[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12834-12863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6133]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AG96
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation
of Critical Habitat for Two Larkspurs From Coastal Northern 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 Delphinium bakeri (Baker's larkspur) and Delphinium
luteum (yellow larkspur). We are designating 2 units totaling
approximately 740 hectares (ha) (1,828 acres (ac)) for D. bakeri, and 4
units totaling approximately 1,022 ha (2,525 ac) for D. luteum, in
Marin and Sonoma counties, California. The total critical habitat for
both plants is approximately 1,762 ha (4,353 ac) in 6 units. This
critical habitat designation provides additional protection under
section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to
consider economic and other relevant impacts when specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. We solicited data and comments
from the public on all aspects of this proposal, including data on
economic and other impacts of the designation.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on April 17, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, will be
available for
[[Page 12835]]
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glen Tarr or Susan Moore, Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at the above
address (telephone 916/414-6600; facsimile 916/414-6710).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Delphinium bakeri is a perennial herb in the buttercup family
(Ranunculaceae). Ewan (1942) described Delphinium bakeri based on type
material collected by Milo Baker in 1939 from ``Coleman Valley, Sonoma
Co., California.'' In the most recent treatment, Warnock (1997)
retained the taxon as a full species. It grows from a thickened, tuber-
like, fleshy cluster of roots. The stems are hollow, erect, and grow to
65 centimeters (cm) (26 inches (in)) tall. Shallowly five-parted leaves
occur primarily along the upper third of the stem and are green (as
opposed to withering) at the time the plant flowers. The flowers are
irregularly shaped. The five sepals (members of the outermost set of
flower parts) are conspicuous, bright dark blue or purplish, with the
rear sepal elongated into a spur (hollow, often cone-shaped,
projection). The inconspicuous petals occur in two pairs. The lower
pair is oblong and blue-purple; the upper pair is oblique (having
unequal sides or an asymmetric base) and white. Seeds are produced in
several dry, many-seeded fruits, which split open at maturity on only
one side (i.e., follicles). D. bakeri flowers from April through May
(Warnock 1993). D. bakeri can be differentiated from other members of
the genus by its crenate leaf margins (margins notched or scalloped so
as to form rounded teeth), leaves that are not withering at time of
flowering, and flowers that are loosely arranged (California Native
Plant Society (CNPS) 1977).
Delphinium bakeri has only been known from three locations: Coleman
Valley in southern Sonoma County, near the town of Tomales in northern
Marin County, and approximately 10 km (6 mi) east of Tomales Bay in
northern Marin County (California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
2001). D. bakeri is thought to have been extirpated from Coleman Valley
sometime prior to 1986, and from the site near Tomales, where the
species has not been relocated since 1925 (CNDDB 2001). At the only
known extant (currently existing, not extirpated or destroyed)
population, approximately 10 km (6 mi) east of Tomales Bay, the number
of individuals has varied from 0 to 67 individuals over the last 20
years (CNDDB 2001).
Delphinium bakeri occurs on decomposed shale. The sites where it is
found range from 90 to 205 meters (m) (295 to 672 feet (ft)) in
elevation (CNDDB 2001). The collection from the type locality (the
location where the species was first described) in Coleman Valley was
described by Joseph Ewan as growing ``along fence rows and in heavy low
brush'' (Ewan 1942). Two species listed as growing with D. bakeri at
the type locality were Potentilla elata (now known as Horkelia
californica ssp. dissita (California honeydew)) and Ranunculus
orthorynchus (straightbeak buttercup) (Ewan 1942). No information is
reported for the associated species or habitat for the other occurrence
near Tomales that is thought to be extirpated (CNDDB 2001).
The single extant occurrence of Delphinium bakeri grows in mesic
(moderate moisture) conditions along an extensive north-facing slope
under an overstory that includes Umbellularia californica (California
bay), Aesculus californica (California buckeye), and Quercus agrifolia
(coastal live oak). Other native plants associated with D. bakeri at
this site include: Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea (coyotebrush),
Symphorcarpos cf. rivularis (snowberry), Rubus ursinus (California
blackberry), Pteridium aquilinum (braken fern), Polystichum munitum
(sword fern), Pityrogramma triangularis (goldback fern), Dryopteris
arguta (coastal woodfern), Adiantum jordanii (maidenhair fern),
Polypodium glycyrrhiza (licorice fern), Toxicodendron diversilobum
(poison oak), Ceanothus thyrsiflorus (blueblossom ceanothus),
Lithophragma affine (woodland star), and Holodiscus discolor
(oceanspray) (J. Koontz, Center for Biodiversity, in litt., 2002; CNDDB
2001). These plants are important indicators of remaining areas of
natural habitat that support D. bakeri, and are likely to support
ecological processes such as water retention, shading, nitrogen
processing, and other factors that create suitable habitat conditions
for D. bakeri. The property is privately owned, but Sonoma County has a
right-of-way along the road. Pollinators have not specifically been
identified for D. bakeri, but pollinators for species in the genus
Delphinium typically are large hymenoptera, especially Bombus ssp.
(bumblebees) (Guerrant 1978).
In 1942, Ewan noted that the habitat of Delphinium bakeri was
formerly more abundant, but had been reduced by cultivation (Ewan
1942). Habitat conversion, grazing, and roadside maintenance activities
are cited as the reasons for the decline of the species, and two of the
three known occurrences of D. bakeri in Marin and Sonoma counties,
including the occurrence at the type locality in Coleman Valley, have
been extirpated (California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1994).
The single location where D. bakeri is known to remain extant is
threatened by road work, such as right-of-way maintenance (including
use of herbicides), overcollection, and sheep grazing (CNDDB 2001). For
example, many plants were accidentally mowed by a county road
maintenance crew in May 2002 (J. Koontz, in litt., 2002). Because of
the restriction in its range to a single population and the small
population size of the one remaining occurrence, D. bakeri is extremely
vulnerable to extinction from random natural events, such as unseasonal
fire or insect outbreaks (Shaffer 1981; Primack 1993).
Delphinium luteum is a perennial herb in the buttercup family
(Ranunculaceae). Heller (1903) described D. luteum based on type
material collected from ``grassy slopes about rocks, near Bodega Bay,
along the road leading to the village of Bodega'' in Sonoma County.
Although Jepson (1975) reduced D. luteum to a variety of D. nudicaule
(red larkspur), it is currently recognized as a full species (Warnock
1993). D. luteum grows from thin tuberous roots up to 30 cm (12 in)
long to a height of 55 cm (22 in) tall. The leaves are mostly basal,
fleshy, and green at the time of flowering. The flowers are cornucopia-
shaped. The five conspicuous sepals are bright yellow, with the
posterior sepal elongated into a spur. The inconspicuous petals occur
in two pairs. The upper petals are narrow and unlobed; the lower petals
are oblong to ovate (egg-shaped). The fruit is a follicle. D. luteum
flowers from March to May. The species is distinguished from other
Delphinium by its yellow flowers and its erect seed follicles (CNPS
1977). In contrast to typical pollinators for the genus Delphinium,
potential pollinators for D. luteum are Allen's hummingbirds
(Selasphorus sasin), which have been observed visiting D. luteum
flowers. In addition, the flower shape and sucrose-dominated nectar are
consistent with characteristics of species that are typically
pollinated by hummingbirds (Guerrant 1978).
Delphinium luteum inhabits coastal prairie and coastal scrub areas,
which typically have no overstory vegetation, at elevations ranging
from sea level to
[[Page 12836]]
about 100 m (300 ft) within northwestern Marin and southwestern Sonoma
counties, California (CNDDB 2001). The species occurs on moderate to
steep slopes, generally near areas showing evidence of some level of
ground disturbance in the past, including landslides (Guerrant 1978,
CNDDB 2001). Roots of D. luteum are tuberous, long, and thin, an
unusual combination in this genus, which may provide an advantage in
thin, unstable soils (Weaver 1919 as cited in Guerrant 1978). Typical
soil types supporting D. luteum include the Kneeland series in Sonoma
County and the Yorkville series in Marin County. These soils derive
from sandstone or shale, and share qualities of rapid runoff and high
erosion potential (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1972; Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) 1985). The most recently documented
populations of D. luteum (those seen in the 1980s or later) tend to
grow on north-facing slopes in canyon complexes with steep sides (LSA
Associates (LSA) 1997; CNDDB 2001). Presumably the more shaded north-
facing slopes provide a more moist microclimate than slopes facing
other directions, while the steep-sloped canyon walls increase the
likelihood of erosion and landslides in the vicinity. Two potential
exceptions to this trend are evident (CNDDB 2001): one population near
Tomales, California, is mapped on a south-facing slope, and a
relatively nearby population does not appear to grow near any steep-
sloped canyon walls. Both of these populations are in critical habitat
Unit L4, described below. The first population has not been documented
since 1983, and its mapped location is precise to a 0.32 km (0.20 mi)
radius. This could put its actual location across the canyon on a
north-facing slope. The other population is growing in a road cut,
which might provide erosional and soil disturbance characteristics
similar to those near canyon walls (CNDDB 2001).
Temperatures in the region inhabited by Delphinium luteum are
moderated by fog. As a result, the summers are relatively cool and
winters are relatively warm compared to inland habitats.
Much of the coastal prairie in this species' range has been grazed
by livestock for over a century, and is now characterized by a mixture
of nonnative annuals and forbs and native prairie plants. Native plants
typically occurring with D. luteum include Arabis blepharophylla (rose
rockcress), Calochortus tolmei (Tolmei startulip), Mimulus aurantiacus
(orange bush monkeyflower), Dudleya caespitosa (sea lettuce),
Polypodium californicum (California polyploidy), Eriogonum parviflorum
(sea cliff buckwheat), Toxicodendron diversilobum (poison oak),
Romanzoffia californica (California mistmaiden), Hesperevax sparsiflora
(evax), Pentagramma triangularis (goldenback fern), and Sedum
spathulifolium (broadleaf stonecrop) (CNDDB 2001; J. Koontz, in litt.,
2002;). These plants are important indicators of remaining areas of
natural habitat that support D. luteum, and are likely to support
ecological processes such as water retention, shading, nitrogen
processing, and other factors that create suitable habitat conditions
for D. luteum.
We know of 12 occurrences of Delphinium luteum, 11 of which are
documented in the CNDDB (CNDDB 2001). (The CNDDB defines an
``occurrence'' of a plant species as a location where the species is
present and which is separated from other such locations by at least
0.40 kilometer (km) (1/4 mile (mi)). All occurrences of D. bakeri and
D. luteum mapped by the CNDDB GIS data layers indicate single
populations.) Since the early 1980s, however, only 6 of these 11
occurrences have been documented (reported in the CNDDB or other
reputable source). Of the other five occurrences in the CNDDB, three
have not been documented since 1935 or earlier (two of which were
revisited in the 1980s with negative results), another is based
entirely on unsupported and undated information found on a 1979 map,
and the fifth is a questionable identification never confirmed by a
second sighting (CNDDB 2001). The six occurrences documented more
recently in the CNDDB grow in three separate drainages, one in Sonoma
County and two in Marin County. These groupings form the basis of three
of the four critical habitat units we are proposing (see Units L1, L2
and L4, below). The twelfth occurrence, not yet recorded in the CNDDB,
occurs in a third Marin County drainage (Amme 1993; D. Amme, California
Department of Transportation (CalTrans), in litt. 2002; D. Amme, pers.
comm. 2002), and forms the basis of critical habitat Unit L3, as
described below.
