Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41367

loads and neck moments than those into or the addition of, window frames on Approximately 1,786 hectares (ha) tempered glass. Impacts into standard the side of vehicles and result in smaller (4,412 acres (ac)) are proposed for tempered glass resulted in axial loads side windows. For vehicles with framed designation of critical habitat. We are that were comparable to those into the windows, NHTSA estimates it would proposing to include approximately 740 advanced glazings. For each neck injury cost between $48 and $79 to modify the ha (1,828 ac) within two units located measure, the lowest neck injury two front side windows. However, many in Marin and Sonoma counties, measurements were obtained from the vehicles today are produced without California, as critical habitat for tempered glass impacts. framed windows. NHTSA has no cost Delphinium bakeri, and 1,046 ha (2,584 On July 19, 2000 (65 FR 44710), estimates for modifying windows ac) within four units also located in NHTSA published a request for without frames to accept advanced Marin and Sonoma counties, California, comments on the agency’s second glazing. In addition, NHTSA has no cost as critical habitat for Delphinium advanced glazing status report (DOT estimates for modifying rear side luteum. Critical habitat receives docket NHTSA–2000–7066). NHTSA windows for advanced side glazing. protection from destruction or adverse received 96 comments from auto Advanced side glazing would require modification through required manufacturers, suppliers, safety groups, modifications to the design of all consultation under section 7 of the Act a vehicle extraction specialist, an vehicles currently being produced to with regard to actions carried out, engineering service, and private make their windows smaller, and the funded, or authorized by a Federal individuals. NHTSA has carefully costs of such a design modification agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us analyzed the information provided in would be significant. to consider economic and other relevant the comments. The automotive Given these concerns, NHTSA impacts when specifying any particular manufacturers commented that believes it would be more appropriate to area as critical habitat. advanced glazing may induce head, devote its research and rulemaking We solicit data and comments from neck and lacerative injuries and efforts with respect to ejection the public on all aspects of this recommended that NHTSA focus on mitigation to projects other than proposal, including data on the occupant containment efforts by means advanced glazing. Thus, the agency will economic and other impacts of the of side curtain air bags. All other not continue to examine a potential designation and our approaches to commenters believed that advanced requirement for advanced side glazing. handling any future habitat glazings would enhance the overall The focus will shift from advanced conservation plans. We may revise this safety performance of vehicles. The glazing to the development of more proposal prior to final designation to private citizens did not provide comprehensive, performance-based test incorporate or address new information technical data, but they favored the use procedures. If such procedures prove received during the comment period. of advanced glazing in side and rear feasible, NHTSA will focus its efforts on DATES: We will accept comments until windows of vehicles based on their establishing the safety performance that August 19, 2002. Public hearing belief that up to 1,300 lives may be must be achieved. For these reasons, requests must be received by August 2, saved each year. The manufacturers NHTSA has decided to terminate 2002. indicated that advanced glazing benefits rulemaking on the issue of advanced ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, assume a 66% belt use rate and the glazing. benefits would dramatically decline you may submit your comments and with increased seat belt use. Issued on: June 13, 2002. materials concerning this proposal by Stephen R. Kratzke, any one of several methods: II. Agency Decision Associate Administrator for Safety You may submit written comments In the House of Representatives Performance Standards. and information or hand-deliver Conference Report on H.R. 4475, [FR Doc. 02–15356 Filed 6–17–02; 8:45 am] comments to the Field Supervisor, Department of Transportation and BILLING CODE 4910–59–P Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Related Agencies Appropriation Act, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 2001, Congress noted that NHTSA had Cottage Way, Suite W—2605, been considering the utility of advanced DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Sacramento, CA 95825. side glazing since 1991, and directed You may also send comments by NHTSA to complete and issue a final Fish and Wildlife Service electronic mail (e-mail) to report on advanced side glazing. In [email protected]. November 2001, NHTSA completed that 50 CFR Part 17 See the Public Comments Solicited directive and published a final report, section below for file format and other ‘‘Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced RIN 1018–AG96 information about electronic filing. Comments and materials received will Glazing.’’ Based on its rulemaking Endangered and Threatened Wildlife be available for public inspection, by efforts and research documented in the and Plants; Critical Habitat appointment, during normal business report, NHTSA concludes that there is Designation for Two Larkspurs From hours at the above address. no reasonable possibility of proposing Coastal Northern California regulatory requirements for advanced FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: glazing in the foreseeable future due to AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Wayne White, Field Supervisor, safety and cost concerns. Interior. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, at Two primary reasons for this ACTION: Proposed rule. the above address: telephone 916/414– conclusion are the advent of other 6600; facsimile 916/414–6710. ejection mitigation systems, such as side SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: air curtains and the need to develop Wildlife Service (Service), propose to performance standards for them, and the designate critical habitat pursuant to the Background fact that advanced side glazing in some Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Delphinium bakeri is a perennial herb cases appears to increase the risk of amended (Act), for Delphinium bakeri in the buttercup family (Ranunculaceae) neck injury. In addition, advanced side (Baker’s larkspur) and Delphinium that grows from a thickened, tuber-like, glazing would require modifications to, luteum (yellow larkspur). fleshy cluster of roots. The stems are

VerDate jun<06>2002 19:01 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 18JNP1 41368 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules

