils and vegetation, as 
described in the primary constituent elements, these areas may 
constitute critical habitat. Surveys and information provided to us by 
land owners or species experts have contributed to our understanding 
that C. purpureum readily grows on well-drained surfaces that are 
underlain by clay soils that are

[[Page 65426]]

embedded with a fine gravel, and are found in areas where competition 
with other plant species is minimal (Wilken 2000; E. L. Painter, pers. 
comm., 2001). In most areas where C. purpureum occurs, it occupies 
microhabitat sites where there is little cover from other herbaceous 
species. Where C. purpureum occurs within grassland communities, the 
likelihood of plants occurring may decrease with an increase in the 
density of other nonnative herbaceous species, such as, but not limited 
to Avena ssp., Bromus ssp., and Centuarea solstitialis.

Site Selection

    We selected critical habitat areas to provide for the conservation 
of Chlorogalum purpureum at one site where it is known to occur. Two 
other locations (Camp Roberts and Fort Hunter Liggett) are also 
essential to the conservation of the species and were identified in the 
proposed critical habitat designation. However, we have removed these 
areas from the final designation as described in the ``Summary of 
Changes From the Proposed Rule'' and ``Relationship of Critical Habitat 
to Military Lands'' sections of this critical habitat rule because 
special management is already being provided at Camp Roberts and costs 
outweigh the benefits of designation at Fort Hunt Liggett. 
Additionally, special management provisions are being developed for 
lands at Fort Hunter Liggett.
    The long-term conservation of Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum 
and C. p. var. reductum is dependent upon the protection of existing 
populations, and the maintenance of ecological functions within these 
sites, including connectivity between sites within close geographic 
proximity. This connectivity facilitates pollinator activity, seed 
dispersal mechanisms, and the ability to maintain occasional fire that 
promotes the openness of vegetative cover which is advantageous to the 
species.
    Threats to the habitat of Chlorogalum purpureum include: alteration 
of lands, direct loss of plants due to construction, widening of roads, 
displacement by nonnative annual grasses, inappropriate livestock 
grazing, and potential alteration of fire cycles (65 FR 14878; March 
20, 2000). Direct loss of individual plants can also occur due to 
military training activities at Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts, 
and off-road vehicle (ORV) use at LPNF. (65 FR 14878; March 20, 2000). 
The areas we are designating as critical habitat provide the habitat 
components essential for the conservation of Chlorogalum purpureum. 
Given the species' need for an open plant community structure, the risk 
from nonnative species competition, predation (e.g., herbivory), or 
soil surface disturbance, we believe that these areas may require 
special management considerations or protection.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    Special management considerations or protections may be needed to 
maintain the primary constituent elements for Chlorogalum purpureum 
within the units being proposed as critical habitat. In some cases, 
protection of existing habitat and current ecological processes may be 
sufficient to ensure that populations of C. purpureum are maintained at 
those sites, and have the ability to reproduce and disperse into 
surrounding habitat. In other cases, however, active management may be 
needed to maintain the primary constituent elements for C. purpureum. 
We have outlined below the most likely kinds of special management and 
protection that C. purpureum critical habitat may require.
    (1) The soils on which Chlorogalum purpureum is found should be 
maintained. Physical properties of the soil, such as its chemical 
composition, structure, and drainage capabilities, would best be 
maintained by limiting or restricting the use of herbicides, 
fertilizers, or other soil amendments; and by minimizing or avoiding 
activities that result in soil compaction (e.g., off-road wheeled and 
tracked vehicle use, trampling by people and livestock) and those that 
would alter the hydrology of areas immediately adjacent to or upslope 
of the species and its critical habitat.
    (2) The soil surface should be maintained to enhance cryptogamic 
crust formation by minimizing the intensity, frequency, duration, and 
acreage of soil surface disturbance. The soil surface should be 
protected at relict sites (i.e., sites with well-developed crusts) to 
provide reference areas and baseline comparisons for research. Because 
cryptogamic crusts are highly susceptible to hot fires (Belnap et al. 
2001) and the presence of nonnative annual grasses in Chlorogalum 
purpureum habitat may promote fires. Annual, intense fires should be 
avoided. The effects of activities that can damage biotic soil crusts 
(e.g., excavations, off-road vehicle use, trampling) should be reduced 
by moving them to areas where crusts are less vulnerable, limiting the 
area affected, and conducting such activities in dryer seasons.
    (3) The associated plant and animal communities should be 
maintained to ensure the habitat needs of pollinators and seed 
dispersal agents are maintained, and predator-prey relationships are 
functioning. The use of pesticides should be restricted so that viable 
populations of pollinators are present to facilitate reproduction of 
Chlorogalum purpureum. Fragmentation of habitat through road 
construction, development, and certain types of fencing should be 
limited. Additionally, predator-prey relationships should be managed 
and protected. For example, installation of fencing could exclude 
predator species (e.g., coyotes, bobcats, San Joaquin kit fox), thus 
causing an increase in prey species (e.g., ground squirrels, gophers, 
rabbits) abundance. A change such as this could result in increased 
herbivory, bulb predation, or burrowing that could affect C. purpureum 
growth and survival.
    (4) In all plant communities where Chlorogalum purpureum occurs, 
invasive, nonnative species such as Centuarea solstitialis (yellow 
star-thistle), Avena spp. (wild oats), Bromus spp. (B. hordeaceus, B. 
diandrus, B. madritensis, B. rubens (brome)), Erodium spp. (storksbill 
or fillaree), and other species need to be actively managed and 
controlled to maintain the open habitat that Chlorogalum purpureum 
needs. Nonnative annual grasses may promote fires by providing 
recurring annual fuel sources. Thus, proactive management should be 
implemented to prevent annual fires, unless future research 
demonstrates that a series of annual fires can benefit Chlorogalum 
purpureum by reducing competition from nonnative species.
    (5) Certain critical habitat areas (i.e., suitable, unoccupied 
habitat between or adjacent to known patches of Chlorogalum purpureum) 
may need to be temporarily fenced or demarcated to identify exclusion 
areas for protection from accidental or intentional trampling by 
humans, livestock, or off-road vehicle use. Heavy disturbance to these 
critical areas may be detrimental to this species' persistence. 
Seasonal exclusions may work in certain areas to protect the critical 
habitat and C. purpureum plants during the critical season of growth 
and reproduction.
    (6) In areas where Chlorogalum purpureum and its habitat occur in 
conjunction with off-road vehicle traffic (e.g., military wheeled and 
tracked vehicles, OHVs), we recommend managing to minimize the severity 
of those effects. Management should include: limiting or avoiding new 
structures and permanent roads and

[[Page 65427]]

trails; managing excavations, scrapings, or other ground surface 
disturbance; managing tracked and wheeled vehicle use during C. 
purpureum growing and dormant seasons; and managing foot traffic, 
bivouacking, and congregations of high numbers of people during C. 
purpureum growing and dormant seasons. These types of activities should 
be managed to limit loss of adults, bulbs, and seeds, loss of habitat, 
increased soil compaction, and increased nonnative species 
encroachment.
    (7) Monitoring programs should be developed or enhanced so that 
areas occupied by purple amole are studied, allowing for a full range 
of life-history data and a thorough analysis of the compatibility and 
impacts of those activities that may adversely affect the species. 
Representative areas should be chosen throughout the distribution of 
the species, including large, high-density populations that have a 
higher potential for persistence. Monitoring studies should be designed 
to aid in the determination of population stability as well as provide 
basic life-history information and data on the ecological needs of the 
species (e.g., identification and status of pollinator species, 
disturbance factors, etc.).