Recent surveys have not found many plants in any of these
populations. The largest number recorded by CNDDB is 134 plants for one
of the Marin County populations in 1993. The total number of remaining
individuals of Delphinium luteum currently is estimated at 100 to 175
plants (J. Koontz, in litt., 2002). Each recently documented population
faces one or more potential threats to its existence, including
overcollection, road widening, inadequately managed sheep grazing, fire
suppression, and hybridization with another Delphinium species (B.
Guggolz, CNPS, pers. comm., 1995; CNDDB 2001). Additionally, the
combination of few populations, small numbers of individuals within
each population, narrow range, and restricted habitat makes D. luteum
susceptible to extirpation in significant portions of its range from
random natural events such as unseasonal fire, drought, disease, or
other natural occurrences (Shaffer 1981; Primack 1993).
Previous Federal Action
Federal actions on the two plant species began when the Secretary
of the Smithsonian Institution, as directed by section 12 of the Act
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), prepared a report on those native U.S. plants
considered to be endangered, threatened, or extinct in the United
States. This report, known as House Document No. 94-51, was presented
to Congress on January 9, 1975, and included Delphinium bakeri and D.
luteum as species the Smithsonian considered to be endangered. On July
1, 1975, we published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 27823)
accepting the report as a petition within the context of section
4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3)) of the Act, and of our intention to
review the status of the plant taxa named in the report. On June 16,
1976, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (41 FR
24523) determining approximately 1,700 vascular plant species,
including D. bakeri and D. luteum, to be endangered species pursuant to
section 4 of the Act. We assembled the list of 1,700 plant taxa on the
basis of House Document No 94-51, our July 1, 1975, Federal Register
publication (40 FR 27823), and comments and data received in response
to both documents. General comments received in response to the 1976
proposal were summarized in an April 26, 1978, Federal Register
publication (43 FR 17909).
In 1978, Congress passed amendments to the Act requiring us to
withdraw all listing proposals more than 2 years old. The amendments
included a 1-year grace period for proposed rules which already were
more than 2 years old. On December 10, 1979, we published a notice in
the Federal Register (44 FR 70796) withdrawing the portion of the June
16, 1976, proposed rule that had not been made final, along with four
other proposals that had expired. We published an updated Notice of
Review (NOR) for plants on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This NOR
included Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum as ``category 1 candidates''
(defined at that time as species for which data in our
[[Page 12837]]
possession was sufficient to support proposals for listing).
On February 15, 1983, we published a notice in the Federal Register
(48 FR 6752) of our prior finding that the listing of Delphinium bakeri
and D. luteum was warranted but precluded in accordance with section
4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the
Act, such findings must be recycled annually, until the species is
either proposed for listing or the petitioned action is found to be not
warranted. Each October from 1983 through 1994, further findings were
made that the listing of D. bakeri and D. luteum were warranted, but
that the listing of these species was precluded by other pending
proposals of higher priority.
On November 28, 1983, we published a supplement to the plant NOR
(48 FR 53640). This supplement changed Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum
from ``category 1'' to ``category 2 candidates'' (defined at the time
as species for which data in our possession indicated listing was
possibly appropriate, but for which substantial data on biological
vulnerability and threats were not currently known or on file to
support proposed rules).
The plant NOR was revised again on September 27, 1985 (50 FR
39526). Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum were included as category 2
candidates. Another revision of the plant NOR was published on February
21, 1990 (55 FR 6184). In this revision D. bakeri and D. luteum were
included as category 1 candidates, and remained as category 1
candidates in the plant NOR published on September 30, 1993 (58 FR
51144). Upon publication of the February 28, 1996, NOR (61 FR 7596), we
ceased using category designations and included D. bakeri and D. luteum
as candidate species. We define candidate species as those for which we
have on file sufficient information on the biological vulnerability and
threats to support proposals to list them as threatened or endangered.
On June 19, 1997, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register
(62 FR 33383) to list D. bakeri and D. luteum as endangered.
On June 17, 1999, our failure to issue final rules for listing
Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum and seven other plant species as
endangered or threatened, and our failure to make a final critical
habitat determination for the nine species, was challenged in Southwest
Center for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bruce Babbitt (Case No. C99-2992
(N.D.Cal.)). We subsequently published a final rule listing D. bakeri
and D. luteum as endangered species on January 26, 2000 (65 FR 4156).
On May 22, 2000, the judge signed an order requiring us to propose
critical habitat for the two species by September 30, 2001. The court
subsequently extended this deadline to June 10, 2002, based on a
settlement agreement reached on October 1, 2001 (Center for Biological
Diversity, et al., v. Gale Norton, et al. (D.D.C.) (Case. No. Civ. 01-
2063)). The agreement also established March 10, 2003, as the date by
which we would reach a final critical habitat determination for the
species.
We published a proposed critical habitat designation for Delphinium
bakeri and D. luteum in the Federal Register on June 18, 2002 (67 FR
41367). Publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day public comment
period, which closed on August 19, 2002. On November 1, 2002, we
published a notice announcing the availability of our draft economic
analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation (67 FR 66599).
The notice opened a public comment period on the draft economic
analysis, and reopened the comment period on the proposed critical
habitat designation. This second public comment period lasted
approximately 30 days, closing on December 2, 2002.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In our June 18, 2002, proposed critical habitat designation (67 FR
41367) we solicited comments from all interested parties on all aspects
of the proposed rule, including information related to biological
justification, economic impacts, proposed critical habitat boundaries,
and proposed projects. In our November 1, 2002, notice of availability
for the draft economic analysis (67 FR 66599), we invited comments on
the draft analysis and on the proposed critical habitat designation. In
addition to these Federal Register publications, we also sent
notification letters to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies,
scientific organizations, and other interested parties and invited them
to comment. We solicited independent peer review of the proposed
designation from three botanists with applicable areas of expertise
(see Peer Review section below). We also invited public comment through
the publication of notices in three local newspapers: the Marin
Independent Journal (June 26, 2002), the Santa Rosa Press Democrat
(June 27, 2002), and the Point Reyes Light (July 3, 2002).
Seven individuals, including one peer reviewer, responded with
comments. One of those individuals initially requested a public
hearing, but subsequently decided to meet instead with Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office's Listing Branch personnel to submit his comments
verbally. Four of the seven commenters indicated their overall support
of the proposed designation, two were neutral, and one was opposed. We
have reviewed all the comments we received for substantive issues and
new information regarding Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum, and for
potential impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation. The
comments are addressed in the following summary.
Issue 1: Comments on the Biology of the Species
(1) Comment: One commenter questioned whether Delphinium luteum
qualifies as a valid species.
Our Response: Although Jepson (1975) reduced Delphinium luteum to a
variety of D. nudicaule, it currently is recognized as a full species
(Warnock 1993). Guerrant (1978) proposed, based on morphological,
ecological, and chemical characteristics, that D. luteum might have
originated as a species from the hybridization of D. nudicaule (red
larkspur) and D. decorum (yellowtinge larkspur). However, genetic
testing by Koontz et al. (2001) has shown that if this did in fact
occur, it was many generations ago, and that naturally occurring D.
luteum cannot now be ``recreated'' simply by hybridizing D. nudicaule
and D. decorum. Thus, the best available scientific information
supports the recognition of D. luteum as a valid species.
(2) Comment: One commenter argued that we lack evidence to
conclude, with regard to Delphinium luteum, that ``sheep grazing, fire,
water run, rock quarry activities, etc. are a threat, and that there is
a need to restrict them * * * The commenter also mentioned a study by
Richard Knight of Colorado State University which found grazing land to
be an important resource for many native wildlife species.
Our Response: The proposed critical habitat designation included
``unmanaged sheep grazing'' and ``unseasonal fire'' among potential
threats faced by Delphinium luteum (67 FR 41367, at 41369), not just
``sheep grazing'' or ``fire.'' We did not list ``water run'' as a
threat, and we are not aware of any populations currently being
threatened by rock quarrying, although this has threatened populations
in the past (Service 2000). The CNDDB (2001) lists sheep grazing as a
threat for two of the three largest remaining occurrences of D. luteum,
and specifically notes that flowers were
[[Page 12838]]
found to have been chewed off some of the plants. We recognize that
properly controlled grazing can often benefit some native species by
cropping back competing plants and by providing an incentive to avoid
urban or agricultural development, but we also believe that overgrazing
remains a threat for this species. The establishment of critical
habitat is unlikely to restrict or affect grazing levels unless the
activity has the involvement of a Federal agency, such as a permit or
funding.
(3) Comment: Another commenter referred to unmanaged sheep grazing
as one of the main threats to Delphinium luteum. The commenter argued
that the remaining population locations may be limited to the steeper
and brushier north-facing slopes specifically because those are the
places which sheep find most difficult to reach. This commenter
recommended that critical habitat for D. luteum include ``the larger
coastal prairie community with all the traversing canyons and
watersheds,'' possibly the entire Marin Gap between Bodega Bay and the
Bolinas Ridge, to encourage the future establishment of conservation
easements that could eventually ease grazing pressures and allow D.
luteum populations to expand back outward.
Our Response: We agree that sheep grazing may be a key factor in
restricting the species to north-facing slopes in some areas. We want
to ensure it is understood, however, that although all but one recently
documented population of D. luteum occurs on basically north-facing
slopes, the species is not restricted to north-facing slopes. Slopes
with other aspects can support the species, they support continuity
within the units, and provide a range of microhabitat sites for
potential expansion that is necessary for the conservation of the
species. Therefore, we have redefined the primary constituent elements
of the species to more clearly indicate that slope and aspect are
separate requirements. Because areas within the defined units are
considered critical habitat if they possess at least one of the primary
constituent elements of the species, the treatment of slope and aspect
as separate constituent elements will more clearly indicate our intent
that critical habitat should include areas within each unit that are
either steeply sloping or north aspected. However, we believe the
possible historical impacts of sheep grazing on the range of Delphinium
luteum are too speculative to support the expansion of the units beyond
their current boundaries in the manner suggested by the commenter.
(4) Comment: One commenter thought the Delphinium luteum units
followed specific soil types too closely and should include more
steeply sloped (30 percent or greater) areas with other sandstone or
shale-based soil types. He specifically recommended the Tocaloma-Saurin
hillsides within Unit L4 and within the Walker Creek watershed east of
Unit L4. He also recommended including sloped areas of Tomales series
soils between Units L2 and L3.
Our Response: The reference to Kneeland and Yorkville series soils
in the list of primary constituent elements for the species was meant
as an example and not a limitation, so the areas in Unit L4 with
Tocaloma-Saurin soils and slopes of 30 percent or greater do contain
the primary constitutent element regarding soils, and we consider such
areas to be included in our designation of critical habitat in Unit L4.
In response to the recommendation regarding the areas between two
of the proposed units, we considered expanding the critical habitat
boundaries to include the Tocaloma-Saurin hillsides along Walker Creek
and the Tomales series soils between units L2 and L3. Given our limited
current knowledge of the species and its conservation requirements,
however, and because we have no records of D. luteum growing in the
suggested locations, we have little certainty that these areas would
meet the definition of critical habitat (as defined in section 3(5)(A)
of the Act) as areas on which are found physical and biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species. Within
the geographical area occupied by the species, we designate only areas
currently known to be essential, and consequently we do not believe it
is appropriate to include the suggested areas in our designation of
critical habitat for D. luteum.