hollow, erect, and grow to 65 near Tomales that is thought to be fruit is a follicle. D. luteum flowers from centimeters (cm) (26 inches ( in)) tall. extirpated (CNDDB 2001). March to May. Delphinium luteum is Shallowly five-parted leaves occur The single extant (currently existing, distinguished from other Delphinium by primarily along the upper third of the not extirpated or destroyed) occurrence its yellow flowers and its erect seed stem and are green (as opposed to of Delphinium bakeri grows in mesic follicles (CNPS 1977). In contrast to withering) at the time the plant flowers. (moderate moisture) conditions along an typical pollinators for the genus The flowers are irregularly shaped. The extensive north-facing slope under an Delphinium, potential pollinators for D. five sepals (members of the outermost overstory that includes Umbellularia luteum are Allen’s hummingbirds, set of flower parts) are conspicuous, californica (California bay), Aesculus which have been observed visiting D. bright dark blue or purplish, with the californica (California buckeye), and luteum flowers. In addition, the flower rear sepal elongated into a spur (hollow, Quercus agrifolia (coastal live oak). shape and sucrose-dominated nectar are often cone-shaped, projection). The Other native plants associated with D. consistent with characteristics of inconspicuous petals occur in two pairs. bakeri at this site include—Baccharis species that are typically pollinated by The lower pair is oblong and blue- pilularis ssp. consanguinea hummingbirds (Guerrant 1976). purple; the upper pair is oblique (having (coyotebrush), Symphorcarpos cf. Heller (1903) described Delphinium unequal sides or an asymmetric base) rivularis (snowberry), Rubus ursinus luteum based on type material collected and white. Seeds are produced in (California blackberry), Pteridium from ‘‘grassy slopes about rocks, near several dry, many-seeded fruits which aquilinum (braken fern), Polystichum Bodega Bay, along the road leading to split open at maturity on only one side munitum (Sword fern), Pityrogramma the village of Bodega’’ in Sonoma (i.e., follicles). Delphinium bakeri triangularis (goldback fern), Dryopteris County. Although Jepson (1975) flowers from April through May arguta (coastal woodfern), Adiantum reduced D. luteum to a variety of D. (Warnock 1993). Delphinium bakeri can jordanii (maidenhair fern), and nudicaule (red larkspur), it is currently be differentiated from other members of Polypodium glycyrrhiza (licorice fern) recognized as a full species (Warnock the genus by its crenate leaf margins (CNDDB 2001). The property is 1993). (margins notched or scalloped so as to privately owned but Sonoma County Delphinium luteum inhabits coastal form rounded teeth), leaves that are not has a right-of-way along the road. prairie and coastal scrub, which withering at time of flowering, and Pollinators have not specifically been typically have no overstory, at flowers that are loosely arranged identified for D. bakeri, but pollinators elevations ranging from sea level to (California Native Plant Society (CNPS) for species in the genus Delphinium about 100 m (300 ft) within 1977). typically are large hymenoptera, northwestern Marin and southwestern especially Bombus ssp. (bumblebees) Sonoma counties, California (CNDDB Ewan (1942) described Delphinium (Guerrant 1976). 2001). The species occurs on moderate bakeri based on type material collected Even in 1942, Ewan noted that the to steep slopes with evidence of some by Milo Baker in 1939 from ‘‘Coleman habitat of Delphinium bakeri was level of disturbance, including Valley, Sonoma Co., California.’’ In the formerly more abundant, but had been landslides of various ages, in close most recent treatment, Warnock (1993) reduced by cultivation (Ewan 1942). proximity (Guerrant 1976, CNDDB retained the taxon as a full species. Habitat conversion, grazing, and 2001). Roots of D. luteum are both Delphinium bakeri has only been roadside maintenance activities have tuberous, long and thin, an unusual known from three locations—Coleman extirpated two of the three known combination in this genus which may Valley in southern Sonoma County; near occurrences of D. bakeri in Marin and provide an advantage in thin, unstable the town of Tomales in northern Marin Sonoma counties (CDFG 1994). The type soils (Weaver 1919 as cited in Guerrant County, and approximately 10 locality is thought to have been 1976). Typical soil types supporting D. kilometers (km) (6 miles (mi)) east of extirpated by a dairy ranch. The single luteum include the Kneeland series in Tomales Bay in northern Marin County. extant population is threatened by road Sonoma County and the Yorkville series Delphinium bakeri is thought to have work such as right-of-way maintenance in Marin County. These soils derive been extirpated from Coleman Valley (including use of herbicides), from sandstone or shale, and share and from near Tomales. At the only overcollection, and sheep grazing qualities of rapid runoff and high known extant population, (CNDDB 2001). Because of its extreme erosion potential (U.S. Department of approximately 10 km (6 mi) east of range restriction to a single population Agriculture (USDA) 1972, Soil Tomales Bay, the number of individuals and small population size of the one Conservation Service (SCS) 1985). The has varied from 0 to 64 individuals over remaining occurrence, D. bakeri is most recently documented populations the last 20 years (CNDDB 2001). extremely vulnerable to extinction from of D. luteum (those seen in the 1980’s Delphinium bakeri occurs on random natural events, such as or later) tend to grow on north-facing decomposed shale from 90 to 205 unseasonal fire or insect outbreaks slopes in canyon complexes with steep meters (m) (295 to 672 feet (ft)) in (Shaffer 1981; Primack 1993). sides (LSA Associates (LSA) 1997, elevation (California Natural Diversity Delphinium luteum is a perennial CNDDB 2001). Presumably the more Database (CNDDB) 2001). The collection herb in the buttercup family shaded north-facing slopes provide a from the type locality in Coleman Valley (Ranunculaceae) that grows from thin moister microclimate, while the steep- was described by Joseph Ewan as tuberous roots up to 30 cm (12 in) long sloped canyon walls increase the growing ‘‘along fence rows and in heavy to a height of 55 cm (22 in) tall. The likelihood of erosion and landslides in low brush’’ (Ewan 1942). Two species leaves are mostly basal, fleshy, and the vicinity. Only two potential listed as growing with D. bakeri at the green at the time of flowering. The exceptions to this trend are evident in type locality were Potentilla elata [now flowers are cornucopia-shaped. The five the CNDDB: one population near known as Horkelia californica ssp. conspicuous sepals are bright yellow, Tomales, California, is mapped on a dissita (California honeydew)] and with the posterior sepal elongated into south-facing slope, while a relatively Ranunculus orthorynchus (straightbeak a spur. The inconspicuous petals occur nearby population does not appear to buttercup) (Ewan 1942). No information in two pairs. The upper petals are grow near any steep-sloped canyon is reported for the associated species or narrow and unlobed; the lower petals walls. Both these populations are in habitat for the other occurrence from are oblong to ovate (egg-shaped). The proposed critical habitat Unit L4,