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    Chlorogalum purpureum was likely more widespread in the past, and 
the current population size is small. Therefore, the likelihood that 
chance or unforeseen disturbance will reduce the population size is 
high, and we believe it is important to preserve all areas that 
currently support populations of Chlorogalum purpureum. We included 
some areas that may not currently contain C. purpureum (due to former 
cultivation, threats from nonnative species, or other factors) but 
harbor the necessary primary constituent elements. These areas were 
included to maintain connectivity between sites. We also included 
habitat for C. purpureum adjacent to, and contiguous with, areas of 
known occurrences to maintain landscape-scale processes. Each mapping 
unit contains habitat that is occupied by C. purpureum.
    As described in the ``Background,'' ``Primary Constituent 
Elements,'' and ``Special Management Considerations or Protections'' 
sections, the species depends upon habitat components beyond the 
immediate, occupied areas. These components include specific soil 
types, supporting vegetation communities with which the species is 
associated, and sufficient habitat areas to support the ecological 
processes on which the species depends (e.g., hydrologic regimes, a 
diverse ecosystem that supports the appropriate pollinators and seed 
dispersal mechanisms, sufficient areas of appropriate habitat so the 
plant can expand and re-colonize areas, natural predator-prey 
relationships that promote species survival, and minimal competition 
from non-native species).
    A seed or bulb bank likely exists within habitat that occurs 
adjacent to the current known distribution of Chlorogalum purpureum. 
The extent of this seed or bulb bank is unknown. However, other studies 
have determined that ecosystems with annual weed species have large 
seed banks, especially where the land has been grazed (Baskin and 
Baskin 1998). The critical habitat units for both varieties of 
Chlorogalum contain habitat with annual native and weed species and 
have experienced livestock grazing either currently (LPNF) or 
historically (Fort Hunter Liggett). Because it is logistically 
difficult to determine how extensive a seed or bulb bank is at any 
particular site, and because above-ground plants may or may not be 
present in all patches within a site each year, we cannot quantify what 
proportion of critical habitat units may actually be occupied by a seed 
or bulb bank. However, any seed or bulb bank present is critical for 
the species' survival. If, for example, a fire destroys adult plants 
prior to seed dispersal, no seeds will be set for next year's growth. 
Therefore, a seed or bulb bank that occurs in the surrounding habitat 
could aid in reducing population declines and extirpation. The 
inclusion of unoccupied habitat in the critical habitat unit reflects 
the dynamic nature of the life history characteristics (e.g., seasonal 
dormancy, timing of flowering, etc.) of this species.
    Species necessary for pollination and seed dispersal of Chlorogalum 
purpureum extend beyond the boundary of the known distribution of C. 
purpureum. It is necessary to protect sufficient areas surrounding the 
known occurrences of C. purpureum because occupied habitat that is 
limited in size can maintain few pollinators. Additionally, pollinators 
of C. purpureum are likely to be generalist species that also pollinate 
other plants in the habitats where C. purpureum occurs. A reduction in 
pollinator visitation to the species could reduce seed output, 
resulting in decreases in flowering plant density, inflorescence 
density, or population size.
    Plants with life-history characteristics such as Chlorogalum 
purpureum have distributions that are known to fluctuate (expand or 
decrease) over long time periods in response to both natural and human-
induced events (e.g., rainfall, fire, recreation activities, herbicide 
use, change in private land use practice, etc.). These factors may 
cause the habitat suitability of given areas to vary over time, and 
thus affect the distribution of C. purpureum. Those areas with 
appropriate soil conditions outside of the known occurrences of both 
varieties of C. purpureum and adjacent to the plateau areas where C. p. 
var. reductum occurs are favorable for population expansion and 
reintroductions.
    The ability of an organism to survive and reproduce depends upon 
available resources. For Chlorogalum purpureum, those resources occur 
within and beyond the boundaries of the known distribution of the 
species. Without including the surrounding area, the fitness (i.e., the 
extent to which the species' genes are passed on and represented in 
subsequent generations) of C. purpureum may be reduced. For many 
wildlife and plant species, the entire landscape (rather than site-
specific characteristics) may be influential. The exact amount of area 
needed for C. purpureum cannot be determined without obtaining detailed 
information on measurable variables that reflect the plant's health, 
reproduction, and survival. These data are currently not available. 
Unless further studies are conducted that suggest otherwise, we believe 
the habitat encompassed within the critical habitat boundaries is 
necessary for C. purpureum expansion, reproduction, and survival. It 
incorporates those characteristics needed by the taxon, in addition to 
supporting those ecological functions necessary for C. purpureum 
persistence.
    When selecting areas of critical habitat for Chlorogalum 
purpureumy, we made an effort to avoid developed areas that are 
unlikely to contribute to the conservation of the species. However, we 
did not map critical habitat in sufficient detail to exclude all 
developed areas, or other lands unlikely to contain the primary 
constituent elements essential for the conservation of C. purpureum. 
Areas within the boundaries of the mapped units, such as buildings, 
hard-packed roads (e.g., asphalt, paved, etc.), parking lots, 
railroads, airport runways and other paved areas, lawns, and other 
urban landscaped areas will not contain any of the primary constituent 
elements. Federal actions limited to these areas would therefore not 
trigger a section 7 consultation, unless they may affect the

[[Page 65428]]

species and/or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical 
habitat.
    Critical habitat for Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum includes 
one unit, the Camatta Canyon unit, which currently supports one 
population of this taxon with two known occurrences. Limited data on 
soils and habitats were available for delineating the critical habitat 
boundaries for C. p. var. reductum. No GIS data layers were available 
to create a combined soil, slope, and vegetation model such as that 
created for C. p. var. purpureum. Therefore, the critical habitat 
designation is based on the existing known populations, and 
observations of soil characteristics and vegetation community types 
made by various researchers and agencies. This unit was developed by 
encompassing the extent of appropriate topography and vegetation 
community types surrounding the known populations. Because the 
ecological processes, soil types, and vegetation community upon which 
C. p. var. reductum depends extend beyond the boundary of its known 
distribution, we included the plateau areas, the known distribution, 
and a portion of the adjacent vegetation community in the critical 
habitat boundary. Encroaching activities not conducive to C. p. var. 
reductum persistence, that may adversely affect or destroy the plant 
and habitat that is critical for its expansion and survival, should be 
limited by the current boundaries. These activities include, but are 
not limited to, off-road vehicle use, livestock grazing, herbivory, 
expansion of nonnative species (that out-compete smaller, herbaceous 
species), and ground disturbance by gophers.
    Thorough surveys of the distribution of Chlorogalum purpureum var. 
reductum have not been conducted in San Luis Obispo County. 
Additionally, life-history characteristics (e.g., seasonal dormancy) of 
the species make it difficult to quantify the taxon's exact 
distribution. Therefore, the plants are likely more widespread than 
observed. Multi-year surveys are needed to determine the presence or 
absence of the species. Monitoring C. p. var. purpureum at Fort Hunter 
Liggett has revealed that individual mature plants can be dormant for 
at least three years (Liz Clark, Fort Hunter Liggett, pers. comm., 
2002). During dormancy, C. purpureum is not detectable on the surface. 
Additionally, new C. p. var. purpureum sites are being found within the 
range of the taxon at Fort Hunter Liggett. We expect ``new patches'' of 
C. p. var. reductum also to be revealed in the Camatta Canyon Unit if 
surveys are conducted within the critical habitat boundary in those 
areas where the primary constituent elements occur. Data collected on 
C. p. var. purpureum indicate that the species commonly grows on slopes 
less than 20 percent. However, plants have also been documented on 
steeper slopes up to 50 percent. Therefore, steeper areas are 
incorporated into the critical habitat boundary.
    An extension of the plateau where Chlorogalum purpureum var. 
reductum is currently known to occur exists between the northern and 
southern site. These plateau extensions may potentially support C. p. 
var. reductum (D. Chipping, California Polytechnic State University, in 
litt., 1997). Additional C. p. var. reductum plants likely occur on 
private property which falls between the two known sites and within the 
critical habitat boundary (A. Koch, pers. comm., 2001). This area 
harbors the soils and vegetation appropriate for C. p. var. reductum 
growth and expansion. We believe protecting the habitat between the two 
sites provides connectivity and therefore provides for gene flow and an 
increase in population size in the long term.

Critical Habitat Designation

    The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best 
assessment of the areas needed for the conservation of Chlorogalum 
purpureum at this time. Critical habitat for C. purpureum includes (1) 
private property adjacent to Fort Hunter Liggett property, Monterey 
County; and (2) on LPNF property, a small strip of state lands adjacent 
to Highway 58, and adjacent private property in San Luis Obispo County. 
We have excluded approximately 4,282 ha (10,586 ac) of land as critical 
habitat for C. p. var. purpureum. We have designated approximately 
1,772 ha (4,378 ac) of land as critical habitat for C. p. var. 
reductum. Approximately 25 percent of this total area consists of 
Federal lands, private lands comprise approximately 75 percent, and 
State lands comprise less than 0.1 percent.
    As discussed throughout this rule, the long-term conservation of 
Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum and C. p. var. reductum is 
dependent upon the protection of existing populations, and the 
maintenance of ecological functions within these sites, including 
connectivity between sites within close geographic proximity. 
Chlorogalum purpureum was likely more widespread in the past, and the 
current population size is small and faces threats to its habitat as 
described in the final listing rule and this critical habitat 
designation. Therefore, the likelihood that chance or unforseen 
disturbance will reduce the population size is high, and we believe it 
is important to preserve all areas that currently support populations 
of Chlorogalum purpureum.
    In addition, the designated areas surrounding the known 
distribution of both varieties of Chlorogalum purpureum are essential 
because:
    (1) Thorough surveys of the distribution of Chlorogalum purpureum 
have not been conducted. Additionally, life-history characteristics 
(e.g., seasonal dormancy) of C. purpureum make it difficult to quantify 
the species' exact distribution. Therefore, the plants are likely more 
widespread than observed. Surveys conducted for several years are 
needed to determine the presence or absence of the species.
    (2) A seed or bulb bank likely exists within habitat that occurs 
adjacent to the current known distribution of Chlorogalum purpureum 
var. purpureum and C. p. var. reductum. The extent of this seed or bulb 
bank is unknown. However, other studies have determined that ecosystems 
with annual species have large seed banks, especially where the land 
has been grazed (Baskin and Baskin 1998). Because it is logistically 
difficult to determine how extensive the seed or bulb bank is at any 
particular site, and because above-ground plants may or may not be 
present in all patches within a site each year, we cannot quantify what 
proportion of the critical habitat unit may actually be occupied by C. 
purpureum. However, any seed or bulb bank present is critical for the 
species' survival. If, for example, a fire destroys adult plants prior 
to seed dispersal, no seeds will be set for the following years' 
growth. A seed or bulb bank that occurs in the surrounding habitat 
could help limit population declines and extirpation. The inclusion of 
unoccupied habitat in the critical habitat unit reflects the dynamic 
nature of the life history characteristics (e.g., seasonal dormancy, 
timing of flowering, etc.) of this species.
    (3) Species necessary for pollination and seed dispersal of 
Chlorogalum purpureum extend beyond the boundary of the known 
distribution of C. purpureum. It is necessary to protect sufficient 
areas surrounding the known occurrences of C. purpureum because 
occupied habitat that is limited in size can maintain few pollinators. 
Additionally, the pollinators of C. purpureum are likely to be 
generalists that also pollinate other plants in the grassland, oak 
savannah, and chaparral habitat where the plant occurs. A reduction in 
pollinator visitation to C. purpureum could reduce seed output,

[[Page 65429]]

resulting in decreases in flowering plant density, inflorescence 
density, or population size.
    (4) Plants with life-history characteristics such as Chlorogalum 
purpureum have distributions that are known to fluctuate (expand or 
decrease) over long time periods in response to natural and 
unpredictable events (e.g., rainfall, fire, recreation activities, 
herbicide use, change in private land use practice). These factors may 
cause the habitat suitability of given areas to vary over time, and 
thus affect the distribution of C. purpureum. Areas beyond the known 
occurrences of C. purpureum that have appropriate soil conditions are 
favorable for population expansion and reintroductions (if necessary in 
the future).
    The ability of an organism to survive and reproduce depends upon 
available resources. For Chlorogalum purpureum, those resources occur 
beyond the boundaries of the known distribution of the species. Without 
including the surrounding area, the fitness (i.e., the extent to which 
the species genes are passed on and represented in subsequent 
generations) of Chlorogalum purpureum may be reduced. For many wildlife 
and plant species, the entire landscape (rather than site-specific 
characteristics) may be influential. The exact amount of area needed 
for Chlorogalum purpureum cannot be determined without studying 
measurable variables which reflect the plant's health, reproduction, 
and survival. Very little of this information is available for C. p. 
var. purpureum or C. p. var. reductum. Therefore, unless the results of 
future studies suggest otherwise, we believe the habitat encompassed 
within the critical habitat boundaries is necessary for C. purpureum 
expansion, reproduction, and survival because the area has those 
characteristics needed by the species, in addition to supporting those 
ecological functions necessary for C. purpureum persistence.
    A brief description of the critical habitat units are given below:

Jolon Unit

    This unit consists of 620 ha (1,532 ac) of private property near 
Jolon Road. This population is probably a remnant of a much larger 
population that historically extended beyond the immediate Fort Hunter 
Liggett area. The land within this unit provides those characteristics 
essential for the species discussed above.