As further described in the section of this preamble entitled
``Critical Habitat'' (below), we recognize that our designation of
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that might
eventually be determined to be necessary for the conservation of the
species. For these reasons, critical habitat designations do not signal
that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be
required for recovery. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on
the basis of the best available information at the time of designation
will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans,
habitat conservation plans, or other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls
for a different outcome. Also, as provided for by section 4(a)(3) of
the Act, we can revise our designation of critical habitat in the
future if it is appropriate to do so.
Issue 2: Site Specific Comments
(5) Comment: Two commenters questioned the validity of the
Delphinium luteum occurrence in Unit L3.
Our Response: This occurrence was documented in Amme (1993), and
reconfirmed by both discoverers (D. Amme, in litt. 2002; D. Amme, pers
comm. 2002; C. Patterson, pers comm. 2003). It was also cited in a
plant survey conducted in 1997 (LSA 1997), although that survey did not
attempt to directly reconfirm the occurrence's existence. Mr. Amme is a
biologist for CalTrans, while Mr. Patterson is a consulting botanist
with over 20 years' experience. Although Mr. Amme has indicated some
concern that the occurrence may have hybridized to some extent with
another species, a small amount of genetic introgression would be
unlikely to invalidate the protections of the Act (Service 1996 (61 FR
4710)). Mr. Amme has mentioned to us the possibility that the
occurrence could be a yellow-flowered hybrid of two other larkspur
species: Delphinium nudicaule (red larkspur) and D. decorum (coast
larkspur) (D. Amme, in litt., 2003). While this possibility cannot be
conclusively ruled out, we believe that given the extremely few D.
luteum occurrences remaining, in the absence of evidence to indicate
the occurrence is not D. luteum, we must proceed on the assumption that
it is. If future evidence demonstrates conclusively that this
occurrence is not D. luteum, the critical habitat designation can be
revised at that time.
(6) Comment: Two commenters provided information regarding separate
areas in Unit L3 that indicates the areas do not contain Delphinium
luteum plants or appropriate habitat.
Our Response: Although developed areas such as buildings, roads, or
lawns may inadvertently be included within critical habitat boundaries,
such areas generally do not have any of the primary constituent
elements of the species, and so do not qualify as critical habitat.
Where possible we prefer to exclude such areas directly, so we have
redrawn Unit L3 to avoid the areas in question. See the ``Summary of
Changes from Proposed Rule'' section below.
(7) Comment: A commenter argued that Units L2 and L3 have been
actively grazed or farmed for over 100 years and either they do not
contain Delphinium
[[Page 12839]]
luteum or else D. luteum can coexist with current land uses, and
therefore critical habitat designation in those areas is unnecessary.
Our Response: Maps of grazing impact, habitat quality, and habitat
type prepared as part of an ``Overview Summary'' for a planned golf
ranch in the area in 1992 show extensive grazing impacts (Marin Coast
Associates 1992). However, the maps also show areas with relatively
high quality habitat, and the L2 and L3 Delphinium luteum occurrences
fall within these areas. Hence, D. luteum apparently can coexist with
sheep grazing in areas which are not heavily grazed.
The Act defines critical habitat as areas on which are found
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. We believe that the occurrences in Units L2 and L3 are
areas with features essential to the conservation of the species, and
we also believe they may need special management considerations to
survive despite having persisted to this point, because they remain
subject to the various threats as described above. While critical
habitat designation imposes no special management requirements on
private landowners, it does require Federal agencies to take the
species' habitat needs into account whenever their actions might
adversely modify the habitat. It also alerts the public to the
importance of the area for the species, thereby making it easier for
landowners to obtain support or compensation from public or private
sources for special management actions they are willing to take.
(8) Comment: A commenter stated that Units L2 and L3 need ground
truthing to see if Delphinium luteum plants are still there.
Our Response: Based on consideration of the best available
information, we have determined that Units L2 and L3 meet the
definition of critical habitat. In general, more ground truthing would
be helpful, but we are limited by our inability to enter private
property without permission. In the case of Units L2 and L3, we have
requested permission from one owner but have not received an answer.
Ground truthing would be useful to ascertain further the value of the
habitat for Delphinium luteum. Plants may be missed if they are not
mature and flowering, and a seed bank may be present even when mature
plants are not.
Issue 3: Legal and Procedural Comments
(9) Comment: A commenter recommended that we provide more accurate
maps of unit boundaries and more background information on field
reconnaissance work.
Our Response: The maps we publish are limited by the printing
capabilities of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations. We can provide more accurate maps on request, however, as
well as answer questions regarding field reconnaissance of particular
areas. We also commonly publish maps and information on our Web page,
http://sacramento.fws.gov. Because of private property considerations,
our field reconnaissance was limited to habitat inspections made from
public roads for Units B1, B2, L1, and L4, and at some other
historically documented sites for Delphinium luteum which had not been
confirmed since the early 1980s.
(10) Comment: A commenter found the comment period too short and
asked us to extend it.
Our Response: As detailed above in the Previous Federal Action
section, the initial comment period for the proposed rule lasted 60
days, and was followed by a second 30-day comment period to allow
comment on both the proposed rule and the draft economic analysis.
These time periods are within the requirements of our regulations, and
we believe they allow a reasonable time for comment. We were unable to
reopen the comment period a third time because we are under a court
imposed deadline to reach a final critical habitat determination by
March 10, 2003.
(11) Comment: One commenter argued that the Act requires us to make
a draft economic analysis available prior to proposing critical
habitat.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to ``designate
critical habitat * * * after taking into consideration the economic
impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat.'' We interpret this to mean the economic
analysis must precede the final critical habitat designation, not the
proposed designation. It would not be possible for us to weigh the
economic impacts of a designation which we had not yet proposed, since
the projected costs of critical habitat depend on the location and size
of the areas which may be designated. We made the draft economic
analysis available for review, and accepted comments on it, from
November 1 to December 2, 2002.
(12) Comment: A commenter pointed out that we had not provided a
map showing the locations of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum
occurrences, or the number of plants and date observed for each
occurrence.
Our Response: We have access to much of this information through a
use agreement with the CNDDB database, compiled and maintained by the
CDFG. We do not believe it would be prudent for us to publish the exact
locations of these plants because we might thereby facilitate
collection or vandalism of them. We can provide more accurate maps on
request, however, as well as answer questions regarding field
reconnaissance of particular areas.
(13) Comment: A commenter argued that the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) requires us to complete an Environmental Impact
Report for this critical habitat designation because it could result in
a change in agricultural use.
Our Response: CEQA only applies to discretionary projects of State
or local public agencies (Cal. Pub. Res. Code Sec. Sec. 21063,
21080(a)).
(14) Comment: A commenter who had difficulty accessing the economic
analysis on our website claimed this constituted a failure to make the
information readily accessible, in violation of the Federal Data
Quality Act. The commenter clarified in a separate e-mail that he was
referring to the Service Information Quality Guidelines.
Our Response: The Information Quality Guidelines (Guidelines) (67
FR 64407) concern the accuracy of information disseminated by our
agency. They are not violated by a failure of our ability to
disseminate the information over the Internet on a particular day.
Additionally, the Guidelines are intended to improve the internal
management of information quality and do not create an enforceable
legal right or benefit (67 FR 64407). The notice of availability of the
draft economic analysis which we published in the Federal Register (67
FR 22404) provided contact information for personnel from our office
who could have provided assistance.
Issue 4: Comments on the Economic Analysis
(15) Comment: A commenter stated that critical habitat designation
causes a loss in property values which the economic analysis fails to
take into account. The commenter suggested that the analysis might have
quantified some of the lost land value by totaling the number of acres
of grazing land affected, since such lands have a specific grazing
value per acre. The commenter also stated that the economic analysis
did not attempt to quantify ``the most basic economic effects a
critical habitat designation will cause.''
[[Page 12840]]
Our Response: The commenter suggested that critical habitat
designation and Federal listing restricts grazing activities which, in
turn, reduces property values. In this situation, grazing activities
are not expected to be changed by critical habitat designation or
Federal listing because there are no section 7 requirements triggered
specifically by private landowner grazing activities in the areas being
designated as critical habitat. Although the implementation of section
7 regulations is not likely to reduce the value of land designated as
critical habitat, uncertainty about the scope and impact of the
designation may cause the areas to be temporarily stigmatized. Because
public uncertainty about the section 7 process is often heightened
immediately after critical habitat designation, stigma associated with
the proposed designation may cause a reduction in a willingness-to-pay
for the land. This, in turn, can result in a reduced land value. By
definition, stigma effects are associated with perceived regulatory or
land-value effects as opposed to actual regulatory or land-value
effects. As explained in the final economic analysis, once the public
understands the actual effect of critical habitat, any stigma
associated with the area may be greatly reduced or even disappear.
While stigma effects are solely attributable to critical habitat
designation, the impacts are generally difficult to quantify.
Therefore, a count of grazing acres within critical habitat would not
have helped to quantify property values lost due to stigma effects.
Critical habitat designation and Federal listing of species do not
impose on a private landowner any additional costs if future land uses
are not changed by the designation and listing. The economic analysis
concluded that because of county land use restrictions, no future
development would occur in the areas we are designating as critical
habitat. The county land use restrictions are independent of our
designation of critical habitat. No section 7 consultation requirements
are expected to be triggered within Marin County habitat units due to
development.
The commenter also stated that the economic analysis did not
attempt to quantify ``the most basic economic effects a critical
habitat designation will cause.'' The intent of this statement is not
entirely clear to us, and it may have been meant to reiterate the point
discussed above, namely that the concern the economic analysis did not
quantify possible losses in property value. Alternatively, the comment
may be interpreted as being intended to point out that the economic
benefits of critical habitat designation remained unquantified in the
analysis, so we also are responding to that possible concern. We
typically report all quantified benefits of critical habitat
designation if there are peer reviewed and published studies estimating
benefits, and if these studies use a relatively sound methodology.
Because no such studies exist for Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum, the
draft economic analysis discusses these benefits in qualitative terms,
but does not provide a numerical estimate of their value. The section
of this preamble entitled ``Critical Habitat'' (below) also addresses
the benefits of designating critical habitat.
(16) Comment: A commenter stated that the draft economic analysis
did not consider additional development plans in the designated
critical habitat units located in Marin County.
Our Response: We consulted with officials of the Marin County
Community Development Department (CDD) in an effort to obtain the most
current and comprehensive information about the likelihood of future
planned and proposed development within areas that were proposed for
critical habitat. CDD officials confirmed that no development
applications had been submitted for the critical habitat units in Marin
County, and that future development is unlikely due to lack of utility
infrastructure, distance to jobs and basic supplies, and agricultural
zoning restrictions established by the Marin County General Plan.
(17) Comment: Two commenters mentioned that the economic analysis
failed to account for costs associated with the treatment of critical
habitat by State and local requirements such as the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the general plan for Marin County.