VerDate May<23>2002 10:13 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41369

described below. The first population grazing, fire suppression, and action is found to be not warranted. has not been documented since 1983, hybridization with another Delphinium Each October from 1983 through 1994, and its mapped location is precise to a species (B. Guggolz, pers. comm. 1995; further findings were made that the one-fifth mile (0.32 km) radius. This CNDDB 2001). Additionally, the listing of D. bakeri and D. luteum were could put its actual location across the combination of few populations, small warranted, but that the listing of these canyon on a north-facing slope. The numbers of individuals within each species was precluded by other pending other population is growing in a road population, narrow range, and restricted proposals of higher priority. cut, which might provide erosional and habitat makes D. luteum susceptible to On November 28, 1983, we published soil disturbance characteristics similar extirpation in significant portions of its a supplement to the plant NOR (48 FR to those near canyon walls (CNDDB range from random natural events such 2001). as unseasonal fire, drought, disease, or 53640). This supplement changed Temperatures in the region inhabited other natural occurrences (Shaffer 1981; Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum from by Delphinium luteum are moderated by Primack 1993). category 1 to category 2 candidates fog, which keeps summers relatively (species for which data in our cool and winters relatively warm Previous Federal Action possession indicate listing was possibly compared to inland habitats. Much of Federal actions on the two plant appropriate, but for which substantial the coastal prairie in this species’ range species began when the Secretary of the data on biological vulnerability and has been grazed for over a century, and Smithsonian Institution, as directed by threats were not currently known or on is now characterized by a mixture of section 12 of the Act, prepared a report file to support proposed rules). non-native annuals and forbs and native on those native U.S. plants considered The plant NOR was revised again on prairie plants. Native plants listed as to be endangered, threatened, or extinct September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526). occurring with D. luteum include Arabis in the United States. This report (House Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum were blepharophylla (rose rockcress), Document No. 94–51), was presented to again included as category 2 candidates. Calochortus tolmei (Tolmei startulip), Congress on January 9, 1975, and Another revision of the plant NOR was included Delphinium bakeri and D. Mimulus aurantiacus (orange bush published on February 21, 1990 (55 FR luteum as endangered. On July 1, 1975, monkeyflower), Dudleya caespitosa (sea 6184). In this revision D. bakeri and D. we published a notice in the Federal lettuce), Polypodium californicum luteum were included as category 1 (California polyploidy), and Eriogonum Register (40 FR 27823) accepting the candidates and remained as category 1 parviflorum (sea cliff buckwheat) report as a petition within the context candidates in the plant NOR published (CNDDB 2001). of section 4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3)) of Eleven occurrences of Delphinium the Act and of our intention to review on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144). luteum have been reported in the the status of the plant taxa named in the Upon publication of the February 28, CNDDB (2001). Only six of these have report. On June 16, 1976, we published 1996, NOR (61 FR 7596), we ceased been documented since the early 1980’s, a proposed rule in the Federal Register using category designations and however. Of the remaining five (41 FR 24523) determining included D. bakeri and D. luteum as occurrences, three have not been approximately 1,700 vascular plant candidate species. Candidate species are documented since 1935 or earlier, species to be endangered species those for which we have on file another is based entirely on pursuant to section 4 of the Act. sufficient information on the biological unsupported and undated information Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum were vulnerability and threats to support found on a 1979 map, and the fifth was included in this June 16, 1976, Federal proposals to list them as threatened or a questionable identification never Register document. endangered. On June 19, 1997, we confirmed by a second siting (CNDDB In 1978, amendments to the Act published a proposed rule in the 2001). The six more recently required that all proposals over 2 years Federal Register (62 FR 33383) to list D. documented occurrences grow in three old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period bakeri and D. luteum as endangered. separate drainages; one in Sonoma was given to those proposed rules On June 17, 1999, our failure to issue County and two in Marin County. These already more than 2 years old. On final rules for listing Delphinium bakeri December 10, 1979, we published a groupings form the basis of three of the and D. luteum and seven other plant notice (44 FR 70796) of the withdrawal four critical habitat units we are species as endangered or threatened, of the portion of the June 16, 1976, proposing. (See Units L1, L2 and L4, and our failure to make a final critical below). A final population, not yet proposed rule that had not been made habitat determination for the nine documented in CNDDB, occurs in a final, along with four other proposals species was challenged in Southwest third Marin County drainage (David that had expired. We published an Center for Biological Diversity and Amme, California Department of updated Notice of Review (NOR) for Transportation, in litt. 2002; D. Amme, plants on December 15, 1980 (45 FR California Native Plant Society v. U.S. pers. comm. 2002), and forms the basis 82480). This NOR included Delphinium Fish and Wildlife Service and Bruce of critical habitat Unit L3, as described bakeri and D. luteum as category 1 Babbitt (Case No. C99–2992 (N.D.Cal.). below. candidates (species for which data in The final rule listing D. bakeri and D. Recent surveys have not found many our possession was sufficient to support luteum as endangered species was plants in any of these populations. The proposals for listing). published in the Federal Register on largest number recorded by CNDDB is On February 15, 1983, we published January 26, 2000 (65 FR 4156). On May 134 plants for one of the Marin County a notice (48 FR 6752) of our prior 22, 2000, the judge signed an order for populations in 1993. The total number finding that the listing of Delphinium the Service to propose critical habitat of Delphinium luteum individuals may bakeri and D. luteum was warranted but for the species by September 30, 2001. be less than 300 (CNDDB 2001, David precluded in accordance with section In mid-September 2001, plaintiffs Amme, pers. comm. 2002). Each 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act as amended in agreed to an extension of this due date recently documented population faces 1982. Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of for D. bakeri and D. luteum until June one or more potential threats to its the Act, this finding must be recycled 10, 2002, for the proposed critical existence, including overcollection, annually, until the species is either habitat designation and March 10, 2003, road widening, unmanaged sheep proposed for listing or the petitioned for the final critical habitat designation.