Camatta Canyon Unit

    This unit consists of one area that encompasses the similar 
topographic features and vegetative communities that surround the only 
two known occurrences of this species. The Camatta Canyon Unit (1,772 
ha (4,378 ac)) encompasses the plateau on both the north and south 
sides of Highway 58 near Camatta Canyon, extending south approximately 
5 km (3 mi) to include two private inholding areas within the LPNF 
boundaries.
    The land within this unit provides those characteristics essential 
for the species discussed above. More specifically, the area 
surrounding the known distribution of Chlorogalum purpureum var. 
reductum and the plateau adjacent to the known distribution (i.e., 
finger-like extensions in northern portion of the unit) are essential 
because:
    (1) Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum is found at only two sites 
in the La Panza Range in central San Luis Obispo County. The two sites 
likely make up one ``population'' of plants due to the close proximity 
of the sites and the characteristic ``patchiness'' of plants that has 
been observed with both varieties of C. purpureum. The limited 
geographic distribution of C. p. var. reductum increases the likelihood 
of its extinction. The risk of extinction elevates the need for 
protecting all existing plants, habitat, and soil conditions for the 
taxon's expansion. Additionally, ecological attributes upon which the 
species relies (e.g., pollinators, seed dispersal agents) should be 
protected. Activities that may adversely affect or destroy the plant 
and the habitat that is critical for its survival and expansion should 
be limited. These activities include, but are not limited to, off-road 
vehicle use, livestock grazing, herbivory, and ground disturbance by 
gophers.
    (2) Thorough surveys of the distribution of Chlorogalum purpureum 
var. reductum have not been conducted in the area. Surveys are needed 
across multiple years to determine the presence or absence of the 
species. Monitoring of C. p. var. purpureum at Fort Hunter Liggett has 
found known individual mature plants to be dormant for at least three 
years. During dormancy, both varieties of Chlorogalum are not 
detectable on the surface. Because discoveries of new C. p. var. 
purpureum sites are being found within the range of the taxon at Fort 
Hunter Liggett, one may expect ``new patches'' of C. p. var. reductum 
to occur in the Camatta Canyon Unit if surveys were conducted within 
the critical habitat boundary in those areas where the primary 
constituent elements occur.
    (3) An extension of the plateau/flat-top area where Chlorogalum 
purpureum var. reductum is currently known to occur exists between the 
northern site and the southern site. This area harbors the soils and 
vegetation appropriate for C. p. var. reductum growth and expansion. We 
believe it is important to provide connectivity between the two sites. 
Additionally, the area encompasses what appear to be flat-top/mesa-like 
extensions (which likely contain suitable habitat) that occur between 
the two known distributions (D. Chipping, California Polytechnic State 
University, in litt., 1997). A. Koch (CDFG, pers. comm., 2001) also 
notes that C. p. var. reductum occurs on private property which falls 
between the two known sites and within the critical habitat boundary 
line.
    (4) The vegetation community that Chlorogalum purpureum var. 
reductum depends on extends beyond the boundary of the known 
distribution. By encompassing plateau areas, the known distribution, 
and a portion of the adjacent vegetation community that the species 
depends on, ecological functions (e.g., cryptogamic crust formation, 
predator-prey relationships, pollinator activity) within the habitat 
are maintained such that ``edge effects'' from encroaching activities 
not conducive to C. p. var. reductum persistence (e.g., off-road 
vehicle use, livestock grazing, etc.) do not inhibit the taxon's 
expansion or survival. Additionally, adjacent grassland and oak 
woodland habitat that is adversely affected could result in greater 
rates of herbivory or regeneration/expansion of nonnative plants that 
can outcompete smaller, herbaceous species such as C. p. var. reductum.
    Lands proposed are under private, State, and Federal jurisdiction. 
State lands are managed by CalTrans, and Federal lands are managed by 
the the Forest Service (i.e., LPNF). The approximate areas of proposed 
critical habitat by land ownership are shown in Table 1.

     Table 1.--Approximate Areas, Given in Hectares (ha) and Acres (ac) \1\ of Proposed Critical Habitat for
                                     Chlorogalum purpureum by Land Ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Unit name                   Private              State              Federal              Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jolon...........................  620 ha (1,532 ac).  ..................  ..................  620 ha (1,532 ac)

[[Page 65430]]

 
Camatta Canyon..................  1,324 ha (3,271     7 ha (18 ac)......  441 ha (1,089 ac).  1,772 ha (4,378
                                   ac).                                                        ac)
                                 ---------------------
    Total.......................  1,944 ha (4,803     7 ha (18 ac)......  441 ha (1,089 ac).  2,443 ha (5,910
                                   ac).                                                        ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Approximate acres have been converted to hectares (2.47 ac = 1 ha). Based on the level of precision of
  mapping of each unit, hectares and acres have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Totals are sums of
  units.

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, or carry out do 
not destroy or adversely modify a species' critical habitat to the 
extent that the action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical 
habitat for the conservation 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)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate 
their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is 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 the action agency in eliminating 
conflicts that may be caused by the 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 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 the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent 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 Chlorogalum purpureum 
or its critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. Activities 
on private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency, 
such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under 
section 404 of the Clean Water Act or any other activity requiring 
Federal action (i.e., funding, authorization) will also continue to be 
subject to the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not 
affecting listed species or critical habitat, as well as actions on 
non-Federal lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or 
permitted, will not require section 7 consultation.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly describe and 
evaluate in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely 
modify such habitat or that may be affected by such designation. 
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat would 
be those that alter the primary constituent elements to the extent that 
the value of critical habitat for the conservation of Chlorogalum 
purpureum is appreciably reduced. 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 
include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Destruction of grassland, oak woodland, and oak savannah 
communities, and open areas found within shrubland communities, 
including but not limited to, introduction of nonnative species, heavy 
recreational use, maintenance of an unnatural fire regime, development, 
road maintenance, agricultural activities, discing, mowing, or 
chaining;
    (2) Unmanaged soil compaction or disturbance of upper soil 
surfaces. These activities include, but are not limited to, grazing, 
fire management, or mechanical disturbance such as by vehicles with 
tracks or heavy wheels, and trampling by livestock and people; and,
    (3) Unmanaged application or runoff of pesticides, herbicides, 
fertilizers, or other chemical or biological agents.
    To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we 
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may 
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may 
affect a listed species. Section 7 ensures that actions funded, 
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or 
adversely modify the listed

[[Page 65431]]

species' critical habitat. Actions likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species are those that would appreciably reduce the 
likelihood of the species' survival and recovery, and actions likely to 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that would 
appreciably reduce the value of critical habitat for the survival and 
recovery of the listed species.
    Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on 
both survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of 
these definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species 
concerned, particularly when the area of the proposed action is 
occupied by the species concerned. The units we are designating are 
occupied by either above-ground plants or a Chlorogalum purpureum seed 
bank. Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas 
where the species may be present to ensure that their actions do not 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The units also 
contain some areas which are considered unoccupied. However, we believe 
for those areas we have ultimately identified as critical habitat, that 
the designation of critical habitat is not likely to result in a 
significant regulatory burden above that already in place due to the 
presence of the listed species. Few additional consultations are likely 
to be conducted due to the designation of critical habitat. Actions on 
which Federal agencies consult with us include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Development on private lands requiring permits from Federal 
agencies, such as authorization from the Corps, pursuant to section 404 
of the Clean Water Act, or a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the 
Service, or some other Federal action that includes Federal funding 
that will subject the action to the section 7 consultation process 
(e.g., from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, or the Department of Housing and Urban Development);
    (2) Military activities of the U.S. Department of Defense (Army 
Reserve) on their lands or lands under their jurisdiction;
    (3) Activities of the Forest Service on their lands or lands under 
their jurisdiction;
    (4) The release or authorization of release of biological control 
agents by the U.S. Department of Agriculture;
    (5) Regulation of activities affecting point source pollution 
discharges into waters of the United States by the Environmental 
Protection Agency under section 402 of the Clean Water Act; and
    (6) Construction of communication sites licensed by the Federal 
Communications Commission, and authorization of Federal grants or 
loans.
    Where federally-listed wildlife species occur on private lands 
proposed for development, any Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) 
submitted by the applicant to secure a permit to take, according to 
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, would be subject to the section 7 
consultation process. Several other species that are listed under the 
Act have been documented to occur in the same general areas as the 
current distribution of Chlorogalum purpureum. Listed wildlife species 
identified either on Fort Hunter Liggett or in close proximity to this 
area include San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), vernal pool 
fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), California red-legged frog (Rana 
aurora draytonii), arroyo toad (Bufo californicus), bald eagle 
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), California condor (Gymnogyps 
californianus), and least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). The 
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum californiense), a 
candidate wildlife species (taxon for which the Service has sufficient 
biological information to support a proposal to list as endangered or 
threatened), has also been documented at Fort Hunter Liggett. Species 
that are listed under the Act that may occur in the same general area 
as C. p. var. reductum include vernal pool fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy 
shrimp (Branchinecta longientenna), California red-legged frog, and 
California condor.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
likely constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the 
Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES 
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 (503/231-6131, FAX 503/231-6243).