Our Response: The comments could be interpreted as expressing
concern over the potential costs to landowners, or the concern may have
been the potential costs to State and local governments of revising
documents such as the county general plan to reflect critical habitat
designation. We are responding to both of these potential
interpretations. Critical habitat designation is not likely to affect
the content or implementation of Marin County's General Plan, nor will
it result in additional review under CEQA. Zoning and land use
designations were determined prior to the proposed designation of
critical habitat, and our rulemaking is unlikely to trigger any
revisions of the General Plan. According to section 15065 (California
Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3) of CEQA guidelines, an
environmental impact report (EIR) is required by local lead agencies,
when, among other things, a project has the potential to ``reduce the
number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened
species.'' Although federally listed species are presumed to meet the
CEQA definition of ``endangered, rare or threatened species'' under
section 15380 (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3), few
additional constraints should result from the designation of critical
habitat beyond those now in place as a result of the earlier listing of
Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum as endangered species. Only if loss or
degradation of the proposed project site's habitat resources (viewed
comprehensively) are determined to be significant will significant
impacts to habitat be analyzed and mitigation, where feasible, be
planned as part of a project. Because officials from the CDD confirmed
that no new development applications are anticipated for the proposed
Marin County habitat units, no EIRs are likely to be prepared.
Therefore, neither landowners nor State or local governments are likely
to experience additional costs anticipated by the commenters.
(18) Comment: A commenter questioned why the draft economic
analysis does not account for impacts of critical habitat designation
on existing land uses such as stock pond maintenance and quarry
operations.
Our Response: Federal assistance for stock pond maintenance is
sponsored by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), an
agency in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). However, no
consultations have occurred with the Service in the past for NRCS
programs that provide assistance for stock pond maintenance. Therefore,
based on the consultation history, this analysis assumes that the NRCS
will continue its current operating procedures and is unlikely to
consult with us on these types of activities in the future. As stated
in the draft economic analysis, other programs sponsored by NRCS,
namely technical and financial assistance to landowners for erosion and
flood control projects, have a consultation history, and economic
impacts of section 7 regulations for those activities have been
estimated.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires under the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), that a private landowner obtain a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program permit for any quarry
operation that may result in a point source discharge of a pollutant
into waters of
[[Page 12841]]
the United States. The commenter gave no specific mention of actual
quarries, and, after consulting with an official at Region 2 of the
California Water Quality Control Board, we are not aware of any
quarries on or near the habitat units proposed for Marin County. Hence,
no consultations or project modifications are likely to occur as no
plans exist for additional quarries.
(19) Comment: A commenter thought the economic analysis should
include the cost of suing us for improperly designating critical
habitat.
Our Response: We have followed all of the legal requirements
pertaining to the designation of critical habitat and believe we have
made the designation properly, and consequently do not believe it is
necessary or appropriate to engage in speculation regarding the
potential for litigation and costs that might be associated with it. It
is possible that litigation may be initiated in response to the
rulemaking and if that happens, the court will determine whether the
plaintiff(s) should be reimbursed for any of the costs of litigation,
and if so, what the level of reimbursement should be.
(20) Comment: A commenter thought we should try to balance the
economic impacts of the designation against the benefit to the species.
Our Response: In designating critical habitat, section 4(b)(2) of
the Act requires us to take into consideration the economic impact, and
any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as
critical habitat, and allows us to exclude any area if the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless we determine
that the failure to designate such an area will result in the
extinction of the species. We have estimated the costs associated with
the critical habitat designation in our economic analysis, and do not
find that the benefits of exclusion, as indicated by the avoided costs,
would outweigh the benefits to the species of designating the six units
of critical habitat.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited independent opinions from three
knowledgeable individuals with expertise in one or several fields,
including familiarity with the species, familiarity with the geographic
region in which the species occurs, and familiarity with the principles
of conservation biology. One of the three reviewers responded,
providing us with comments that are summarized here.
Overall the peer reviewer supported the designation, finding that
the proposed rule ``is well written and appears justified'' (J. Koontz,
in litt., 2002). He provided us with information regarding further
habitat southeast of Unit L1 which appears to contain the primary
constituent elements for Delphinium luteum. Although we do not believe
that, in the absence of any new occurrences of the plant, the extension
of the unit to include this area is essential to the conservation of
the species at this time, we will keep the area in mind while
developing a recovery plan. We will evaluate the value of this area for
species recovery during the development of the recovery plan for these
species.
The peer reviewer also suggested certain changes and additions
which we have incorporated into the Background, Primary Constituent
Elements, and Critical Habitat Designation sections of the rule, as
appropriate. These changes include an updated estimate of the number of
plants remaining, a more inclusive list of community associates for
Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum, information regarding the mowing of
the D. bakeri population in May 2002, and information regarding the
possible hybrid origin of D. luteum. He also included updated or
corrected citations for some of the points made in the proposed rule,
and provided useful background information and opinion, such as contact
information for other species experts and an overview of the costs and
benefits to the species of designating critical habitat in the amounts
proposed. Finally, he emphasized the importance of field reconnaissance
and questioned the extent to which we were able do this for the
proposed units. We addressed this comment in our responses to comments
8 and 9.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
In response to comment 3 (above) we redefined the primary
constituent elements of the species to more clearly indicate that slope
and aspect are separate requirements. Based on comment 6 (above), we
refined our mapping with the result of eliminating approximately 24 ha
(60 ac) of land proposed to be designated for Unit L3. The eliminated
areas include the northernmost peninsular area of the unit, which
contains several buildings and is heavily silted, and another
peninsular area at the southwestern end of the unit, which contains a
wastewater treatment and disposal system. These areas do not contain
Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum plants, nor do they contain the primary
constituent elements for these species. We have also incorporated
changes suggested by our peer reviewer (see Peer Review section above).
Critical Habitat
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as--(i) the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time
it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act,
on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential
to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is
listed in accordance with section 4 of this Act, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
``Conservation,'' as defined by the Act, means the use of all methods
and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or a
threatened species to the point at which listing under the Act is no
longer necessary.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies shall, in
consultation with us, insure that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Section 7 also requires conferences on Federal
actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
species proposed to be listed or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such
species. 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. 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, and consequently critical habitat
designation does not afford any additional regulatory protection under
the Act under those circumstances.
Critical habitat also provides non-regulatory benefits to the
species by informing the public and private sectors of areas that are
important for species recovery, and where conservation actions would be
most effective. Designation of critical habitat can help focus
conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas that
contain the physical and biological features essential for the
conservation of that species, and can alert the public, as well as
land-managing agencies, to the importance of those areas. Critical
[[Page 12842]]
habitat also identifies areas that may require special management
considerations or protection, and may help provide protection to areas
where significant threats to the species have been identified, by
helping people to avoid causing accidental damage to such areas.
In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the
habitat must first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.''
Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the
best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that
provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which
are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR
424.12(b)). Section 3(5)(C) of the Act states that not all areas that
can be occupied by a species should be designated as critical habitat
unless the Secretary determines that all such areas are essential to
the conservation of the species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(e))
also state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as critical habitat
areas outside the geographical 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.''
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat
based on what we know at the time of designation. Habitat is often
dynamic and species may move from one area to another over time. We
recognize that our designation of critical habitat may not include all
of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary
for the conservation of the species. For these reasons, critical
habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation
is unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Areas that support
newly discovered populations in the future, but are outside the
critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to
conservation actions implemented by Federal agencies under section
7(a)(1) of the Act, and to the regulatory protections afforded by the
section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the section 9 prohibitions, as
determined on the basis of the best available information at the time
of the action. Federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species
conservation planning efforts if new information available to these
planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Within the geographical area occupied by the species, we will
designate only areas currently known to be essential. Essential areas
should already have the features and habitat characteristics that are
necessary to sustain the species. We will not speculate about what
areas might be found to be essential if better information became
available, or what areas may become essential over time. If the
information available at the time of designation does not show that an
area provides essential life cycle needs of the species, then the area
should not be included in the critical habitat designation. Within the
geographical area occupied by the species, we will attempt to avoid
designating areas that do not now have the primary constituent
elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b), which provide essential life
cycle needs of the species. However, we may be restricted by our
minimum mapping unit or mapping scale.
Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271),
provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides guidance to
ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial
data available. It requires our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of
information should, at a minimum, be the listing package for the
species. Additional information may be obtained from a recovery plan,
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological
assessments or other unpublished materials, and discussions with
experts.
Methods
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR
424.12, we used the best scientific information available to determine
areas that contain the physical and biological features that are
essential for the conservation of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum. We
reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat
requirements of these species, including data from research and survey
observations; regional Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages
(e.g., soils, known locations, vegetation, land ownership); information
from herbarium collections such as CalFlora ((http://www.calflora.org);
data from CNDDB (2001); and data collected from project-specific and
other miscellaneous reports submitted to us. This included information
from our final rule listing D. bakeri and D. luteum as endangered (65
FR 4156), the CNDDB (2001), soil survey maps (SCS 1972, 1985),
certified soil GIS layers for Marin County, geologic formation maps,
1993 digital orthophotoquarterquads, and discussions with botanical
experts who have worked closely with these plant species. We also
conducted site visits at one historical occurrence of D. bakeri and
five historical occurrences of D. luteum as well as one extant
occurrence of D. bakeri and three extant occurrences of D. luteum (to
the extent we could visit the habitat without going onto private land).
Mapping
We delineated the critical habitat units by using data layers in a
GIS format with all the known Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum
occurrences from the CNDDB (2001) and other sources (D. Amme, in litt.,
2002, pers. comm., 2002). We created additional data layers to reflect
vegetation types using aerial photographs, GIS data for Marin soils
(Natural Resource Conservation Service 2001), and recent development
using satellite imagery (CNES/SPOT Image Corporation 2001). We created
an additional data layer by digitizing Kneeland soils data for Sonoma
County from a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) soil survey (1972). These
data layers were laid over a base of USGS 3.75' digital
orthophotographic quarter quadrangle images.
In designating critical habitat, we made an effort to avoid
developed areas such as houses, intensive agricultural areas (such as
row crops, vineyards, and orchards), and lands unlikely to contain the
primary constituent elements for Delphinium bakeri or D. luteum.
However, we did not map critical habitat in sufficient detail to
exclude all developed areas. Developed areas within the boundaries of
the mapped units, such as buildings, lawns, roads, parking lots, and
other paved areas will not contain one or more of the primary
constituent elements. Federal actions limited to these areas,
therefore, would not trigger consultation relative to critical habitat
under section 7 of the Act unless they affect the species, or affect
primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
[[Page 12843]]
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas to propose as critical
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the species and that may require
special management considerations or protection. These include, but are
not limited to, the following:
(1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring,
germination, or seed dispersal; and generally;
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) further direct that when
considering the designation of critical habitat, we are to focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements within the
defined area that are essential to the conservation of the species, and
we are to list known primary constituent elements with the critical
habitat description. Our regulations describe known primary constituent
elements in terms that are more specific than the description of
physical and biological features. Specifically, primary constituent
elements may include, but are not limited to, the following: roost
sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland
or dryland, water quality or quantity, host species of plant
pollinator, geological formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific
soil types.
All areas identified as critical habitat for Delphinium bakeri and
D. luteum are within the historical range and contain one or more of
the primary constituent elements that we have identified, based on the
best available scientific information, as essential for the
conservation of the species.