VerDate May<23>2002 10:13 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNP1 41370 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules

Critical Habitat Section 4 of the Act requires that we which areas are critical habitat, a designate critical habitat at the time of primary source of information should, at Critical habitat is defined in section 3 listing, to the extent such habitat is a minimum, be the listing package for of the Act as—(i) the specific areas determinable at the time of listing. the species. Additional information may within the geographical area occupied When we designate critical habitat at be obtained from a recovery plan, by the species, at the time it is listed in the time of listing or under short court- articles in peer-reviewed journals, accordance with the provisions of ordered deadlines, we often may not conservation plans developed by States section 4 of the Act, on which are found have sufficient information to identify and counties, scientific status surveys those physical or biological features (I) all areas which are essential for the and studies, biological assessments or essential to the conservation of the conservation of the species. other unpublished materials, and species and (II) which may require Nevertheless, we are required to discussions with experts. special management considerations or designate those areas we know to be Section 4 of the Act requires that we protection; and (ii) specific areas critical habitat, using the best designate critical habitat based on what outside the geographical area occupied information available to us. we know at the time of designation. by a species at the time it is listed in Within the geographic area occupied Habitat is often dynamic, and species accordance with section 4 of this Act, by the species, we will designate only may move from one area to another over upon a determination that such areas areas currently known to be essential. time. Furthermore, we recognize that are essential for the conservation of the Essential areas should already have the designation of critical habitat may not species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use features and habitat characteristics that include all of the habitat areas that may of all methods and procedures that are are necessary to sustain the species. We eventually be determined to be necessary to bring an endangered or a will not speculate about what areas necessary for the recovery of the threatened species to the point at which might be found to be essential if better species. For these reasons, critical listing under the Act is no longer information became available, or what habitat designations do not signal that necessary. areas may become essential over time. If habitat outside the designation is Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires the information available at the time of unimportant or may not be required for Federal agencies to consult with the designation does not show that an area recovery. Areas that support newly Service to insure that any action they provides essential life-cycle needs of the discovered populations in the future, authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely species, then the area should not be but are outside the critical habitat to result in the destruction or adverse included in the critical habitat designation will continue to be subject modification of habitat determined to be designation. Within the geographic area to conservation actions implemented critical to a species. Section 7 of the Act occupied by the species, we will under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to also requires conferences on Federal attempt to not designate areas that do the regulatory protections afforded by actions that are likely to result in the not now have the primary constituent the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard destruction or adverse modification of elements, as defined at 50 CFR and the section 9 prohibitions, as critical habitat. In our regulations at 50 424.12(b), which provide essential life- determined on the basis of the best CFR 402.02, we define destruction or cycle needs of the species. However, we available information at the time of the adverse modification as ‘‘a direct or may be restricted by our minimum action. Federally funded or assisted indirect alteration that appreciably mapping unit or mapping scale. projects affecting listed species outside Our regulations state that, ‘‘The diminishes the value of critical habitat their designated critical habitat areas Secretary shall designate as critical for both the survival and recovery of a may still result in jeopardy findings in habitat areas outside the geographic area listed species. Such alterations include, some cases. Similarly, critical habitat presently occupied by the species only but are not limited to, alterations designations made on the basis of the when a designation limited to its adversely modifying any of those best available information at the time of present range would be inadequate to physical or biological features that were designation will not control the ensure the conservation of the species.’’ direction and substance of future the basis for determining the habitat to (50 CFR 424.12(e)). Accordingly, when recovery plans, habitat conservation be critical.’’ Aside from the added the best available scientific and plans, or other species conservation protection that may be provided under commercial data do not demonstrate planning efforts if new information section 7, the Act does not provide other that the conservation needs of the available to these planning efforts calls forms of protection to lands designated species require designation of critical for a different outcome. as critical habitat. Because consultation habitat outside of occupied areas, we under section 7 of the Act does not will not designate critical habitat in Methods apply to activities on private or other areas outside the geographic area As required by section 4(b)(2) of the non-Federal lands that do not involve a occupied by the species. Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, Federal nexus, critical habitat Our Policy on Information Standards we used the best scientific information designation would not afford any Under the Endangered Species Act, available to determine areas that contain additional protections under the Act published in the Federal Register on the physical and biological features that against such activities. July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), provides are essential for the conservation of In order to be included in a critical criteria, establishes procedures, and Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum. We habitat designation, the habitat must provides guidance to ensure that our reviewed available information that first be ‘‘essential to the conservation of decisions represent the best scientific pertains to the habitat requirements of the species.’’ Critical habitat and commercial data available. It these species including data from designations identify, to the extent requires our biologists, to the extent research and survey observations; known using the best scientific and consistent with the Act and with the use regional Geographic Information System commercial data available, habitat areas of the best scientific and commercial (GIS) coverages (e.g., soils, known that provide essential life cycle needs of data available, to use primary and locations, vegetation, land ownership); the species (i.e., areas on which are original sources of information as the information from herbarium collections found the primary constituent elements, basis for recommendations to designate such as CalFlora ((http:// as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). critical habitat. When determining www.calflora.org); data from CNDDB

VerDate May<23>2002 10:13 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41371