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Military Lands

Section 3(5)(A) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the 
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations 
or protection; and, (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 
Special management and protection are not required if adequate 
management and protection are already in place. Adequate special 
management or protection is provided by a legally operative plan/
agreement that addresses the maintenance and improvement of the primary 
constituent elements important to the species and that manages for the 
long-term conservation of the species. If any areas containing the 
primary constituent elements are currently being managed to address the 
conservation needs of Chlorogalum purpureum management or protection, 
these areas would not meet the definition of critical habitat in 
section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and would not be included in this final 
rule.
    To determine if a plan provides adequate management or protection 
we consider--(1) Whether there is a current plan specifying the 
management actions and whether such actions provide sufficient 
conservation benefit to the species; (2) whether the plan provides 
assurances that the conservation management strategies will be 
implemented; and (3) whether the plan provides assurances that the 
conservation management strategies will be effective. In determining if 
management strategies are likely to be implemented, we consider 
whether--(a) A management plan or agreement exists that specifies the 
management actions being implemented or to be implemented; (b) there is 
a timely schedule for implementation; (c) there is a high probability 
that the funding source(s) or other resources necessary to implement 
the actions will be available; and (d) the party(ies) have the 
authority and long-term commitment to implement the management actions, 
as demonstrated, for example, by a legal instrument providing enduring 
protection and management of the lands. In determining whether an 
action is likely to be effective, we consider whether--(a) The plan 
specifically addresses the management needs, including reduction of 
threats to the species; (b) such actions have been successful in the 
past; (c) there are provisions for monitoring and assessment of the 
effectiveness of the management actions; and (d) adaptive management 
principles have been incorporated into the plan.
    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) requires each 
military installation that encompasses land and

[[Page 65432]]

water suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources 
to have completed, by November 17, 2001, an INRMP. An INRMP integrates 
implementation of the military mission of the installation with 
stewardship of the natural resources found on the installation. Each 
INRMP includes an assessment of the ecological needs of the 
installation, including needs to provide for the conservation of listed 
species; a statement of goals and priorities; a detailed description of 
management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological 
needs; and a monitoring and adaptive management plan. Under section 7 
of the Act, we consult with the military on the development and 
implementation of INRMPs for installations with listed species. 
Military installations with approved INRMPs which address the needs of 
species generally do not meet the definition of critical habitat 
discussed above, as they require no additional special management or 
protection. Therefore, we generally do not include these areas in 
critical habitat designations if they meet the following three 
criteria: (1) A current INRMP must be complete and provide a benefit to 
the species; (2) the plan must provide assurances that the conservation 
management strategies will be implemented; and (3) the plan must 
provide assurances that the conservation management strategies will be 
effective, by providing for periodic monitoring and revisions as 
necessary. If all of these criteria are met, then the lands covered 
under the plan likely would not meet the definition of critical 
habitat. The Department of Defense has prepared an INRMP for the CANG 
at Camp Roberts that meets these criteria, and we have determined that 
these lands do not meet the definition of critical habitat under 
section 3(5)(A). We believe the assurances provided through the INRMP 
are sufficient to provide for the conservation of Chlorogalum purpureum 
var. purpureum. Consequently, these lands have not been included in 
this critical habitat designation.
    The Department of the Army is currently developing an INRMP for 
Fort Hunter Liggett that addresses long-term conservation measures and 
adaptive management for Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum. We met 
with Fort Hunter Liggett on March 6, June 4, and June 17, 2002, to 
discuss the content of the installation's draft INRMP regarding the 
adequacy of conservation measures for C. p. var. purpureum. We provided 
written comments for consideration in developing the draft INRMP on May 
31, June 4, and June 17, 2002. Our written comments conveyed the 
current status of the plant, criteria necessary for INRMPs to 
successfully preclude critical habitat designation, our concerns with 
Fort Hunter Liggett management of C. p. var. purpureum habitat, and a 
recommended strategy detailing measures that would provide for the 
long-term conservation of the species on the installation.
    Fort Hunter Liggett biologists initiated a long-term monitoring 
program in 1998 to investigate life-history information on Chlorogalum 
purpureum var. purpureum in 23 plots placed subjectively where C. p. 
var. purpureum was known to occur. This monitoring program was reviewed 
and revised by academicians in 2000 and changes were made such that 
only two years of data are available for analysis. Data on leaf number, 
leaf width, flowering, numbers of fruits, and seed production were 
collected during the monitoring effort. Vegetative cover and 
disturbance type were recorded if found. Although the monitoring 
program provided life-history information, it was not designed to 
assess either population trends or effects of military activities on C. 
p. var. purpureum. We have reviewed the data and determined that it 
cannot be used to assess the above issues since--(1) The data cannot 
describe levels of recruitment on the installation, as seedlings cannot 
be accurately identified; (2) the relative age of individuals cannot be 
reliably determined from leaf number or width; (3) the monitoring 
effort lacked adequate sample size and random placement of plots; and 
(4) the plant undergoes dormancy for several years at a time. However, 
future experiments that expose plants of known age (by using lab-grown 
plants) to varying levels of impacts could provide valuable information 
on the effects of military training. Because the species is relatively 
slow to mature, an assessment of changes in population size would 
likely require more than a decade. Discussion regarding the INRMP will 
include a review of the monitoring program.
    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 critical 
habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such 
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
    Fort Hunter Liggett has commented that critical habitat on their 
installation would impact the training mission and cause adverse 
economic impacts. The military has provided information detailing 
annual direct costs of $2.3 million. These costs do not include 
additional costs, both monetary and human, incurred by local units that 
travel to Fort Hunt Liggett to train and who likely would be forced to 
train in other states. Types of training that the Army believes would 
no longer be viable at Ft. Hunter Liggett with the proposed designation 
of critical habitat include: training in the establishment of emergency 
airfields; training in the defense of emergency and established 
airfields; use of the machine gun and grenade ranges; use of the long-
established tank trail between Camp Robert and the Fort; and staging 
for a variety of other types of training, including live-fire 
exercises.
    We are working with Fort Hunter Liggett to identify conservation 
measures and adaptive management considerations for the conservation of 
Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum. Because the habitat identified as 
the Fort Hunter Liggett Unit does provide one or both of the primary 
constituent elements and requires special management considerations or 
protection, it was proposed for designation as critical habitat. We 
note that the military is developing an INRMP and is currently 
undertaking other measures designed to provide special management for 
the species. This INRMP, when completed, and the other measures would 
most likely justify exclusion of this area under section 3(5)(A) at 
that time. However, because the benefits of exclusion of critical 
habitat on Fort Hunter Liggett outweigh the benefits of the 
designation, we are excluding Fort Hunter Liggett under section 
4(b)(2).

Economic Analysis

    As stated above, 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.
    Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat 
designation, a draft economic analysis was prepared to estimate the 
potential economic effect of the designation. The draft analysis was 
made publicly available for review on May 7, 2002 (67 FR 30644). We 
accepted comments on the draft analysis through June 6, 2002.

[[Page 65433]]

    Our draft economic analysis evaluated the potential future effects 
associated with the listing of Chlorogalum purpureum as a threatened 
species under the Act, as well as any potential effect of the critical 
habitat designation above and beyond those regulatory and economic 
impacts associated with listing. To quantify the proportion of total 
potential economic impacts attributable to the critical habitat 
designation, the analysis evaluated a ``without critical habitat'' 
baseline and compared it to a ``with critical habitat'' scenario. The 
``without critical habitat'' baseline represented the current and 
expected economic activity under all modifications prior to the 
critical habitat designation, including protections afforded the 
species under Federal and State laws. Information received during the 
comment period further informed our economic review. As a result, we 
have identified significant but unquantified indirect costs that would 
be incurred by the military related to redirection of training 
activities and reduced military readiness.
    The majority of consultations resulting from the critical habitat 
designation for Chlorogalum purpureum are likely to address ongoing 
activities (e.g., grazing) at LPNF. Every consultation must consider 
how an action would affect the listed species and its habitat, whether 
or not critical habitat has been designated; for this reason, 
consultations that are reinitiated solely because of the designation of 
critical habitat will not result in recommendations or requirements for 
projects to be modified.
    Our economic analysis recognizes that there may be costs from 
delays associated with reinitiating completed consultations after a 
critical habitat designation is made final.
    Following the close of the comment period on the draft economic 
analysis, a final addendum was completed which incorporated public 
comments on the draft analysis.
    We concluded that the designation of critical habitat as proposed 
would result in a significant economic impact to the military. Based on 
data provided by the military during the comment period, total 
estimated section 7 costs are likely to exceed $2.3 million in direct 
costs, plus the currently unquantified economic and human costs 
associated with changes in military training activities at Fort Hunter 
Liggett and a potential resulting reduction in military readiness. This 
data supported our decision to exclude Fort Hunter Liggett under 
section 4(b)(2). State agencies are not expected to be impacted by the 
designation of critical habitat. Costs to private landowners are 
expected to be approximately $28,000 for section 7 consultations, all 
attributable solely to the critical habitat designation. These 
estimates are based on the existing consultation history with agencies 
in the area and increased public awareness and technical assistance 
regarding clarification of the requirements that critical habitat might 
impose on private landowners. Therefore, we conclude that minimal 
incremental costs are anticipated as a result of this designation of 
critical habitat for Chlorogalum purpureum.
    A copy of the final economic analysis and supporting documents are 
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting 
our Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order (EO) 12866, this is a 
significant rule and was reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) in accordance with the four criteria discussed below.
    (a) In the economic analysis, we determined that this rule will not 
have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more or adversely 
affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or 
other units of government. Chlorogalum purpureum was listed as 
threatened in March of 2000. Since that time we have conducted, and 
will continue to conduct, formal and informal section 7 consultations 
with other Federal agencies to ensure that their actions will not 
jeopardize the continued existence of C. purpureum.
    Under the Act, Federal agencies shall consult with the Service to 
ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such 
agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an 
endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat. The Act does not impose any 
restrictions on non-Federal persons unless they are conducting 
activities funded or otherwise sponsored, authorized, or permitted by a 
Federal agency (see Table 2 below). Based upon our experience with this 
species and its needs, we conclude that any Federal action or 
authorized action that could potentially result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat would also be considered as 
``jeopardy'' under the Act in areas occupied by the species.
    Accordingly, the designation of currently occupied areas as 
critical habitat is not anticipated to have any incremental impacts on 
what actions may or may not be conducted by Federal agencies or non-
Federal persons who receive Federal authorization or funding beyond the 
effects resulting from the listing of this species. Non-Federal persons 
who do not have a Federal ``sponsorship'' in their actions are not 
restricted by the designation of critical habitat. The designation of 
areas as critical habitat where section 7 consultations would not have 
occurred but for the critical habitat designation may have impacts on 
what actions may or may not be conducted by Federal agencies or non-
Federal persons who receive Federal authorization or funding that are 
not attributable to the species listing. These impacts were evaluated 
in our economic analysis (under section 4 of the Act; see Economic 
Analysis section of this rule).