Much of what is known about the specific physical and biological
requirements of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum is described in the
Background section of this final rule. The designated critical habitat
is designed to provide sufficient habitat to maintain self-sustaining
populations of D. bakeri and D. luteum throughout their ranges, and to
provide those habitat components essential for the conservation of
these species. These habitat components provide for: (1) Space for
individual and population growth, including areas that allow gene flow
and provide connectivity or linkage between populations including open
spaces and disturbed areas that in some instances may also contain
nonnative plant species; (2) areas that provide basic requirements for
growth such as water, light, minerals; (3) sites for germination,
pollination, reproduction, and seed dispersal; (4) areas that support
populations of pollinators and seed dispersal organisms; and (5)
habitats that are representative of the historic geographical and
ecological distributions of each species.
We believe the conservation of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum is
dependent upon a number of factors, including the conservation and
management of sites where existing populations grow, the establishment
of D. bakeri at a new location to provide insurance against stochastic
(randomly occurring) events, the maintenance of normal ecological
functions within these sites, and the preservation of the connectivity
between sites to maintain recent levels of gene flow between sites
through pollinator activity and seed dispersal agents. The areas we are
designating as critical habitat provide some or all of the habitat
components essential for the conservation of these two species.
Based on our knowledge to date, the primary constituent elements of
critical habitat for Delphinium bakeri consist of:
(1) Soils that are derived from decomposed shale;
(2) Plant communities that support associated species, including,
but not limited to: Umbellularia californica (California bay), Aesculus
californica (California buckeye), and Quercus agrifolia (coastal live
oak), Baccharis pulularis ssp. consanguinea (coyotebrush),
Symphorcarpos cf. rivularis (snowberry), Rubus ursinus (California
blackberry), Pteridium aqulinum (braken fern), Polystichum munitum
(sword fern), Pityrogramma triangularis (goldback fern), Dryopteris
arguta (coastal woodfern), Adiantum jordanii (maidenhair fern),
Polypodium glycyrrhiza (licorice fern), Toxicodendron diversilobum
(poison oak), Ceanothus thyrsiflorus (blueblossom ceanothus),
Lithophragma affine (woodland star), and Holodiscus discolor
(oceanspray); and
(3) Mesic (moderate moisture) conditions on extensive north-facing
slopes.
Based on our knowledge to date, the primary constituent elements of
critical habitat for Delphinium luteum consist of:
(1) Plant communities, including north coastal scrub or coastal
prairie communities, including, but not limited to, species such as:
Arabis blepharophylla (rose rockcress), Calochortus tolmei (Tolmei
startulip), Mimulus aurantiacus (orange bush monkeyflower), Dudleya
caespitosa (sea lettuce), Polypodium californicum (California
polyploidy), Eriogonum parviflorum (sea cliff buckwheat), Toxicodendron
diversilobum (poison oak), Romanzoffia californica (California
mistmaiden), Hesperevax sparsiflora (evax), Pentagramma triangularis
(goldenback fern), and Sedum spathulifolium (broadleaf stonecrop).
(2) Relatively steep sloped soils (30 percent or greater) derived
from sandstone or shale, with rapid runoff and high erosion potential,
such as Kneeland or Yorkville series soils;
(3) Generally north aspected areas; and
(4) Habitat upslope and downslope from known populations to
maintain disturbance such as occasional rock slides or soil slumping
that the species appears to require.
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat
We identified areas on which are found physical and biological
features essential for the conservation of Delphinium bakeri, based on
consideration of the known primary constituent elements, in Marin
County at the only location where the species currently is known to
occur (Unit B2), as well as in the Coleman Valley area in Sonoma County
(Unit B1), where the species was historically found. We are including
the Coleman Valley site in our designation despite the apparent
extirpation of D. bakeri from this location, because we believe the
area is essential to the conservation of the species and still contains
primary constituent elements for the species. The Coleman Valley unit
encompasses the location where the species was first described, and it
is one of very few locations where D. bakeri has ever been observed. We
believe that reintroduction of D. bakeri at the Coleman Valley site is
essential for the species' survival due to the extremely limited range
of D. bakeri, its small population size (0 to 67 individuals over the
last 20 years), and the high degree of threat from chance catastrophic
events (Shaffer 1981, 1987; Primack 1993; Meffe and Carroll 1994). Such
events are a concern when the number of populations or geographic
distribution of a species is severely limited, as is the case with D.
bakeri.
[[Page 12844]]
Establishment of a second location for D. bakeri is important in
reducing the risk of extinction of the species due to such catastrophic
events. Further, when considering establishment of new locations as
part of meeting the conservation needs of a species, we believe it is
appropriate to look first to reestablishing populations within the
historic range of a species, especially specific areas where the
species was once known to occur, rather than going to completely new
areas. Our designation of critical habitat does not include the
location near Tomales, California, however, because our information is
too vague to accurately identify the site.
We identified critical habitat for Delphinium bakeri by mapping the
distribution of the known occurrences of the species with respect to
distance from the coast, location within watersheds, soil series
associations, aspect of the slopes and watersheds, position on slopes,
our field observations of the soil conditions at each location, and our
field observations of the plant associations found in the area of each
location. We then drew an initial critical habitat demarcation that
included the appropriate soils, vegetation, and watershed, consistent
with our understanding of the physical and biological features and
primary constituent elements that are essential for the conservation of
this species. We mapped the critical habitat units to include the
upslope and downslope areas that would be important to the maintenance
of these features and related primary constituent elements essential
for the conservation of the species.
We identified areas with features essential to the conservation of
Delphinium luteum in the locations where it is known to occur in Marin
and Sonoma counties. Due to the limited number of populations of D.
luteum and the high degree of threat from catastrophic events, we have
determined that all areas with recently documented occurrences contain
physical and biological features that are essential for the
conservation of this species and are necessary and appropriate to
designate as critical habitat. All four D. luteum units (L1, L2, L3,
and L4) are within the geographical area currently occupied by the
species, and D. luteum occurs in all four of the units. In addition,
the Center for Plant Conservation (2002) recommends that additional
populations be established and managed for this species. Some locations
within these critical habitat units may be suitable sites for such
introductions or for natural expansion of the existing populations.
As a rule, we drew boundary lines for Delphinium luteum critical
habitat units to include all areas of the same soil type and in the
same canyon system as the enclosed population(s). Although all but one
recently documented population of D. luteum occurs on basically north-
facing slopes, we consistently included as critical habitat both sides
of the canyons which contain D. luteum. We did this because the folds
and side canyons common to these sites can produce localized north
aspected areas even on generally south aspected canyon walls, the
species is not restricted to north-facing slopes, and south aspected
slopes may support any of the other three primary constituent elements
for this species. We did not extend critical habitat boundaries to
deliberately include south aspected slopes unless they supported at
least one of the other three primary constituent elements, although
mapping limitations may have resulted in including a few such areas
inadvertently. Including both sides of the canyons where the plant
occurs also encompasses a wider range of microhabitats to support
population growth. This approach also may have the benefit of making
management of the units easier.
Units L1, L2, and L4 contain features which caused us to modify
somewhat our general rule of drawing boundaries based on the same soil
type and canyon system as the known population. In Unit L3, the soil
boundaries conformed well to the canyon boundaries, and also included
areas of steep-sloped canyon walls, so no modification of what was
drawn (based on application of the general rule described above) was
appropriate or necessary. Unit L1 soil boundaries included several
branching canyons with numerous coastal drainage outlets, so we
included those canyons which drained roughly to the same location and
did not include the others. In Unit L2, the soil boundaries conformed
well to the drainage, but because the area enclosed was very small and
unbranched, and because the same soil type also occurred with suitable
habitat in a separate drainage less than half a mile away, we extended
the boundaries of the unit to include the north-facing slopes of the
second drainage as bounded by the suitable soil type. The resulting
unit is still the smallest of the four designated for Delphinium
luteum, and by including this small area of nearby habitat, we can
provide the resident D. luteum population an opportunity to colonize a
new area. Given the susceptibility of D. luteum populations to
extirpation by random, uncontrollable events, the establishment of new
populations is essential to the continuing survival of the species.
Unit L4 contains the population growing in a road-cut away from
steep-sloped canyon walls, as well as the population mapped on a south-
facing slope. It also includes a third population which is located in
typical habitat, but which the CNDDB lists as ``possibly extirpated''
due to the inability of several surveys to relocate it since 1982. All
three populations are mapped as growing on different soil types (CNDDB
2001). However, with two exceptions, all soil types in the area share
the rapid run-off and high erosion potential with which Delphinium
luteum is associated. The two exceptions are the canyon floor and a
small area at the head of the canyon where the walls are not steeply
sloped. We are including these for contiguity of the unit and because
both of them abut the location of the population located in the road
cut. Taken together, the various soil types conform well to the main
canyon boundaries (SCS 1985) and include all the habitat requirements
of the species. Therefore, we have drawn Unit L4 largely according to
the soil boundaries as they extend down the main canyon. We did not
extend the unit up either of two large side canyons because those areas
neither contain D. luteum populations nor a soil type common to all the
populations in the unit.
Special Management Considerations
Special management considerations or protections may be needed to
maintain the physical and biological features and primary constituent
elements that are essential for the conservation of Delphinium bakeri
and D. luteum within the units being designated as critical habitat. In
some cases, protection of existing habitat and current ecological
processes may be sufficient to ensure that populations of the plants
are maintained at those sites and have the ability to reproduce and
disperse in surrounding habitat. In other cases, however, active
management may be needed to maintain the primary constituent elements
for the two species.
As noted in the Critical Habitat section, ``special management
considerations or protection'' is a term that originates in the
definition of critical habitat. We believe the designated critical
habitat units may require special management considerations or
protection because remaining populations of Delphinium bakeri and D.
luteum are extremely rare,
[[Page 12845]]
contain few individuals, and are subject to threats which could
extirpate them. In addition to the risk due to random natural events
that can result in the extinction of species with very few, small, and
highly isolated populations, potential threats to the habitat of D.
bakeri include overcollection, application of herbicides, and sheep
grazing, and potential threats to the habitat of D. luteum include
overcollection, road widening, sheep grazing, fire suppression, and
hybridization. Currently, no legally operative plans or agreements have
been developed that address the maintenance and improvement of the
primary constituent elements important to the species, or that provide
management for the long-term conservation of D. bakeri or D. luteum.
We have outlined below the most likely kinds of special management
and protection that the habitat features and primary constituent
elements essential to the conservation of Delphinium bakeri and D.
luteum may require. The following actions apply to both species, unless
otherwise noted:
(1) In all plant communities where these taxa occur, invasive,
nonnative species need to be actively controlled;
(2) The quality of water must be maintained to keep it free from
levels of herbicides or other chemical or organic contaminants that
would be deleterious to the species;
(3) Certain areas where these species occur may need to be fenced
to protect them from accidental or intentional trampling by humans and
livestock;
(4) Aerial application of herbicides and insecticides that are
likely to be deleterious to the species needs to be curtailed in the
critical habitat. Exposure to deleterious herbicides and insecticides
from drift needs to be avoided;
(5) The appropriate level of soil disturbance needs to be
maintained (this applies only to Delphinium luteum); and
(6) Existing hydrologic conditions may need to be protected by
avoiding activities that cause a change in surface or subsurface water
flows.