(2001); and data collected from project- propose as critical habitat, we consider (1) Soils that are derived from specific and other miscellaneous reports those physical and biological features decomposed shale; submitted to us. This included (primary constituent elements) that are (2) Plant communities that support information from our final rule listing D. essential to the conservation of the associated species, including, but not bakeri and D. luteum as endangered (65 species and that may require special limited to: Umbellularia californica FR 4156), the CNDDB (2001), soil survey management considerations or (California bay), Aesculus californica maps (Soil Conservation Service 1972, protection. These include, but are not (California buckeye), and Quercus 1985), certified soil GIS layers for Marin limited to—space for individual and agrifolia (coastal live oak). Other native County, geologic formation maps, 1993 population growth, and for normal plants associated with D. bakeri digital orthophotoquarterquads, and behavior; food, water, air, light, include—Baccharis pulularis ssp. discussions with botanical experts who minerals or other nutritional or consanguinea (coyotebrush), have worked closely with these plant physiological requirements; cover or Symphorcarpos cf. rivularis species. We also conducted site visits at shelter, germination, or seed dispersal; (snowberry), Rubus ursinus (California one historical occurrence of D. bakeri and habitats that are protected from blackberry), Pteridium aqulinum and five historical occurrences of D. disturbance or are representative of the (braken fern), Polystichum munitum luteum; and one extant occurrence of D. historic geographical and ecological (Sword fern), Pityrogramma triangularis bakeri and three extant occurrences of distributions of a species. All areas (goldback fern), Dryopteris arguta D. luteum (to the extent we could visit proposed as critical habitat for (coastal woodfern), Adiantum jordanii the habitat without going onto private Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum are (maidenhair fern), and Polypodium land). within the historical range and contain glycyrrhiza (licorice fern); and (3) Mesic (moderate moisture) Mapping one or more of these physical or biological features (primary constituent conditions on extensive north-facing We delineated the proposed critical elements) essential for the conservation slopes. habitat units by using data layers in a of the species. Based on our knowledge to date, the GIS format with all the known Much of what is known about the primary constituent elements of critical Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum specific physical and biological habitat for Delphinium luteum consist occurrences from the CNDDB (2001) and requirements of Delphinium bakeri and of: other sources (D. Amme, in litt. 2002; D. D. luteum is described in the (1) Plant communities that support Amme, pers. comm. 2002). We created Background section of this proposed the appropriate associated species, additional data layers to reflect rule. The proposed critical habitat is including north coastal scrub or coastal vegetation types using aerial designed to provide sufficient habitat to prairie communities; photographs, GIS data for Marin soils (2) Soils derived from sandstone or maintain self-sustaining populations of (Natural Resource Conservation Service shale, with rapid runoff and high D. bakeri and D. luteum throughout (NRCS) 2001), and recent development erosion potential, such as Kneeland or their ranges and to provide those habitat using satellite imagery (CNES/SPOT Yorkville series soils; Image Corporation (SPOT) 2001). We components essential for the (3) Generally north aspected areas created an additional data layer by conservation of these species. These near steep-sloped canyon walls; and digitizing Kneeland soils data for habitat components provide for—(1) (4) Habitat upslope and downslope Sonoma County from USGS 1972. These Individual and population growth, from known populations to maintain data layers were laid over a base of including sites for germination, disturbance such as occasional rock USGS 3.75′ digital orthophotographic pollination, reproduction, and seed slides or soil slumping that the species quarter quadrangle images. dispersal; (2) areas that allow gene flow appears to require. In selecting areas of proposed critical and provide connectivity or linkage Criteria Used to Identify Critical habitat, we made an effort to avoid between populations including open Habitat developed areas such as houses, spaces and disturbed areas that in some intensive agricultural areas such as row instances may also contain non-native We identified critical habitat areas crops, vineyards and orchards, and plant species; (3) areas that provide essential for the conservation of lands unlikely to contain the primary basic requirements for growth such as Delphinium bakeri in the one location it constituent elements for Delphinium water, light, minerals; and (4) areas that currently is known to occur in Marin bakeri or D. luteum. However, we did support populations of pollinators and County, as well as in the Coleman not map critical habitat in sufficient seed dispersal organisms. Valley area in Sonoma County, where detail to exclude all developed areas. The conservation of Delphinium the species was historically found. We Developed areas within the boundaries bakeri and D. luteum is dependent upon are including the Coleman Valley site in of the mapped units, such as buildings, a number of factors, including the our proposal, despite the fact that D. roads, parking lots, railroads, airport conservation and management of sites bakeri is thought to be extirpated from runways and other paved areas, lawns, where existing populations grow, the this location because it is one of very and other urban landscaped areas will establishment of D. bakeri at a new few locations where D. bakeri has ever not contain one or more of the primary location to provide insurance against been observed. We did not include the constituent elements. Federal actions stochastic (randomly occurring) events, third such location near Tomales, limited to these areas, therefore, would the maintenance of normal ecological California, however, because our not trigger a section 7 of the Act functions within these sites, and the information is too vague to accurately consultation, unless they affect the preservation of the connectivity identify the site. We believe that species or primary constituent elements between sites to maintain recent levels reintroduction of D. bakeri at the in adjacent critical habitat. of gene flow between sites through Coleman Valley site (Unit B1) is pollinator activity and seed dispersal essential for the species’ survival due to Primary Constituent Elements agents. the extremely limited range of D. bakeri, In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) Based on our knowledge to date, the its small population size (0 to 64 of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR primary constituent elements of critical individuals over the last 20 years), and 424.12(b), in determining which areas to habitat for Delphinium bakeri consist of: the high degree of threat from chance

VerDate jun<06>2002 19:01 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 18JNP1 41372 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules

catastrophic events (Shaffer 1981, 1987; we believe that establishing a second of new populations is essential to the Primack 1993, Meffe and Carroll 1994). location for D. bakeri is essential for the continuing survival of the species. Such events are a concern when the conservation of the species because it Unit L4 contains the population number of populations or geographic will reduce the probability that the growing in a road-cut away from steep- distribution of a species is severely plant may be extirpated by catastrophic sloped canyon walls, as well as the limited, as is the case with D. bakeri. events. The one unoccupied unit population mapped on a south-facing Establishment of a second location for proposed encompasses the type location slope. It also includes a third population D. bakeri is important in reducing the (Colman Valley location) for D. bakeri. which is located in typical habitat but risk of extinction due to such We believe that this is appropriate, which the CNDDB lists as ‘‘possibly catastrophic events. when considering establishment of new extirpated’’ due to the inability of We identified critical habitat for locations, to look first to areas where the several surveys to relocate it since 1982. Delphinium bakeri by mapping the species was once known to occur, rather All three populations are mapped as distribution of the known occurrences than to completely new areas. growing on different soil types (CNDDB of the species with respect to distance Establishment of additional D. luteum 2001). However, with two exceptions, from the coast, location within locations has been recommended by the all soil types in the area share the rapid watersheds, soil series associations, Center for Plant Conservation (2002). run-off and high erosion potential with aspect of the slopes and watersheds, As a rule, we drew boundary lines for which D. luteum is associated. The two position on slopes, our field Delphinium luteum critical habitat units exceptions are the canyon floor and a observations of the soil conditions at to include all areas of the same soil type small area at the head of the canyon each location, and our field observations and in the same canyon system as the where the walls are not steeply sloped. of the plant associations found in the enclosed population(s). Although all but We are including these areas for area of each location. We then drew an one recently documented population of contiguity of the unit and because both initial critical habitat demarcation that D. luteum occurs on basically north- of them abut the location of the included the appropriate soils, facing slopes, we consistently included population located in the road cut. vegetation, and watershed. We mapped as critical habitat both sides of the Taken together, the various soil types the proposed units to include the canyons which contain D. luteum. This conform well to the main canyon upslope and downslope areas that was because the folds and side canyons boundaries (SCS 1985) and include all would be important to the maintenance common to these sites can produce the habitat requirements of the species, of the primary constituent elements localized north aspected areas even on so we have drawn Unit L4 largely essential for the conservation of the generally south aspected canyon walls. according to the soil boundaries as they species. Including both sides of the canyons extend down the main canyon. We did We identified critical habitat areas essential to the conservation of where the plant occurs can also make not extend the unit up either of two Delphinium luteum in the areas where management of the units easier, and large side canyons because those areas it is known to occur in Marin and provide a wider range of microhabitats neither contain D. luteum populations Sonoma counties. Due to the limited for potential population expansion. nor a soil type common to all the number of populations of D. luteum and Some units contained features which populations in the unit. the high degree of threat from caused us to modify our general rule of Special Management Considerations catastrophic events, we believe that all drawing boundaries based on the same areas with recently documented soil type and canyon system as the As noted in the Critical Habitat occurrences are essential for the known population. In Unit L3, the soil section, ‘‘special management conservation of this species. In addition, boundaries conformed well to the considerations or protection’’ is a term the Center for Plant Conservation (2002) canyon boundaries, and also included that originates in the definition of recommends that additional areas of steep-sloped canyon walls, so critical habitat. We believe the proposed populations be established and managed no further manipulation was necessary. areas may require special management for this species. Some areas within the Unit L1 soil boundaries included considerations or protection because proposed critical habitat units may be several branching canyons with Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum suitable sites for such introductions. All numerous coastal drainage outlets, so occupy an extremely localized range. four D. luteum units (L1, L2, L3 and L4) we included those canyons which Potential threats to the habitat of D. are occupied by the species. drained to roughly the same location bakeri include overcollection, Five of the six proposed critical and excluded the others. In Unit L2, the application of herbicides, and sheep habitat units for Delphinium bakeri and soil boundaries conformed well to the grazing. Potential threats to the habitat D. luteum contain at least one extant drainage, but because the area thus of D. luteum include overcollection, occurrence of the species for which the enclosed was very small and road widening, sheep grazing, fire unit was drawn. All of the units also unbranched, and because the same soil suppression and hybridization. contain areas that are currently type also occurred with suitable habitat Additional special management is not considered unoccupied or that are of in a separate drainage less than half a required if adequate management or uncertain occupancy. These unoccupied mile away, we extended the boundaries protection is already in place. Adequate areas are included within the units of the unit to include the north-facing special management considerations or because they provide areas into which slopes of the second drainage as protection is provided by a legally populations might expand, provide bounded by the suitable soil type. The operative plan or agreement that connectivity or linkage between resulting unit is still the smallest of the addresses the maintenance and populations within a unit, maintain four, and by including this small area of improvement of the primary constituent ecological and landscape processes nearby habitat we can provide the elements important to the species and upon which the species depend, and resident D. luteum population an manages for the long-term conservation support populations of pollinators and opportunity to colonize a new area. of the species. Currently, no plans seed dispersal organisms. They also Given the susceptibility of D. luteum meeting these criteria have been provide areas into which the species populations to extirpation by random, developed for Delphinium bakeri or D. may be introduced. As discussed above, uncontrollable events, the establishment luteum.

VerDate May<23>2002 10:13 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41373