               Table 2.--Impacts of Chlorogalum purpureum Listing and Critical Habitat Designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Additional activities potentially
      Categories of activities         Activities potentially affected by       affected by critical habitat
                                              species listing only                     designation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Activities Potentially       Activities such as field maneuvers by  Activities by these Federal agencies
 Affected \2\.                        troops or vehicles, training,          in designated areas where section 7
                                      bivouacking, construction and          consultations would not have
                                      facility development conducted by      occurred but for the critical
                                      the Army Reserve at Fort Hunter        habitat designation.
                                      Liggett. Activities authorized or
                                      conducted by the Forest Service at
                                      LPNF, such as livestock grazing,
                                      road maintenance or construction,
                                      and recreation.

[[Page 65434]]

 
Private or other non-Federal         Activities that require a Federal      Funding, authorization, or
 Activities Potentially Affected      action (permit, authorization, or      permitting actions by Federal
 \3\.                                 funding) and may remove or destroy     agencies in designated areas where
                                      habitat for Chlorogalum purpureum by   section 7 consultations would not
                                      mechanical, chemical, or other means   have occurred but for the critical
                                      or appreciably decrease habitat        habitat designation.
                                      value or quality through indirect
                                      effects (e.g., edge effects,
                                      invasion of exotic plants or
                                      animals, fragmentation of habitat).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This column represents activities potentially affected by the critical habitat designation in addition to
  those activities potentially affected by listing the species.
\2\ Activities initiated by a Federal agency.
\3\ Activities initiated by a private or other non-Federal entity that may need Federal authorization or
  funding.

    (b) This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' 
actions. As discussed above, Federal agencies have been required to 
ensure that their actions not jeopardize the continued existence of 
Chlorogalum purpureum since its listing in 2000. We evaluated the 
impact of designating areas where section 7 consultations would not 
have occurred but for the critical habitat designation in our economic 
analysis (see Economic Analysis section of this rule). We do not expect 
prohibition against adverse modification of critical habitat to impose 
any restrictions in addition to those that currently exist on currently 
occupied land and will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' 
actions on unoccupied lands.
    (c) We do not expect this final rule to materially affect 
entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and 
obligations of their recipients. Federal agencies are currently 
required to ensure that their activities do not jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species, and as discussed above, we do not 
anticipate that the adverse modification analysis (resulting from 
critical habitat designation) will have any incremental effects.
    (d) OMB has determined that this rule raises novel and legal or 
policy issues. Therefore, this rule is significant under E.O. 12866, 
and, as a result, has undergone OMB review.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    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 effect 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 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act 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. In this rule, we are certifying that the critical habitat 
designation for Chlorogalum purpureum will not have a significant 
effect on a substantial number of small entities. The following 
discussion explains our rationale.
    Small entities include small organizations, such as independent 
non-profit organizations, small governmental jurisdictions, including 
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 
50,000 residents, as well as small businesses. 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. To determine if potential economic impacts to 
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of 
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule as 
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general, 
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical 
small business firm's business operations.
    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 
critical habitat designations of 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.
    Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, 
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are 
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by 
critical habitat designation. In areas where the species may be 
present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under 
section 7 of the Act on activities that they fund, permit, or implement 
that may affect Chlorogalum purpureum. Federal agencies also must 
consult with us if their activities may affect critical habitat. 
Designation of critical habitat therefore, could result in an 
additional economic impact on small entities due to the requirement to 
reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities. However, since 
C. purpureum was proposed for listing we have conducted only one formal 
consultation with Fort Hunter Liggett and one with LPNF. We are 
currently in the process of preparing two biological opinions for C. p. 
var. purpureum. None of the past or ongoing consultations involves an 
applicant that qualifies as a small entity.
    In the draft economic analysis, we found that the proposed 
designation could potentially impose total economic costs for 
consultations and modifications to projects within proposed critical 
habitat for Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum on privately-owned 
land up to $12,000 over a 10-year period in the

[[Page 65435]]

Jolon Unit (formerly Fort Hunter Liggett Unit) and up to $2,000 over a 
10-year period in the Camp Roberts Unit. We also found the proposed 
designation could potentially impose total economic costs for 
consultations and modifications to projects within proposed critical 
habitat for C. p. var. reductum on privately-owned land up to $14,000 
over a 10-year period in the Camatta Canyon Unit.
    For the final designation, the Service has concluded that the 
proposed lands within the boundaries of Camp Roberts, as discussed in 
the ``Relationship of Critical Habitat to Military Lands'' section of 
this rule, do not meet the definition of critical habitat under section 
3(5)(A) of the Act. Therefore, any projects or activities on these 
lands will not be subject to consultations as a result of critical 
habitat designation for Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum and the 
estimated cost of up to $2,000 over a 10-year period for private lands 
in the Camp Roberts Unit would no longer be applicable.
    While SBREFA does not explicitly define either ``substantial 
number'' or ``significant effect,'' the Small Business Administration, 
as well as other Federal agencies, have interpreted these terms to 
represent an impact on 20 percent or greater of the number of small 
entities in any industry and an effect equal to three percent or more 
of a business' annual sales. In determining whether this rule could 
``significantly affect a substantial number of small entities,'' the 
economic analysis first determined whether critical habitat could 
potentially affect a ``substantial number'' of small entities in 
counties supporting critical habitat areas.
    On Federal lands included in this proposed critical habitat 
designation, grazing is the only activity identified as possibly having 
an economic effect on small entities. Currently, there is only one 
grazing permittee at LPNF out of all Federal lands included in this 
rule, and there is no indication that other entities will apply for 
grazing permits in the foreseeable future. This does not represent a 
substantial number of small grazing entities. The grazing permittee at 
LPNF is for the Navajo Allotment in the Santa Lucia Ranger District. 
Only a portion of critical habitat lies within this grazing allotment. 
The draft economic analysis and final addendum address the potential 
costs associated with activities taking place in LPNF, totaling 
approximately $38,000 to all parties including LPNF, the Service, and 
private landowners.
    Most of the remainder of the proposed designation is on private 
land. 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 live-stock 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, are unlikely to be involved in 
projects in these areas. In rural regions of San Luis Obispo and 
Monterey counties, previous consultations under section 7 of the Act 
between us and other Federal agencies most frequently involved the 
Corps 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. Corps 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. 
Chlorogalum purpureum is an upland plant species and unlikely to be the 
subject of consultations with the Corps. In agricultural areas, the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) occasionally funds 
activities on farms or ranches that require consultation with us. These 
consultations are infrequent, however. In the last decade, in all of 
Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties combined, the NRCS has completed 
only four formal consultations with the Service. NRCS is currently 
initiating two additional formal consultations, although neither 
involve C. purpureum. San Luis Obispo and Monterey counties encompass 
about 4 million acres of land and support over 40 listed species. Based 
on the low level of past activity, we expect few, if any, consultations 
with the NRCS or other federal agencies on the approximately 4,821 
acres of non-federal lands 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 for any small 
businesses that may be required to consult with us regarding their 
project's impact on Chlorogalum purpureum and its critical habitat. 
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 
resulting 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. Second, 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. 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 develop information that could 
contribute to the recovery of the species.
    Based on our experience with consultations pursuant to section 7 of 
the Act 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 Chlorogalum purpureum, 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

[[Page 65436]]

it faces, as described in the final listing rule and this critical 
habitat designation.
    It is likely that an agricultural land owner or developer could 
modify a project or take measures to protect Chlorogalum purpureum. 
Based on the types of modifications and measures that have been 
implemented in the past for plant species, steps could be taken such as 
installing fencing or re-aligning a project to avoid sensitive areas. 
The cost for implementing these measures for one project is expected to 
be of the same order of magnitude as the total cost of the consultation 
process, i.e., approximately $10,000. It should be noted that a 
developer likely would already be required to undertake such measures 
due to regulations in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 
These measures are not likely to result in a significant economic 
impact to project proponents.
    As required under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we conducted an 
analysis of the potential economic impacts of this critical habitat 
designation, and that analysis was made available for public review and 
comment before finalization of this designation. Based on estimates 
provided in the economic analysis, the potential economic impact of 
critical habitat designation for Chlorogalum purpureum over the next 10 
years is about $96,000. Out of this about 27 percent, or $26,000, could 
potentially be borne by the private sector. However, due to the 2,217-
acre reduction of designation of private lands in the final rule, the 
actual impact of critical habitat designation on private landowners 
will be less than that estimated in the economic analysis.
    In summary, we have considered whether this rule would result in a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
We have determined, for the above reasons, that it will not affect a 
substantial number of small entities. Furthermore, we believe that the 
potential compliance costs for the remaining number of small entities 
that may be affected by this rule will not be significant. Therefore, 
we are certifying that the designation of critical habitat for 
Chlorogalum purpureum will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

    In the economic analysis, we determined 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. Refer to the final economic analysis for a discussion of 
the effects of this determination.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.
    (a) This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Small 
governments will be affected only to the extent that they must ensure 
that any programs involving Federal funds, permits, or other authorized 
activities must ensure that their actions will not adversely affect the 
critical habitat.
    (b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or 
greater in any year, that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of 
critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order 13211 on 
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.