Critical Habitat Designation
Lands designated as critical habitat areas described below contain
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum, including one or more of the primary
constituent elements described above, and constitute our best
assessment at this time of the areas which meet the Act's definition of
critical habitat. The approximate areas of critical habitat by land
ownership are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.--Approximate Areas of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum Critical
Habitat in Hectares (ha) (Acres (ac)). All Critical Habitat for Both
Species Is on Private Lands
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species (unit) Private land
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. bakeri (B1)............................ 322 ha (796 ac)
D. bakeri (B2)............................ 418 ha (1,032 ac)
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal D. bakeri.................... 740 ha (1,828 ac)
D. luteum (L1)............................ 554 ha (1,369 ac)
D. luteum (L2)............................ 133 ha (329 ac)
D. luteum (L3)............................ 142 ha (351 ac)
D. luteum (L4)............................ 193 ha (476 ac)
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal D. luteum.................... 1,022 ha (2,525 ac)
===========================================
Total (both species).................. 1,762 ha (4,353 ac)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat for Delphinium bakeri includes one unit in Marin
County which contains the only currently known location of D. bakeri,
and a second unit in Sonoma County we believe includes the type
locality for the species. The second unit is essential because
establishment of a second location for D. bakeri is important in
reducing the risk of extinction of the species due to catastrophic
events. Critical habitat for D. bakeri totals 740 ha (1,828 ac), with
418 ha (1,032 ac) in Marin County and 322 ha (796 ac) in Sonoma County.
Critical habitat for D. luteum includes four units. These units
together contain all the D. luteum populations documented since the
1980s. Critical habitat for D. luteum includes 1,022 ha (2,525 ac),
with 554 ha (1,369 ac) in Sonoma County and 468 ha (1,156 ac) in Marin
County.
A brief description of each unit, along with our reasons for
designating it as critical habitat, is presented below.
Unit B1: Coleman Valley, Sonoma County, California
This unit is located near Coleman Valley Road west of the town of
Occidental, approximately 8 km (5 mi) from the coast. The 322 ha (796
ac) unit is bounded on the north side by Coleman Valley Road and
represents an area either near or at the original type locality for
Delphinium bakeri. The exact location of the type locality for D.
bakeri is somewhat vague, with the location described only as ``Hedrin
Ranch in Coleman Valley, West of Occidental.'' The location is mapped
to within a 1.6 km (1 mi) radius in the CNDDB (CNDDB 2001).
This unit contains an extensive north-facing slope with mesic
vegetation similar to the extant location of Delphinium bakeri, with
the addition of coastal redwood. The Coleman Valley location of D.
bakeri represents the northernmost extent of the known range of this
species. This unit is essential for the survival as well as the
conservation of D. bakeri because it provides a second area separate
from the existing population for D. bakeri, into which the species can
be reintroduced. We believe it is particularly important to have a
second unit to reduce the likelihood that the species may become
extinct as the result of a catastrophic event in the single location
where the species is now known to occur. A second, geographically
separate unit can provide greater protection to the species from chance
events, such as disease, that can destroy the only remaining
population.
Unit B2: Salmon Creek, Marin County, California
This unit is near the Marshall-Petaluma Road in Marin County
approximately 10 km (6 mi) from the coast. This 418 ha (1,032 ac) unit
is bounded on the north side by Salmon Creek and contains an extensive
north-facing slope that is essential to maintaining the mesic
conditions needed for the conservation of Delphinium bakeri. Land in
this unit is privately owned with a county right-of-way along the road.
This unit is of great importance to the survival of D. bakeri because
it contains the only known extant occurrence of D. bakeri, and
represents the southernmost extent of the range of this species.
Unit L1: Bodega Bay, Sonoma County, California
Unit L1 consists of 554 ha (1,369 ac) south of Bay Hill Road, near
the town of Bodega in Sonoma County, California. This unit is comprised
of Kneeland series soils, coastal prairie and scrub habitat, and is
within the fog belt that moderates the climate. This unit contains
features that are essential to the conservation of Delphinium luteum.
It also is important for the conservation of the species because it
supports about 30 percent of the roughly 220 total known remaining
individual plants (based on the most recent population totals (CNDDB
2001; D. Amme, pers. comm. 2002)). Because so few D. luteum plants
remain, habitat supporting all of them is essential to the continued
survival and conservation of the species. In addition, this unit is
important to the conservation of the
[[Page 12846]]
species because it contains two of the very few remaining sites at
which the species has been recently observed. Due to the limited number
of populations of D. luteum, and the high degree of threat of
extinction from catastrophic events, we believe that habitat supporting
all recently documented occurrences is essential for the conservation
of this species.
Unit L2: Estero Americano, Marin County, California.
Unit L2 is located just south of Estero Americano on the Marin
County coast. This 133 ha (328 ac) unit contains one occurrence of
Delphinium luteum, with about 134 individual plants at last count
(CNDDB 2001). It is located on Yorkville series soils that support
coastal prairie and coastal scrub habitat and is within the fog belt
that moderates the climate. This unit contains features that are
essential for the survival of D. luteum. The unit also is important
because it contains the single largest population of the plant, with
more than half of all the individuals in the entire species. Because so
few D. luteum plants remain, we believe that providing habitat to
support all of the them is essential to the continued survival and
conservation of the species. In addition, this unit is essential to the
conservation of the species because it contains one of very few
remaining sites at which the species has been recently observed. Due to
the limited number of populations of D. luteum, and the high degree of
threat of extinction from catastrophic events, we believe that habitat
supporting all recently documented occurrences is essential for the
conservation of this species.
Unit L3: Estero de San Antonio, Marin County, California.
Unit L3 is located near the mouth of the Estero de San Antonio in
Marin County and includes steep sloped canyon walls composed of
Yorkville series soils on both sides of the water channel, with coastal
prairie and coastal scrub habitat and temperatures moderated by fog.
This 142 ha (351 ac) unit contains one population of Delphinium luteum
discovered in 1993 that is not yet recorded in the CNDDB. This unit is
important because it is positioned roughly halfway between Unit L4 to
the south, and Units L1 and L2 to the north, and may help to prevent
the genetic isolation of Unit L4. It also contains the largest
continuous area of Yorkville soils of all the units. Yorkville soils
are important because, in Units L2 and L3, these soils support roughly
two thirds of all individual D. luteum plants. Because a large
proportion of the remaining D. luteum individuals occur on Yorkville
soils, we believe these soils are an indicator of situations in which
the plants are likely to survive and reproduce. Therefore, we believe
areas which contain these soils are essential to the conservation of
the species.
Unit L4: Tomales, Marin County, California.
Unit L4 is located approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) south of the town of
Tomales in Marin County. This 193 ha (476 ac) unit consists of coastal
prairie and coastal scrub within the fog belt. It is known to have
contained three populations of Delphinium luteum, although two of the
populations have not been documented since the early 1980s, and one of
these has been listed by the CNDDB as ``possibly extirpated'' (CNDDB
2001). The ``possibly extirpated'' population may have consisted of
hybrids of D. luteum and D. nudicaule (red larkspur). The third
population occurs on a road embankment rather than in the vicinity of
canyon walls. This population was documented as recently as 2000, and
was genetically tested and confirmed to be a non-hybrid, but only one
plant was seen at that time (J. Koontz, in litt., 2002). This unit
contains primary constituent elements that are essential to the
conservation of the species. The unit also is important to the
conservation of the species because it contains one of very few
remaining sites at which the species has been recently observed. Due to
the limited number of populations of D. luteum, and the high degree of
threat of extinction from catastrophic events, we believe that habitat
supporting all recently documented occurrences is essential for the
conservation of this species. In addition, this unit is important
because it represents the southernmost extent of the range of D.
luteum. The population growing in the road embankment may also provide
important information on the characteristics of managed soil
disturbances which can support D. luteum. Such information would be of
great help in conserving the species.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, permit, or carry
out are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat. In our regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define
destruction or adverse modification as ``a direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat
for both the survival and recovery of a listed species. Such
alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations adversely
modifying any of those physical or biological features that were the
basis for determining the habitat to be critical.'' However, in a March
15, 2001, decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit (Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d
434), the Court found our definition of destruction or adverse
modification to be invalid. In response to this decision, we are
reviewing the regulatory definition of adverse modification in relation
to 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) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened, and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is designated or proposed. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species, or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to assist
Federal agencies in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by their
proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a conference
report are advisory.
We may issue a formal conference report, if requested by the
Federal action agency. Formal conference reports include an opinion
that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species was
listed or critical habitat designated. We may adopt the formal
conference report as the biological opinion when the species is listed
or critical habitat designated, if no substantial new information or
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR
402.10(d)).
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of its critical habitat. If a Federal action may
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
[[Page 12847]]
responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation
with us. Through this consultation, the Federal action agency would
ensure that the permitted actions do not destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat.
If 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
formal 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 we believe would
avoid resulting in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions under certain
circumstances, including 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
subsequently designated critical habitat, or adversely modify or
destroy proposed critical habitat.
Activities on Federal lands that may affect Delphinium bakeri or D.
luteum or their critical habitat will require consultation under
section 7 of the Act. Activities on private, State, county, or lands
under local jurisdictions that involve a Federal action such as funding
(e.g., Federal Highway or Federal Emergency Management Act funding), or
a permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act), will continue to be subject to the
section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions on non-Federal and private
lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not
require section 7 consultation. Not all of the area within the
boundaries of the mapped units provide primary constituent elements
capable of supporting Delphinium bakeri or D. luteum. For instance,
buildings, lawns, roads, parking lots, and other paved areas will not
contain one or more of the primary constituent elements. Federal
actions limited to these areas, therefore, would not be subject to
section 7 consultation unless the action would affect the species or
primary constituent elements in adjacent designated critical habitat.
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 of the Act ensures that actions
funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies are not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of the listed 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. Actions likely to ``destroy or
adversely modify'' critical habitat are those that would appreciably
reduce the value of critical habitat for the recovery of the listed
species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to evaluate briefly and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy
or adversely modify such habitat or that may be affected by such
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat would be those that alter the primary constituent elements to
the extent that the value of critical habitat for the conservation of
Delphinium bakeri or D. luteum would be appreciably reduced. Within the
units designated as critical habitat, this pertains only to those areas
containing the primary constituent elements. We note that such
activities may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat for Delphinium luteum or D. bakeri include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Ground disturbances which destroy or degrade primary
constituent elements of the plant (e.g., clearing, tilling, grading,
construction, road building, and mining);
(2) Activities which directly or indirectly affect Delphinium
bakeri or D. luteum plants or underlying seed bank (e.g., herbicide
application and heavy off-road vehicle use that could degrade the
habitat on which the species depends, incompatible introductions of
nonnative herbivores, and incompatible grazing during times when D
bakeri or D. luteum is producing flowers or seeds);
(3) Activities which significantly degrade or destroy likely
pollinator populations for Delphinium bakeri (e.g., pesticide
applications that degrade or destroy large hymenoptera, especially
Bombus ssp. (bumblebees)) in proximity to the designated critical
habitat for D. bakeri; and
(4) Activities that would appreciably change the rate of erosion of
soils for Delphinium luteum such as slope stabilization; residential
and commercial development, including road building and golf course
installation; and vegetation manipulation, such as clearing and
grubbing upslope from D. luteum.
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will
constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the Field
Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section). Requests for copies of the regulations,
and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Regional Office, 911 NE 11th
Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 (telephone 503/231-6131; facsimile 503/
231-6243).