Special management considerations Critical habitat proposed for D. luteum bakeri because it contains the only or protections may be needed to includes 1,046 ha (2,584 ac), with 554 known extant occurrence of D. bakeri maintain the primary constituent ha (1,369 ac) in Sonoma County and 492 and represents the southernmost extent elements for Delphinium bakeri or D. ha (1,215 ac) in Marin County. of the range of this species. luteum within the units being proposed Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum are as critical habitat. In some cases, known only to occur on private lands. Unit L1: Bodega Bay, Sonoma County, protection of the existing habitat and We are not aware of any Tribal lands in California current ecological processes may be or near our proposed critical habitat Unit L1 consists of 554 ha (1,369 ac) sufficient to ensure that populations of units for D. bakeri and D. luteum. south of Bay Hill Road, near the town the plants are maintained at those sites, However, should we learn of any Tribal and that they have the ability to lands in the vicinity of the critical of Bodega in Sonoma County, reproduce and disperse in surrounding habitat designation subsequent to this California. This unit is comprised of habitat. In other cases, however, active proposal, we will coordinate with the Kneeland series soils, coastal prairie management may be needed to maintain Tribes before making a final and scrub habitat, and is within the fog the primary constituent elements for the determination as to whether any Tribal belt that moderates the climate. This two Delphinium species. We have lands should be included as critical unit is essential to the conservation of outlined below the most likely kinds of habitat for D. bakeri or D. luteum. D. luteum because it contains about special management and protection that A brief description of each unit and thirty percent of the roughly 220 total these taxa may require. The following our reasons for proposing those areas as remaining individual plants (based on actions apply to both Delphinium critical habitat are presented below. the most recent population totals species, unless otherwise noted. Unit B1: Coleman Valley, Sonoma provided by CNDDB and by the (1) In all plant communities where County, California discoverer of the Unit L3 population these taxa occur, invasive, nonnative (CNDDB 2001; D. Amme, pers. comm. species need to be actively controlled. This unit is located near Coleman 2002)). Because so few D. luteum plants (2) The quality of water must be Valley Road west of the town of remain, all are essential to the Occidental, approximately 8.3 km (5 mi) maintained to keep it free from continued survival and recovery of the from the coast. The 322 ha (796 ac) unit deleterious levels of herbicides or other species. In addition, this unit is chemical or organic contaminants. is bounded on the north side by Coleman Valley Road and represents an important to the conservation of the (3) Certain areas where these species species because it contains two of very occur may need to be fenced to protect area either near or at the original type locality for Delphinium bakeri. The few remaining sites at which the species them from accidental or intentional has been recently observed. Due to the trampling by humans and livestock. location of the type locality for D. bakeri limited number of populations of D. (4) Aerial application of herbicides was somewhat vague, and only and insecticides need to be curtailed in identified the location as Coleman luteum and the high degree of threat the critical habitat. Exposure from drift Valley. However, this unit contains an from catastrophic events, we believe needs to be avoided. extensive north-facing slope with mesic that all recently documented (5) The appropriate level of soil vegetation similar to the extant location occurrences are essential for the disturbance needs to be maintained (this of D. bakeri, with the addition of coastal conservation of this species. applies only to Delphinium luteum). redwood. The Coleman Valley location Unit L2: Estero Americano, Marin (6) Existing hydrologic conditions of D. bakeri represented the northern County, California may need to be protected by avoiding most extent of the range of this species. activities that cause a change in surface As discussed above, this unit is Unit L2 is located just south of Estero or subsurface water flows. essential for the conservation of D. Americano on the Marin County coast. bakeri because it provides a second area Proposed Critical Habitat Designation This 133 ha (328 ac) unit contains one separate from the existing population occurrence of Delphinium luteum, with The proposed critical habitat areas for D. bakeri into which it can be about 134 individual plants at last count described below constitute our best reintroduced. We believe it is important (CNDDB 2001). It is located on Yorkville assessment at this time of the areas to have a second unit to reduce the series soils that support coastal prairie needed for the conservation of likelihood that the species may become Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum. and coastal scrub habitat, and is within extinct as the result of a catastrophic the fog belt that moderates the climate. Critical habitat being proposed for D. event. A second geographically separate This unit is essential for the survival of bakeri includes one occupied unit in unit can provide protection from chance D. luteum because it contains the single Marin County, which contains the only events such as disease that can destroy largest population of the plant, with currently known location of D. bakeri the only remaining population. and a second unit in Sonoma County we more than half of all the individuals in believe includes the type locality for D. Unit B2: Salmon Creek, Marin County, the entire species. Because so few D. bakeri. The second unit is essential California luteum plants remain, all are essential because establishment of a second This unit is near the Marshall- to the continued survival and recovery location for D. bakeri is important in Petaluma Road in Marin County of the species. In addition, this unit is reducing the risk of extinction due to approximately 10 km (6 mi) from the important to the conservation of the catastrophic events. Critical habitat coast. This 418 ha (1,032 acre) unit is species because it contains one of very being proposed for D. luteum includes bounded on the north side by Salmon few remaining sites at which the species four units that currently are occupied. Creek and contains an extensive north- has been recently observed. Due to the These units together contain all the D. facing slope that is essential to limited number of populations of D. luteum populations documented since maintaining the mesic conditions luteum and the high degree of threat the 1980’s. Critical habitat proposed for needed for Delphinium bakeri. Land in from catastrophic events, we believe D. bakeri includes 740 ha (1,828 ac), this unit is privately owned with a that all recently documented with 418 ha (1,032 ac) in Marin County County right-of-way along the road. This occurrences are essential for the and 322 ha (796 ac) in Sonoma County. unit is essential for the survival of D. conservation of this species.

VerDate May<23>2002 10:13 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNP1 41374 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules

Unit L3: Estero de San Antonio, Marin Because a large proportion of the embankment rather than in the vicinity County, California remaining D. luteum individuals occur of canyon walls. This population was on Yorkville soils, we believe these soils documented as recently as 2000, and Unit L3 is located near the mouth of are an indicator of situations in which was genetically tested and confirmed to the Estero de San Antonio in Marin the plants are likely to survive and be a non-hybrid, but only one plant was County, and includes steep sloped reproduce. Therefore, we believe it is seen at that time (CNDDB 2001). This canyon walls composed of Yorkville important to protect areas which unit is important to the conservation of series soils on both sides of the water contain these soils. the species because it contains one of channel, with coastal prairie and coastal scrub habitat and temperatures Unit L4: Tomales, Marin County, very few remaining sites at which the moderated by fog. This 166 ha (411 ac) California species has been recently observed. Due unit contains one population of Unit L4 is located approximately 1.4 to the limited number of populations of Delphinium luteum discovered in 1993 km (1 mi) south of the town of Tomales D. luteum and the high degree of threat and not yet recorded in the CNDDB. in Marin County. This 193 ha (476 ac) from catastrophic events, we believe This unit is important because it unit consists of coastal prairie and that all recently documented contains a recently documented but coastal scrub within the fog belt. It occurrences are essential for the little known population, and its position contains three populations of conservation of this species. In addition, roughly halfway between Unit L4 to the Delphinium luteum, but two of the this unit is important because it south and Units L1 and L2 to the north populations have not been documented represents the southernmost extent of may help to prevent the genetic since the early 1980’s and one of these the range of D. luteum. The population isolation of Unit L4. It also contains the has been listed as ‘‘possibly extirpated’’ growing in the road embankment may largest continuous area of Yorkville by the CNDDB. The ‘‘possibly also provide important information on soils of all the units. Yorkville soils are extirpated’’ population may also have the characteristics of managed soil important because, between units L2 actually consisted of hybrids of D. disturbances which can support D. and L3, these soils support roughly two luteum and D. nudicaule (red larkspur). luteum. Such information would be of thirds of all individual D. luteum plants. The third population occurs on a road great help in recovering the species.