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 Chlorogalum purpureum in a takings 
implication assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes 
that this final rule does not pose significant takings implications.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat in 
areas currently occupied by Chlorogalum purpureum would have little 
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities. 
The designations 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 making 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 have designated critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species 
Act. The rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the 
primary constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of Chlorogalum purpureum.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
for which Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act is required. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that an Environmental Assessment and/or an 
Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 need not be prepared in connection with regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining our 
reason for this determination was published in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

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

[[Page 65437]]

Order 13175, and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, 
we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully 
with recognized Federal Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. The 
designated critical habitat for Chlorogalum purpureum does not contain 
any Tribal lands or lands that we have identified as impacting Tribal 
trust resources.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others, 
is available upon request from the Ventura 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, and Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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


    2. In Sec.  17.12(h) revise the entry for Chlorogalum purpureum 
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
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Chlorogalum purpureum............  Purple amole          U.S.A. (CA)........  Liliaceae--Lily....  T                       689     17.96(a)           NA
                                    (Camatta Canyon
                                    amole).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    3. Amend Sec.  17.96(a), by adding critical habitat for purple 
amole (Chlorogalum purpureum) in alphabetical order under Family 
Liliaceae to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) * * *
    Family Liliaceae: Chlorogalum purpureum (purple amole)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Monterey and San Luis 
Obispo counties, California, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for 
Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum consist of, but are not limited 
to:
    (i) Soils that are sandy clay to loamy clay, well-drained on the 
surface, and are often overlain with fine gravel; and,
    (ii) Plant communities in functioning ecosystems that support 
associated plant and animal species (e.g., pollinators, predator-prey 
species, etc.), including valley and foothill grassland, blue oak 
woodland or oak savannahs, and open areas within shrubland communities. 
Within these vegetation community types, C. p. var. purpureum appears 
where there is little cover of other species which compete for 
resources available for growth and reproduction.
    (3) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for 
Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum consist of, but are not limited to:
    (i) Well-drained, red clay soils with a large component of gravel 
and pebbles on the upper soil surface; and,
    (ii) Plant communities in functioning ecosystems that support 
associated plant and animal species (e.g., pollinators, predator-prey 
species, etc.), including grassland, blue oak woodland (Quercus 
douglasii) or oak savannahs, and open areas within shrubland 
communities. Within these vegetation communities C. p. var. reductum 
appears where there is little cover of other species which compete for 
resources available for growth and reproduction.
    (4) Critical habitat does not include existing features and 
structures, such as buildings, hard-packed roads (e.g., asphalt, 
pavement), aqueducts, railroads, airport runways and buildings, other 
paved areas, lawns, and other urban landscaped areas not containing any 
of the primary constituent elements.
    (5) Critical Habitat Map Units--Data layers defining map units were 
mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
    (6) Note: Map 1--Index Map follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 65438]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC02.002


[[Page 65439]]


    (7) Jolon Unit.
    (i) Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum. Monterey County, 
California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Jolon. Lands bounded by 
UTM zone 10 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 666160, 3986620; 666160, 3986620; 
666160, 3986620; 666160, 3986620; 666441, 3986630; 666441, 3986630; 
666456, 3985980; 666441, 3986630; 666468, 3985460; 666471, 3985340; 
666646, 3985110; 666965, 3985110; 667260, 3985130; 667281, 3984880; 
667567, 3984910; 667699, 3984690; 667849, 3984770; 668125, 3984770; 
668175, 3984600; 668224, 3984470; 668334, 3984260; 668086, 3984250; 
668094, 3984040; 668004, 3984040; 667888, 3983960; 667891, 3983860; 
668085, 3983860; 668118, 3983590; 668538, 3983430; 668526, 3983290; 
668780, 3983360; 668909, 3983300; 668905, 3983060; 669317, 3983070; 
669346, 3982270; 669638, 3982120; 669638, 3981950; 669463, 3981960; 
669396, 3981850; 668647, 3981840; 668649, 3982250; 668435, 3982790; 
668126, 3982790; 668122, 3982620; 667509, 3982620; 667426, 3982950; 
667272, 3982930; 667261, 3983040; 667283, 3983420; 666998, 3983420; 
666907, 3983410; 666887, 3984220; 666496, 3984220; 666468, 3985460; 
667720, 3980200; 667067, 3980190; 667067, 3980190; 667720, 3980200; 
667417, 3979930; 668171, 3979370; 668123, 3979400; 668061, 3979450; 
668002, 3979490; 667943, 3979540; 667884, 3979580; 667829, 3979620; 
667781, 3979650; 667741, 3979680; 667417, 3979930; 668283, 3979290; 
668315, 3979270; 668335, 3979260; 668311, 3979270; 668283, 3979290; 
669233, 3978620; 669242, 3978640; 669244, 3978640; 669255, 3978650; 
669303, 3978720; 669365, 3978680; 669374, 3978620; 669441, 3978600; 
669504, 3978600; 669542, 3978660; 669614, 3978730; 669639, 3978810; 
669616, 3978890; 669610, 3978900; 669594, 3978940; 669654, 3978930; 
670986, 3978670; 671848, 3978660; 671854, 3978560; 671879, 3978440; 
671888, 3978350; 671880, 3978370; 671821, 3978350; 671804, 3978280; 
671833, 3978220; 671933, 3978220; 671918, 3978130; 671922, 3978070; 
671947, 3978020; 671981, 3977950; 671985, 3977900; 671964, 3977870; 
671961, 3977850; 670600, 3977840; 670599, 3977640; 669239, 3978620; 
669233, 3978620; 672077, 3977850; 672099, 3977870; 672171, 3977930; 
672199, 3977970; 672200, 3977850; 672077, 3977850;
    (ii) Note: See Map 2.

[[Page 65440]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC02.003

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 65441]]