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
Subsection 4(b)(2) of the Act allows us to exclude areas from the
critical habitat designation where the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of designation, provided the exclusion will not result in
extinction of the species. Following a review of available information
from our files, public comments on the proposal, and the economic
analysis of the proposed designation, we have determined that none of
the lands proposed as critical habitat warranted exclusion from the
final designation based on economic impacts or other relevant impacts
pursuant to section 4(b)(2).
Relationship to Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and Other Planning
Efforts
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits for
the take of listed wildlife species incidental to otherwise lawful
activities. An incidental take permit application must be supported by
an HCP that identifies conservation measures that the permittee agrees
to implement for the species to minimize and mitigate the impacts of
the permitted incidental take. Although take of listed plants is not
generally prohibited by the Act, listed plant species may also be
covered in an HCP for wildlife species. Currently, no
[[Page 12848]]
HCPs exist that include Delphinium bakeri or D. luteum as covered
species.
In the event that future HCPs covering Delphinium bakeri or D.
luteum are developed within the boundaries of the designated critical
habitat, we will work with applicants to ensure that the HCPs provide
for protection and management of habitat areas essential for the
conservation of these species. This will be accomplished by either
directing development and habitat modification to nonessential areas,
or appropriately modifying activities within essential habitat areas so
that such activities will not adversely modify the primary constituent
elements. The HCP development process would provide an opportunity for
more intensive data collection and analysis regarding the use of
particular habitat areas by D. bakeri or D. luteum. The process would
also enable us to conduct detailed evaluations of the importance of
such lands to the long-term survival and conservation of the species in
the context of constructing a biologically configured system of
interlinked habitat blocks configured to promote the conservation of
the species through application of the principles of conservation
biology.
We will provide technical assistance and work closely with
applicants throughout the development of any future HCPs to identify
lands essential for the long-term conservation of Delphinium bakeri or
D. luteum, and appropriate management for those lands. Furthermore, we
will complete intra-Service consultation on our issuance of section
10(a)(1)(B) permits for these HCPs to ensure permit issuance will not
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical
habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat designation,
we conducted a draft economic analysis to estimate the potential
economic effect of the designation. The draft analysis was made
available for review on November 1, 2002 (67 FR 66599). We accepted
public comment on the draft analysis until December 2, 2002.
Our economic analysis evaluated the potential future effects
associated with the section 7 consultation requirements of Delphinium
bakeri and D. luteum as endangered 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 section 7'' scenario and compared it to a ``with
section 7'' scenario. The ``without section 7'' baseline represented
the level of protection currently afforded to the species under the Act
if section 7 protective measures were absent, and includes protections
afforded by other Federal, State, and local laws such as the California
Environmental Quality Act. The ``with section 7'' scenario identifies
land-use activities likely to involve a Federal nexus that may affect
the species or its designated critical habitat, and that therefore have
the potential to be subject to future consultations under section 7 of
the Act.
Upon identifying section 7 impacts, the analysis proceeds to
consider the subset of impacts that can be attributed exclusively to
the critical habitat designation. The upper-bound estimate includes
both jeopardy and critical habitat impacts. The subset of section 7
impacts likely to be affected solely by the designation of critical
habitat represents the lower-bound estimate of the analysis. The
categories of potential costs and benefits considered in the analysis
included: (1) Conducting section 7 consultations associated with the
listing or with the critical habitat; (2) modifications to projects,
activities, or land uses resulting from the section 7 consultations;
(3) uncertainty and public perceptions resulting from the designation
of critical habitat; and (4) potential offsetting benefits associated
with critical habitat including educational benefits. Our economic
analysis recognizes that there may be costs from delays associated with
reinitiating completed consultations after the critical habitat
designation is made final.
The analysis estimated that this critical habitat designation will
result in the need for one formal and two informal section 7
consultations. The formal consultation will be required for a State
highway culvert repair project, while the informal consultations will
result from an estimated two flood and erosion control projects on
private land that will involve a Federal nexus. The total
administrative cost of these consultations is estimated at $18,000, of
which $7,000 is attributable to this critical habitat designation as
opposed to other section 7 requirements pertaining to the listing of
the species. No project modifications are expected to occur as a result
of these consultations.
Total costs resulting from technical assistance, formal and
informal consultations, development of biological assessments, and
project modifications due to listing and critical habitat designation
are presented in the economic analysis, according to land use
activities and individual critical habitat units. Costs to third
parties result from technical assistance, consultations, and
development of a biological assessment. Costs to Federal action
agencies include those incurred from consultations. Costs to the
Service result from technical assistance and consultations.
We received a few comments on the draft economic analysis of the
proposed determination. We considered these comments, and our response
to them is included as part of the preamble of this rule (see Summary
of Comments and Recommendations), as well as in the final Addendum to
the Economic Analysis. As a result of the comments received, a
correction was made in relation to a statement in the draft economic
analysis that private landowners should incur no additional costs as a
result of section 7 requirements. In fact, certain private landowners
participating in flood control and revegetation projects that have a
Federal nexus are expected to pay for costs associated with an informal
consultation with the Service. The final Addendum to the Economic
Analysis discusses the resulting correction, and the effects were
included in the description (above) of costs associated with expected
informal consultations. The final Addendum to the Economic Analysis
also provides explanations to more clearly explain and justify the
methodology used, based on comments received concerning the
methodology. There were no other revisions or additions to the draft
economic analysis.
A copy of the final economic analysis and supporting documents are
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting
the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). Copies
of the final economic analysis also are available on the Internet at
http://pacific.fws.gov/news/.
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and
notices
[[Page 12849]]
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make
this final rule easier to understand, including answers to questions
such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the final rule
clearly stated? (2) Does the final rule contain technical language or
jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the
final rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description
of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble
helpful in understanding the final rule? (5) What else could we do to
make the notice easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address:
[email protected].
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has determined that this critical habitat designation
is not a significant regulatory action. This rule will not have an
annual economic effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect any
economic sector, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or
other units of government.
This designation will not create inconsistencies with other
agencies' actions or otherwise interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency. It will not materially affect entitlements,
grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
their recipients. Finally, this designation will not raise novel legal
or policy issues. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed this final critical
habitat designation.
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 effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to provide
a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities. SBREFA also amended the RFA to require a certification
statement. In this final rule, we are certifying that the critical
habitat designation for Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The following discussion explains our rationale.
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent
nonprofit organizations and small governmental jurisdictions, including
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. 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.
SBREFA does not explicitly define either ``substantial number'' or
``significant economic impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a
``substantial number'' of small entities is affected by this
designation, this analysis considers the relative number of small
entities likely to be impacted in the area. Similarly, the analysis
considers the relative cost of compliance on the revenues/profit
margins of small entities in determining whether or not entities incur
a ``significant economic impact.'' Only small entities that are
expected to be directly affected by the designation are considered in
this portion of the analysis. This approach is consistent with several
judicial opinions related to the scope of the RFA. (Mid-Tex Elec.
Coop., Inc. v. FERC 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) and American Trucking
Associations, Inc. v. USEPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).
To determine if a 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 determine if certification
is appropriate. In some circumstances, especially with proposed
critical habitat designations of very limited extent, we may aggregate
across all industries and consider whether the total number of small
entities affected is substantial. In estimating the numbers of small
entities potentially affected, we also consider whether their
activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by
critical habitat designation.
In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected,
we also consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only has the potential to affect
activities conducted, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. In
areas where the species is present, Federal agencies are already
required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities
that they fund, permit, or implement that may affect Delphinium bakeri
or D. luteum. Federal agencies must also consult with us if their
activities may affect designated critical habitat. Some kinds of
activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not
be affected by critical habitat designation.
As required under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we conducted an
analysis of the potential economic impacts of this critical habitat
designation. In the analysis, we found that the future section 7
consultations resulting from the listing of Delphinium bakeri and D.
luteum and the proposed designation of critical habitat could
potentially impose total economic costs for consultation and
modifications to projects up to $18,000 with approximately $7,000 of
this attributable to critical habitat designation over the next 10-year
period. The small business activities taking place within the critical
habitat units which might be affected by section 7 consultation
requirements are forestry, agriculture, and livestock production
(Economic and Planning Systems 2002, 2003).
In summary, we have considered whether this rule could result in
significant economic effects on a substantial number of small entities.
Our analysis concluded that there are 653 smaller producers in
forestry, agriculture, and livestock production for
[[Page 12850]]
Sonoma and Marin counties, of which only 0.3 percent are likely to be
affected by this rule. Therefore, we are certifying that the
designation of critical habitat for Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined
that this rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 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. We
anticipate that this final rule will not place significant additional
burdens on any entity.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order 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. The primary land uses
within this designated critical habitat are agricultural. This rule is
not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or
use. In our economic analysis, we did not identify energy production or
distribution as being significantly affected by this designation, and
we received no comments indicating that the proposed designation could
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
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 Federal agencies
must ensure that any small government action they (the Federal
agencies) authorize (permit) or fund is not likely to result in the
adverse modification or destruction of designated critical habitat.
(b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate on State, local,
or Tribal governments of $100 million or greater in any year. The
designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or
local governments. Therefore, it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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 approximately 1,762 ha (4,353 ac) of lands as critical
habitat for the two Delphinium species in Marin and Sonoma counties,
California in a takings implication assessment. This 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. In keeping with the Department of the Interior policy, we
requested information from, and coordinated development of this
critical habitat designation with, the appropriate State resource
agencies in California. We will continue to coordinate any future
changes in the designation of critical habitat for Delphinium bakeri
and D. luteum with the appropriate State agencies. Where these species
are present, the designation of critical habitat imposes no additional
restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has little
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities.
The designation of critical habitat in unoccupied areas may require
consultation under section 7 of the Act on non-Federal lands (where a
Federal nexus occurs) that might otherwise not have occurred. The
designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the
areas essential to the conservation of these species are more clearly
defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary
to the survival of the species are identified. While this definition
and identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur, it may assist these local governments in long-
range planning, rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the
Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does
not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act, as amended. The rule uses standard property descriptions and
identifies the principal constituent elements within the designated
areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of
Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This rule will not impose new recordkeeping or reporting
requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined we do not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement, as defined by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, with regulations adopted
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining
our reason for this determination in the Federal Register on October
25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This rule does not constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized
Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. The designated critical
habitat for Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum does not contain any lands
that we have
[[Page 12851]]
identified as impacting Tribal trust resources. D. bakeri and D. luteum
are known only to occur on private lands. We are not aware of any
Tribal lands in or near our critical habitat units for D. bakeri and D.
luteum. Therefore, we have determined that there are currently no
Tribal lands essential for the conservation of D. bakeri or D. luteum
because they do not support populations or provide essential habitat
for either plant species. If we learn of any Tribal lands in the
vicinity of the critical habitat designation subsequent to this
proposal, we will coordinate with the Tribes before making a final
determination as to whether any Tribal lands should be included as
critical habitat for D. bakeri or D. luteum.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section)
Author
The primary authors of this final rule are Kirsten Tarp and Glen
Tarr, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
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 entries for ``Delphinium bakeri''
and ``Delphinium luteum,'' 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 rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS
* * * * * * *
Delphinium bakeri................ Baker's larkspur.... U.S.A. (CA)........ Ranunculaceae...... E 681 17.96(a) NA
Delphinium luteum................ Yellow larkspur..... U.S.A. (CA)........ Ranunculaceae...... E 681 17.96(a) NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding critical habitat
entries for ``Family Ranunculaceae Delphinium bakeri'' and ``Family
Ranunculaceae Delphinium luteum'' in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) * * *
Family Ranunculaceae: Delphinium bakeri (Baker's larkspur)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Sonoma and Marin
counties, California, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Delphinium bakeri are the habitat components that provide:
(i) Soils that are derived from decomposed shale;
(ii) Plant communities that support associated species, including,
but not limited to: Umbellularia californica (California bay), Aesculus
californica (California buckeye), Quercus agrifolia (coastal live oak),
Baccharis pulularis ssp. consanguinea (coyotebrush), Symphorcarpos cf.
rivularis (snowberry), Rubus ursinus (California blackberry), Pteridium
aqulinum (braken fern), Polystichum munitum (Sword fern), Pityrogramma
triangularis (goldback fern), Dryopteris arguta (coastal woodfern),
Adiantum jordanii (maidenhair fern), Polypodium glycyrrhiza (licorice
fern), Toxicodendron diversilobum (poison oak), Ceanothus thyrsiflorus
(blueblossom ceanothus), Lithophragma affine (woodland star), and
Holodiscus discolor (oceanspray); and
(iii) Mesic conditions on extensive north-facing slopes.