    (8) Camatta Canyon Unit.
    (i) Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum. San Luis Obispo County, 
California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Camatta Ranch, La Panza 
Ranch, and Pozo Summit. Lands bounded by the following UTM zone 10 
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 747763, 3918050; 747749, 3918040; 747714, 
3918020; 747690, 3918000; 747683, 3917980; 747690, 3917960; 747722, 
3917940; 747754, 3917900; 747749, 3917870; 747724, 3917870; 747647, 
3917860; 747633, 3917860; 747616, 3917850; 747612, 3917840; 747615, 
3917830; 747641, 3917820; 747727, 3917790; 747718, 3917780; 747687, 
3917760; 747655, 3917750; 747635, 3917740; 747612, 3917720; 747597, 
3917690; 747590, 3917660; 747598, 3917630; 747593, 3917600; 747578, 
3917580; 747544, 3917560; 747530, 3917550; 747525, 3917540; 747528, 
3917510; 747527, 3917470; 747521, 3917430; 747510, 3917410; 747461, 
3917370; 747434, 3917370; 747411, 3917360; 747398, 3917360; 747387, 
3917350; 747385, 3917330; 747396, 3917280; 747396, 3917250; 747381, 
3917220; 747368, 3917180; 747366, 3917150; 747357, 3917140; 747343, 
3917130; 747319, 3917130; 747285, 3917140; 747270, 3917150; 747263, 
3917160; 747261, 3917190; 747256, 3917230; 747246, 3917270; 747224, 
3917340; 747164, 3917470; 747106, 3917570; 747055, 3917640; 747019, 
3917690; 746996, 3917700; 746972, 3917720; 746949, 3917720; 746933, 
3917710; 746911, 3917700; 746889, 3917690; 746875, 3917670; 746869, 
3917650; 746870, 3917640; 746875, 3917620; 746887, 3917620; 746919, 
3917610; 746947, 3917600; 746960, 3917590; 746980, 3917550; 747016, 
3917460; 747041, 3917370; 747064, 3917300; 747080, 3917270; 747080, 
3917260; 747066, 3917250; 747048, 3917250; 746992, 3917290; 746949, 
3917330; 746884, 3917390; 746860, 3917390; 746839, 3917390; 746822, 
3917380; 746815, 3917380; 746811, 3917360; 746814, 3917350; 746818, 
3917330; 746828, 3917320; 746854, 3917320; 746874, 3917310; 746886, 
3917300; 746891, 3917290; 746884, 3917280; 746865, 3917280; 746846, 
3917290; 746828, 3917290; 746823, 3917290; 746817, 3917280; 746809, 
3917270; 746810, 3917260; 746804, 3917260; 746796, 3917260; 746791, 
3917270; 746773, 3917290; 746728, 3917310; 746706, 3917330; 746675, 
3917340; 746666, 3917350; 746659, 3917360; 746653, 3917360; 746639, 
3917370; 746607, 3917380; 746587, 3917380; 746571, 3917390; 746562, 
3917390; 746547, 3917400; 746539, 3917410; 746531, 3917410; 746521, 
3917410; 746510, 3917410; 746494, 3917400; 746477, 3917400; 746460, 
3917400; 746443, 3917400; 746422, 3917400; 746414, 3917400; 746403, 
3917410; 746398, 3917420; 746398, 3917430; 746404, 3917440; 746416, 
3917460; 746434, 3917460; 746465, 3917490; 746469, 3917500; 746450, 
3917510; 746433, 3917520; 746394, 3917540; 746377, 3917550; 746356, 
3917570; 746341, 3917580; 746288, 3917640; 746284, 3917650; 746287, 
3917650; 746299, 3917660; 746312, 3917670; 746317, 3917670; 746318, 
3917680; 746312, 3917690; 746297, 3917700; 746279, 3917730; 746265, 
3917760; 746249, 3917770; 746238, 3917770; 746226, 3917780; 746215, 
3917790; 746208, 3917790; 746200, 3917780; 746191, 3917770; 746171, 
3917760; 746162, 3917750; 746155, 3917760; 746154, 3917790; 746162, 
3917810; 746178, 3917830; 746191, 3917840; 746207, 3917860; 746222, 
3917870; 746253, 3917890; 746283, 3917900; 746311, 3917900; 746347, 
3917890; 746371, 3917890; 746409, 3917900; 746452, 3917930; 746478, 
3917950; 746505, 3917980; 746506, 3917990; 746492, 3918020; 746482, 
3918040; 746494, 3918070; 746513, 3918090; 746543, 3918100; 746605, 
3918170; 746677, 3918220; 746752, 3918290; 746773, 3918320; 746775, 
3918350; 746773, 3918390; 746755, 3918390; 746738, 3918380; 746717, 
3918370; 746653, 3918360; 746627, 3918340; 746598, 3918320; 746508, 
3918300; 746462, 3918280; 746412, 3918240; 746367, 3918190; 746332, 
3918140; 746300, 3918110; 746253, 3918080; 746230, 3918070; 746204, 
3918050; 746179, 3918040; 746171, 3917990; 746145, 3917970; 746040, 
3918060; 746016, 3918070; 745994, 3918080; 745987, 3918090; 745995, 
3918100; 746078, 3918120; 746104, 3918130; 746111, 3918160; 746142, 
3918180; 746182, 3918200; 746219, 3918220; 746273, 3918230; 746301, 
3918240; 746328, 3918250; 746361, 3918270; 746397, 3918290; 746401, 
3918310; 746393, 3918330; 746373, 3918330; 746348, 3918330; 746311, 
3918330; 746271, 3918340; 746230, 3918340; 746150, 3918310; 746067, 
3918300; 746003, 3918290; 745960, 3918290; 745939, 3918290; 745925, 
3918380; 745880, 3918460; 745864, 3918500; 745869, 3918530; 745882, 
3918550; 745908, 3918590; 745958, 3918620; 746000, 3918660; 746017, 
3918720; 746034, 3918730; 746127, 3918770; 746146, 3918790; 746143, 
3918820; 746126, 3918840; 746053, 3918890; 745997, 3918950; 745973, 
3918970; 745946, 3918990; 745922, 3919020; 745902, 3919030; 745872, 
3919040; 745839, 3919050; 745790, 3919050; 745748, 3919040; 745700, 
3919030; 745678, 3919030; 745661, 3919040; 745635, 3919080; 745605, 
3919140; 745574, 3919200; 745554, 3919260; 745533, 3919290; 745517, 
3919300; 745498, 3919300; 745493, 3919310; 745509, 3919330; 745555, 
3919360; 745599, 3919390; 745632, 3919420; 745679, 3919440; 745691, 
3919460; 745719, 3919480; 745709, 3919490; 745685, 3919490; 745627, 
3919470; 745585, 3919490; 745548, 3919500; 745523, 3919520; 745502, 
3919520; 745492, 3919530; 745495, 3919540; 745510, 3919550; 745540, 
3919560; 745612, 3919560; 745672, 3919560; 745728, 3919560; 745768, 
3919570; 745813, 3919580; 745850, 3919590; 745867, 3919600; 745866, 
3919630; 745852, 3919670; 745833, 3919680; 745787, 3919670; 745731, 
3919630; 745665, 3919610; 745611, 3919620; 745568, 3919620; 745550, 
3919640; 745538, 3919660; 745536, 3919680; 745537, 3919700; 745550, 
3919720; 745599, 3919740; 745647, 3919760; 745684, 3919790; 745706, 
3919830; 745727, 3919870; 745752, 3919900; 745789, 3919900; 745836, 
3919900; 745913, 3919900; 746019, 3919930; 746042, 3919950; 746061, 
3919970; 746062, 3919990; 746051, 3920010; 746027, 3920010; 745990, 
3920000; 745916, 3919980; 745896, 3919990; 745901, 3920020; 745938, 
3920040; 745962, 3920060; 745971, 3920080; 745960, 3920100; 745938, 
3920100; 745899, 3920110; 745874, 3920120; 745855, 3920140; 745836, 
3920170; 745814, 3920180; 745776, 3920190; 745732, 3920190; 745689, 
3920200; 745665, 3920230; 745641, 3920260; 745602, 3920290; 745569, 
3920320; 745548, 3920340; 745546, 3920360; 745560, 3920370; 745614, 
3920380; 745648, 3920390; 745661, 3920380; 745685, 3920370; 745726, 
3920350; 745800, 3920340; 745838, 3920340; 745845, 3920360; 745819, 
3920380; 745780, 3920440; 745740, 3920520; 745701, 3920550; 745667, 
3920550; 745652, 3920560; 745665, 3920590; 745718, 3920690; 745733, 
3920720; 745748, 3920780; 745761, 3920830; 745774, 3920870; 745775, 
3920880; 745793, 3920890; 745817, 3920890; 745908, 3920740; 745934, 
3920720; 745987, 3920700; 746068, 3920690; 746148, 3920700; 746221, 
3920730; 746252, 3920750; 746293, 3920780; 746299, 3920800; 746282, 
3920820; 746253, 3920830; 746153, 3920820; 746066, 3920820; 746053, 
3920840; 746058, 3920870; 746076, 3920880; 746156, 3920880; 746175, 
3920880; 746197, 3920880; 746275,

[[Page 65442]]

3920900; 746386, 3920960; 746424, 3920990; 746463, 3921030; 746508, 
3921090; 746557, 3921160; 746569, 3921170; 746588, 3921180; 746606, 
3921180; 746620, 3921190; 746625, 3921210; 746625, 3921240; 746612, 
3921250; 746590, 3921260; 746515, 3921240; 746459, 3921240; 746425, 
3921240; 746388, 3921220; 746355, 3921200; 746336, 3921160; 746327, 
3921120; 746315, 3921060; 746308, 3921050; 746294, 3921050; 746281, 
3921060; 746254, 3921100; 746221, 3921150; 746221, 3921170; 746228, 
3921190; 746245, 3921210; 746271, 3921230; 746313, 3921250; 746333, 
3921270; 746347, 3921280; 746367, 3921300; 746370, 3921320; 746367, 
3921350; 746351, 3921370; 746331, 3921370; 746313, 3921380; 746292, 
3921380; 746273, 3921370; 746242, 3921360; 746214, 3921350; 746189, 
3921350; 746162, 3921360; 746137, 3921360; 746119, 3921380; 746104, 
3921390; 746097, 3921420; 746103, 3921440; 746122, 3921460; 746144, 
3921480; 746165, 3921490; 746189, 3921490; 746208, 3921480; 746256, 
3921450; 746272, 3921440; 746292, 3921440; 746311, 3921440; 746410, 
3921520; 746476, 3921550; 746498, 3921550; 746523, 3921550; 746538, 
3921560; 746545, 3921570; 746551, 3921650; 746548, 3921670; 746538, 
3921680; 746493, 3921680; 746482, 3921700; 746473, 3921710; 746475, 
3921730; 746498, 3921760; 746504, 3921780; 746502, 3921800; 746473, 
3921850; 746454, 3921870; 746442, 3921890; 746417, 3921910; 746384, 
3921930; 746348, 3921940; 746307, 3921960; 746292, 3921970; 746283, 
3922000; 746281, 3922030; 746289, 3922060; 746301, 3922090; 746317, 
3922100; 746331, 3922100; 746360, 3922090; 746389, 3922090; 746414, 
3922090; 746432, 3922100; 746441, 3922110; 746446, 3922140; 746442, 
3922170; 746434, 3922230; 746435, 3922250; 746440, 3922270; 746453, 
3922290; 746467, 3922290; 746489, 3922300; 746509, 3922310; 746525, 
3922310; 746538, 3922320; 746544, 3922350; 746540, 3922390; 746527, 
3922430; 746527, 3922450; 746538, 3922490; 746548, 3922520; 746547, 
3922540; 746540, 3922570; 746525, 3922590; 746500, 3922650; 746493, 
3922680; 746489, 3922700; 746492, 3922770; 746528, 3922910; 746530, 
3922930; 746527, 3922950; 746520, 3922970; 746500, 3923000; 746490, 
3923020; 746483, 3923040; 746478, 3923070; 746483, 3923090; 746493, 
3923100; 746503, 3923110; 746521, 3923110; 746538, 3923100; 746559, 
3923090; 746577, 3923090; 746605, 3923100; 746643, 3923110; 746706, 
3923150; 746757, 3923170; 746779, 3923180; 746795, 3923200; 746798, 
3923210; 746791, 3923220; 746753, 3923220; 746744, 3923230; 746742, 
3923250; 746751, 3923260; 746853, 3923320; 746880, 3923330; 746913, 
3923340; 746931, 3923340; 746955, 3923330; 746998, 3923330; 747041, 
3923320; 747069, 3923320; 747097, 3923330; 747118, 3923340; 747136, 
3923350; 747219, 3923440; 747260, 3923500; 747281, 3923540; 747298, 
3923570; 747312, 3923580; 747326, 3923590; 747342, 3923590; 747356, 
3923600; 747368, 3923590; 747377, 3923570; 747373, 3923530; 747358, 
3923480; 747349, 3923430; 747337, 3923390; 747325, 3923340; 747307, 
3923290; 747276, 3923250; 747201, 3923150; 747165, 3923110; 746995, 
3922870; 746993, 3922860; 746995, 3922850; 747005, 3922840; 747020, 
3922830; 747041, 3922840; 747075, 3922860; 747099, 3922880; 747146, 
3922900; 747186, 3922920; 747197, 3922930; 747207, 3922950; 747216, 
3922950; 747225, 3922950; 747236, 3922940; 747251, 3922900; 747264, 
3922890; 747281, 3922880; 747306, 3922880; 747327, 3922880; 747370, 
3923000; 747382, 3923030; 747387, 3923050; 747416, 3923120; 747428, 
3923150; 747500, 3923240; 747536, 3923280; 747612, 3923330; 747636, 
3923360; 747645, 3923390; 747645, 3923420; 747649, 3923440; 747657, 
3923460; 747700, 3923510; 747720, 3923550; 747748, 3923590; 747770, 
3923620; 747790, 3923660; 747803, 3923670; 747826, 3923670; 747887, 
3923650; 747950, 3923650; 748022, 3923650; 748039, 3923650; 748041, 
3923660; 748037, 3923680; 748023, 3923700; 748006, 3923720; 747990, 
3923740; 747974, 3923770; 747962, 3923810; 747960, 3923840; 747970, 
3923860; 747981, 3923880; 747996, 3923890; 748044, 3923900; 748071, 
3923920; 748085, 3923920; 748100, 3923920; 748109, 3923910; 748118, 
3923900; 748128, 3923890; 748140, 3923890; 748152, 3923900; 748211, 
3923990; 748268, 3924040; 748330, 3924080; 748359, 3924090; 748388, 
3924100; 748416, 3924100; 748442, 3924090; 748452, 3924080; 748454, 
3924070; 748448, 3924050; 748422, 3924000; 748375, 3923900; 748341, 
3923840; 748270, 3923740; 748235, 3923680; 748231, 3923670; 748237, 
3923650; 748251, 3923650; 748352, 3923630; 748409, 3923610; 748431, 
3923600; 748450, 3923590; 748466, 3923600; 748481, 3923620; 748520, 
3923660; 748600, 3923730; 748644, 3923740; 748683, 3923740; 748707, 
3923750; 748732, 3923770; 748765, 3923850; 748775, 3923880; 748774, 
3923900; 748751, 3923910; 748726, 3923910; 748671, 3923890; 748636, 
3923890; 748617, 3923900; 748613, 3923920; 748610, 3923950; 748623, 
3923970; 748639, 3923990; 748667, 3924000; 748698, 3924000; 748722, 
3923990; 748745, 3923970; 748766, 3923950; 748791, 3923940; 748819, 
3923930; 748839, 3923940; 748856, 3923950; 748906, 3924030; 748920, 
3924050; 748955, 3924080; 748977, 3924090; 749004, 3924100; 749019, 
3924110; 749028, 3924130; 749048, 3924200; 749057, 3924210; 749072, 
3924220; 749093, 3924220; 749139, 3924200; 749192, 3924180; 749241, 
3924150; 749269, 3924120; 749317, 3924060; 749415, 3923900; 749435, 
3923880; 749454, 3923870; 749480, 3923870; 749568, 3923900; 749642, 
3923920; 749751, 3923970; 749776, 3923980; 749801, 3923970; 749815, 
3923970; 749827, 3923950; 749839, 3923940; 749858, 3923930; 749886, 
3923910; 749914, 3923910; 749975, 3923910; 750044, 3923920; 750067, 
3923920; 750084, 3923910; 750090, 3923890; 750081, 3923870; 750070, 
3923850; 750064, 3923830; 750072, 3923820; 750087, 3923820; 750116, 
3923860; 750128, 3923870; 750140, 3923890; 750148, 3923910; 750159, 
3923920; 750171, 3923920; 750189, 3923920; 750207, 3923910; 750226, 
3923900; 750237, 3923880; 750240, 3923860; 750244, 3923840; 750256, 
3923820; 750279, 3923800; 750307, 3923790; 750375, 3923770; 750398, 
3923760; 750415, 3923740; 750431, 3923710; 750440, 3923520; 750441, 
3923470; 750450, 3923440; 750472, 3923420; 750549, 3923350; 750595, 
3923310; 750629, 3923270; 750653, 3923240; 750669, 3923210; 750677, 
3923130; 750672, 3923070; 750675, 3923010; 750688, 3922960; 750712, 
3922910; 750722, 3922880; 750724, 3922860; 750722, 3922840; 750711, 
3922810; 750698, 3922780; 750681, 3922750; 750659, 3922720; 750636, 
3922710; 750614, 3922690; 750594, 3922680; 750578, 3922670; 750574, 
3922650; 750577, 3922630; 750581, 3922600; 750579, 3922590; 750575, 
3922570; 750545, 3922530; 750468, 3922450; 750452, 3922440; 750441, 
3922420; 750439, 3922400; 750432, 3922280; 750423, 3922250; 750405, 
3922220; 750371, 3922180; 750295, 3922080; 750292, 3922070; 750296, 
3922070; 750337, 3922050; 750386, 3922030; 750409, 3922020; 750418, 
3921990; 750418, 3921960; 750414, 3921930; 750399, 3921910; 750382, 
3921900; 750350, 3921880; 750316, 3921860; 750280, 3921850; 750267, 
3921840; 750260, 3921840; 750258, 3921820; 750260, 3921810; 750277,