(3) Critical habitat does not include existing features and
structures made by people, such as buildings, roads and other paved
areas, lawns, and developed areas not containing one or more of the
primary constituent elements.
(4) Critical Habitat Map Units.
(i) Data layers defining map units were created on a base of USGS
7.5' quadrangles obtained from the State of California's Stephen P.
Teale Data Center. Proposed critical habitat units were then mapped
using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
(ii) Map 1--Index map for Delphinium bakeri follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 12852]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18MR03.090
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
(5) Unit B1: Sonoma County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Camp Meeker and Duncan
Hills, California, land bounded by the following UTM10 NAD83
coordinates (E,N): 498360, 4249440; 498030, 4249650; 498040, 4249990;
498160,
[[Page 12853]]
4250150; 498430, 4250320; 498420, 4250440; 499140, 4250680; 499380,
4250710; 499510, 4250490; 499840, 4250710; 499880, 4250840; 500250,
4250840; 500580, 4250770; 500730, 4250780; 501020, 4250950; 501080,
4251070; 501360, 4251270; 501520, 4251370; 501730, 4251520; 502100,
4251370; 502190, 4251180; 502120, 4251090; 501830, 4251060; 501570,
4250750; 501380, 4250720; 501400, 4250360; 501230, 4250330; 501090,
4250220; 501070, 4250030; 500720, 4249960; 500550, 4249990; 500220,
4249930; 500190, 4249700; 499680, 4249760; 499520, 4249850; 499250,
4249830; 499210, 4249730; 498880, 4249750; 498620, 4250050; 498600,
4249490; 498360, 4249440.
(ii) Map 2--Unit B1 for Delphinium bakeri follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 12854]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18MR03.091
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 12855]]
(6) Unit B2: Marin County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Petaluma and Point Reyes NE,
California, land bounded by the following UTM10 NAD83 coordinates
(E,N): 521780, 4222900; 521560, 4223000; 521350, 4223070; 521230,
4223130; 520980, 4223320; 520890, 4223460; 520680, 4223430; 520220,
4223440; 520100, 4223460; 519940, 4223460; 519870, 4223360; 519720,
4223280; 519510, 4223340; 519400, 4223480; 519350, 4223630; 519360,
4223760; 519410, 4223800; 519530, 4223970; 519640, 4224090; 519830,
4224140; 519980, 4224160; 520440, 4224100; 520760, 4224100; 520990,
4224170; 521130, 4224160; 521460, 4224080; 521740, 4223960; 521820,
4223870; 521960, 4223770; 522130, 4223810; 522290, 4224000; 522320,
4224070; 522480, 4224160; 522550, 4224310; 522830, 4224380; 523160,
4224240; 523340, 4224250; 523470, 4224360; 523660, 4224430; 523750,
4224480; 523920, 4224510; 524070, 4224620; 524460, 4224710; 524860,
4224530; 525010, 4224370; 525030, 4224250; 524690, 4224190; 524590,
4224200; 524360, 4224100; 524280, 4223950; 524050, 4223780; 523920,
4223650; 523700, 4223480; 523600, 4223640; 523480, 4223720; 523210,
4223700; 522880, 4223510; 522650, 4223450; 522370, 4223230; 522170,
4223120; 522050, 4223080; 521860, 4222980; 521780, 4222900.
(ii) Map 3--Unit B2 for Delphinium bakeri follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 12856]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18MR03.092
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 12857]]
Family Ranunculaceae: Delphinium luteum (Yellow larkspur)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Sonoma and Marin
counties, California, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Delphinium luteum are the habitat components that provide:
(i) Plant communities, including north coastal scrub or coastal
prairie communities, including but not limited to: Arabis
blepharophylla (rose rockcress), Calochortus tolmei (Tolmei startulip),
Mimulus aurantiacus (orange bush monkeyflower), Dudleya caespitosa (sea
lettuce), Polypodium californicum (California polyploidy), Eriogonum
parviflorum (sea cliff buckwheat), Toxicodendron diversilobum (poison
oak), Romanzoffia californica (California mistmaiden), Hesperevax
sparsiflora (evax), Pentagramma triangularis (goldenback fern), and
Sedum spathulifolium (broadleaf stonecrop);
(ii) Relatively steep sloped soils (30 percent or greater) derived
from sandstone or shale, with rapid runoff and high erosion potential,
such as Kneeland or Yorkville series soils;
(iii) Generally north aspected areas; and
(iv) Habitat upslope and downslope from known populations to
maintain disturbance such as occasional rock slides or soil slumping
that the species appears to require.
(3) Critical habitat does not include existing features and
structures made by people, such as buildings, roads and other paved
areas, lawns, and other developed areas not containing one or more of
the primary constituent elements.
(4) Critical Habitat Map Units.
(i) Data layers defining map units were created on a base of USGS
7.5' quadrangles obtained from the State of California's Stephen P.
Teale Data Center. Proposed critical habitat units were then mapped
using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
(i) Map 4-Index map for Delphinium luteum follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 12858]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18MR03.093
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
(5) Unit L1: Bodega Bay, Sonoma County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Bodega Head. Lands bounded by
the following UTM10 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 496820, 4241560; 496870,
4241690; 497130, 4241990; 497110, 4242130; 497170, 4242240;
[[Page 12859]]
497250, 4242220; 497470, 4242550; 497440, 4242700; 497930, 4242940;
498340, 4242940; 498430, 4243040; 498640, 4242960; 498720, 4243080;
499110, 4243090; 499410, 4242960; 499690, 4242760; 499650, 4242560;
500250, 4242210; 500030, 4241880; 500140, 4241320; 499900, 4240730;
499750, 4240650; 498690, 4240750; 498220, 4241010; 497940, 4241050;
497590, 4241010; 497450, 4241220; 497500, 4241630; 497750, 4241830;
497760, 4241970; 497720, 4242010; 497630, 4242010; 497520, 4241940;
497480, 4241850; 497320, 4241860; 497170, 4241680; 497100, 4241500;
497030, 4241410; 496910, 4241440; 496820, 4241560.
(ii) Map for Unit L1 is set forth below.
(6) Unit L2: Estero Americano, Marin County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Valley Ford. Lands bounded by
the following UTM10 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 499970, 4238100; 500010,
4238150; 500010, 4238240; 499870, 4238480; 500010, 4238710; 500140,
4238860; 500280, 4238940; 500470, 4238970; 500580, 4239030; 500630,
4239070; 500720, 4239040; 500850, 4238840; 500890, 4238860; 500970,
4238830; 501050, 4238740; 501170, 4238740; 501180, 4238650; 501300,
4238460; 501440, 4238320; 501510, 4238120; 501340, 4238000; 501270,
4238010; 501190, 4238000; 501120, 4238010; 500900, 4237990; 500870,
4237960; 500860, 4237860; 500730, 4237850; 500570, 4237760; 500470,
4237800; 500380, 4237730; 500250, 4237890; 500240, 4237940; 500180,
4237980; 499990, 4238060; 499970, 4238100.
(ii) Map 5--Units L1 and L2 for Delphinium luteum follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 12860]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18MR03.094
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(7) Unit L3: Estero de San Antonio, Marin County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Valley Ford. Lands bounded by
the following UTM10 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 502060, 4235600; 502110,
4235750; 502230, 4235770; 502300, 4235840; 502350, 4235930; 502370,
[[Page 12861]]
4236030; 502410, 4236100; 502510, 4236150; 502700, 4236150; 502900,
4235910; 503010, 4235860; 502900, 4236160; 502870, 4236120; 502700,
4236260; 502880, 4236400; 503060, 4236370; 503130, 4236240; 503070,
4236180; 503090, 4236010; 503200, 4235950; 503260, 4235990; 503170,
4236090; 503280, 4236180; 503410, 4236100; 503470, 4236040; 503430,
4235810; 503460, 4235720; 503600, 4235580; 503800, 4235490; 503950,
4235300; 504020, 4235010; 504030, 4234810; 504000, 4234630; 503920,
4234390; 503780, 4234410; 503780, 4234890; 503710, 4234990; 503610,
4234970; 503520, 4234840; 503560, 4234620; 503580, 4234470; 503520,
4234440; 503350, 4234580; 503360, 4234710; 503250, 4234860; 502990,
4234970; 502950, 4235100; 502700, 4235170; 502710, 4235260; 502810,
4235330; 502800, 4235510; 502580, 4235480; 502510, 4235510; 502530,
4235580; 502390, 4235560; 502310, 4235470; 502200, 4235470; 502060,
4235600.
(ii) Map for Unit L3 is set forth below.
(8) Unit L4: Tomales, Marin County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Tomales. Lands bounded by the
following UTM10 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 506200, 4229650; 506000,
4229960; 506040, 4230020; 506330, 4230130; 506450, 4230630; 506550,
4230640; 506760, 4230830; 506840, 4231090; 507070, 4231150; 507230,
4231260; 507340, 4231460; 507170, 4231740; 507270, 4231860; 507400,
4231820; 507550, 4231930; 507660, 4231930; 507780, 4232080; 507810,
4232220; 507870, 4232340; 507990, 4232290; 508250, 4232250; 508320,
4232050; 508110, 4231810; 508090, 4231660; 507960, 4231700; 507920,
4231670; 507950, 4231580; 507630, 4231410; 507520, 4231200; 507560,
4230830; 507560, 4230620; 507510, 4230590; 507490, 4230470; 507440,
4230300; 507440, 4230220; 507330, 4230050; 507300, 4229930; 507320,
4229820; 507310, 4229770; 507230, 4229730; 507060, 4229730; 506960,
4229740; 506780, 4229830; 506710, 4229840; 506580, 4229790; 506600,
4229860; 506720, 4230150; 506770, 4230340; 506640, 4230230; 506460,
4230020; 506200, 4229650.
(ii) Map 6--Units L3 and L4 for Delphinium luteum follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 12862]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18MR03.095
[[Page 12863]]
* * * * *
Dated: March 7, 2003.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 03-6133 Filed 3-17-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C