[[Page 65443]]

3921780; 750286, 3921780; 750300, 3921770; 750356, 3921770; 750401, 
3921780; 750414, 3921770; 750424, 3921760; 750411, 3921690; 750373, 
3921610; 750371, 3921590; 750381, 3921570; 750427, 3921410; 750429, 
3921390; 750422, 3921370; 750261, 3921120; 750246, 3921100; 750229, 
3921080; 750183, 3921030; 750128, 3920980; 749952, 3920750; 749915, 
3920710; 749813, 3920640; 749685, 3920560; 749611, 3920530; 749582, 
3920530; 749556, 3920540; 749531, 3920560; 749512, 3920560; 749493, 
3920560; 749485, 3920530; 749480, 3920500; 749380, 3920480; 749352, 
3920490; 749338, 3920510; 749324, 3920530; 749305, 3920530; 749300, 
3920560; 749311, 3920580; 749307, 3920590; 749295, 3920600; 749255, 
3920620; 749223, 3920620; 749121, 3920630; 749101, 3920630; 749090, 
3920620; 749076, 3920600; 749063, 3920580; 749056, 3920550; 749057, 
3920520; 749058, 3920480; 749053, 3920450; 749015, 3920410; 748981, 
3920370; 748931, 3920330; 748829, 3920280; 748815, 3920290; 748807, 
3920300; 748816, 3920320; 748878, 3920360; 748892, 3920390; 748897, 
3920420; 748898, 3920440; 748890, 3920460; 748874, 3920470; 748855, 
3920480; 748830, 3920480; 748771, 3920480; 748648, 3920490; 748619, 
3920490; 748579, 3920470; 748511, 3920440; 748477, 3920390; 748451, 
3920350; 748417, 3920330; 748396, 3920320; 748363, 3920330; 748330, 
3920330; 748310, 3920350; 748308, 3920360; 748314, 3920380; 748333, 
3920390; 748356, 3920400; 748398, 3920430; 748438, 3920460; 748459, 
3920480; 748464, 3920490; 748457, 3920510; 748362, 3920610; 748332, 
3920660; 748328, 3920690; 748312, 3920690; 748295, 3920690; 748283, 
3920660; 748260, 3920620; 748237, 3920560; 748231, 3920520; 748216, 
3920500; 748186, 3920470; 748067, 3920380; 747994, 3920310; 747954, 
3920300; 747914, 3920280; 747853, 3920280; 747818, 3920270; 747778, 
3920260; 747754, 3920260; 747736, 3920270; 747723, 3920290; 747719, 
3920310; 747707, 3920320; 747694, 3920310; 747654, 3920270; 747640, 
3920240; 747616, 3920210; 747578, 3920190; 747531, 3920160; 747501, 
3920140; 747484, 3920120; 747471, 3920090; 747464, 3920070; 747460, 
3920050; 747462, 3920030; 747456, 3920000; 747460, 3919980; 747466, 
3919960; 747479, 3919950; 747488, 3919940; 747505, 3919940; 747521, 
3919950; 747534, 3919960; 747549, 3919970; 747569, 3919990; 747588, 
3919990; 747613, 3920000; 747631, 3919990; 747645, 3919980; 747652, 
3919970; 747655, 3919950; 747648, 3919930; 747642, 3919900; 747629, 
3919880; 747628, 3919870; 747649, 3919830; 747659, 3919810; 747658, 
3919800; 747642, 3919790; 747618, 3919780; 747565, 3919760; 747534, 
3919760; 747506, 3919770; 747446, 3919790; 747380, 3919820; 747335, 
3919850; 747322, 3919860; 747304, 3919850; 747277, 3919830; 747253, 
3919800; 747213, 3919770; 747196, 3919750; 747191, 3919730; 747196, 
3919720; 747217, 3919700; 747426, 3919630; 747495, 3919610; 747519, 
3919600; 747533, 3919590; 747545, 3919570; 747548, 3919550; 747545, 
3919530; 747523, 3919510; 747498, 3919490; 747478, 3919480; 747442, 
3919490; 747410, 3919500; 747391, 3919500; 747373, 3919500; 747363, 
3919480; 747349, 3919450; 747328, 3919440; 747302, 3919440; 747282, 
3919440; 747268, 3919440; 747262, 3919420; 747277, 3919340; 747295, 
3919290; 747309, 3919240; 747329, 3919190; 747348, 3919140; 747360, 
3919110; 747375, 3919080; 747398, 3919050; 747419, 3919000; 747435, 
3918950; 747478, 3918910; 747484, 3918890; 747485, 3918870; 747470, 
3918820; 747459, 3918790; 747455, 3918770; 747458, 3918740; 747457, 
3918700; 747463, 3918670; 747474, 3918650; 747496, 3918640; 747524, 
3918640; 747562, 3918620; 747581, 3918580; 747594, 3918540; 747600, 
3918520; 747620, 3918510; 747636, 3918480; 747652, 3918460; 747659, 
3918440; 747663, 3918420; 747662, 3918390; 747656, 3918370; 747656, 
3918340; 747652, 3918310; 747645, 3918290; 747649, 3918270; 747670, 
3918260; 747698, 3918250; 747720, 3918240; 747748, 3918220; 747777, 
3918200; 747783, 3918190; 747787, 3918170; 747786, 3918140; 747790, 
3918120; 747790, 3918080; 747778, 3918070; 747763, 3918050.
    (ii) Note: Map 3 follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 65444]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC02.004


[[Page 65445]]


* * * * *

    Dated: October 15, 2002.
Paul Hoffman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-26768 Filed 10-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C