TABLE 1.—APPROXIMATE AREAS OF PROPOSED Delphinium bakeri AND D. luteum CRITICAL HABITAT IN HECTARES (HA) (ACRES (AC)) BY LAND OWNERSHIP

Species (unit) Private Total

D. bakeri (B1) ...... 322 ha (796 ac) ...... 322 ha (796 ac) D. bakeri (B2) ...... 418 ha (1,032 ac) ...... 418 ha (1,032 ac) D. luteum (L1) ...... 554 ha (1,369 ac) ...... 554 ha (1,369 ac) D. luteum (L2) ...... 133 ha (328 ac) ...... 133 ha (328 ac) D. luteum (L3) ...... 166 ha (411 ac) ...... 166 ha (411 ac) D. luteum (L4) ...... 193 ha (476 ac) ...... 193 ha (476 ac)

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal continued existence of such a species or agencies to confer with us on any action to destroy or adversely modify its Section 7 Consultation that is likely to jeopardize the continued critical habitat. If a Federal action may Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires existence of a proposed species or result affect a listed species or its critical Federal agencies, including the Service, in destruction or adverse modification habitat, the responsible Federal agency to ensure that actions they fund, of proposed critical habitat. Conference (action agency) must enter into authorize, permit, or carry out do not reports provide conservation consultation with us. Through this destroy or adversely modify critical recommendations to assist Federal consultation we would ensure that the habitat to the extent that the action agencies in eliminating conflicts that permitted actions do not destroy or appreciably diminishes the value of the may be caused by their proposed action. adversely modify critical habitat. critical habitat for the survival and The conservation recommendations in a When we issue a biological opinion recovery of the species. Individuals, conference report are advisory. We may concluding that a project is likely to organizations, States, local governments, issue a formal conference report, if result in the destruction or adverse and other non-Federal entities are requested by the Federal action agency. modification of critical habitat, we also affected by the designation of critical Formal conference reports include an provide reasonable and prudent habitat only if their actions occur on opinion that is prepared according to 50 alternatives to the project, if any are Federal lands, require a Federal permit, CFR 402.14, as if the species was listed identifiable. Reasonable and prudent license, or other authorization, or or critical habitat designated. We may alternatives are defined at 50 CFR involve Federal funding. adopt the formal conference report as 402.02 as alternative actions identified Section 7(a) of the Act requires the biological opinion when the species during consultation that can be Federal agencies, including the Service, is listed or critical habitat designated, if implemented in a manner consistent to evaluate their actions with respect to no substantial new information or with the intended purpose of the action, any species that is proposed or listed as changes in the action alter the content that are consistent with the scope of the endangered or threatened, and with of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). Federal agency’s legal authority and respect to its critical habitat, if any is If a species is listed or critical habitat jurisdiction, that are economically and designated or proposed. Regulations is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act technologically feasible, and that the implementing this interagency requires Federal agencies to ensure that Director believes would avoid cooperation provision of the Act are actions they authorize, fund, or carry destruction or adverse modification of codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section out are not likely to jeopardize the critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent

VerDate May<23>2002 10:13 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41375

alternatives can vary from slight project (1) Ground disturbances which 4181 (telephone 503/231–6131; FAX modifications to extensive redesign or destroy or degrade primary constituent 503/231–6243). relocation of the project. Costs elements of the plant (e.g., clearing, Relationship to Habitat Conservation associated with implementing a tilling, grading, construction, road Plans and Other Planning Efforts reasonable and prudent alternative are building, mining, etc.); similarly variable. (2) Activities which directly or Currently, no habitat conservation Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require indirectly affect Delphinium bakeri or plans (HCPs) exist that include Federal agencies to reinitiate D. luteum plants (e.g., herbicide Delphinium bakeri or D. luteum as consultation on previously reviewed application, heavy off-road vehicle use, covered species. Subsection 4(b)(2) of actions in instances where critical introductions of non-native herbivores, the Act allows us to exclude from habitat is subsequently designated and significant unmanaged grazing during critical habitat designation areas where the Federal agency has retained times when D. bakeri or D. luteum is the benefits of exclusion outweigh the discretionary involvement or control producing flowers or seeds, etc.); benefits of designation, provided the over the action or such discretionary (3) Activities which significantly exclusion will not result in the involvement or control is authorized by degrade or destroy Delphinium bakeri extinction of the species. We believe law. Consequently, some Federal pollinator populations (e.g., pesticide that in most instances, the benefits of agencies may request reinitiation of applications); and excluding HCPs from critical habitat consultation or conference with us on (4) Activities that would appreciably designations will outweigh the benefits actions for which formal consultation change the rate of erosion of soils for of including them. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of Delphinium luteum such as slope has been completed, if those actions the Act authorizes us to issue permits stabilization; residential and may affect designated critical habitat, or for the take of listed species incidental commercial development, including adversely modify or destroy proposed to otherwise lawful activities. An road building and golf course critical habitat. incidental take permit application must installation; and vegetation be supported by an HCP that identifies Activities on Federal lands that may manipulation such as clearing and conservation measures that the affect Delphinium bakeri or D. luteum or grubbing upslope from D. luteum. permittee agrees to implement for the their critical habitat will require section Designation of critical habitat could species to minimize and mitigate the 7 of the Act consultation. Activities on affect the following agencies or impacts of the permitted incidental take. private, State, county, or lands under actions—development on private lands Although ‘‘take’’ of listed plants is not local jurisdictions requiring a permit requiring permits from Federal agencies, prohibited by the Act, listed plant from a Federal agency, such as a permit such as 404 permits from the U.S. Army species may also be covered in an HCP from the Corps under section 404 of the Corps of Engineers or permits from for wildlife species. Clean Water Act, a section 10(a)(1)(B) of other Federal agencies such as Housing In the event that future HCPs covering the Endangered Species Act permit from and Urban Development, authorization Delphinium bakeri or D. luteum are the Service, or some other Federal of release of biological control agents by developed within the boundaries of the action, including funding (e.g., Federal the U.S. Department of Agriculture, road designated critical habitat, we will work Highway or Federal Emergency construction by Federal Highway with applicants to ensure that the HCPs Management Act funding), will Administration, watershed management provide for protection and management continue to be subject to the section 7 activities of the Natural Resource of habitat areas essential for the consultation process. Federal actions Conservation Service, and authorization conservation of these species. This will not affecting listed species or critical of Federal grants or loans. be accomplished by either directing habitat and actions on non-Federal and Where federally listed wildlife species development and habitat modification private lands that are not federally occur on private lands proposed for to nonessential areas, or appropriately funded, authorized, or permitted do not development, any habitat conservation modifying activities within essential require section 7 consultation. plans submitted by the applicant to habitat areas so that such activities will Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us secure a permit to take according to not adversely modify the primary to evaluate briefly and describe in any section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act would be constituent elements. The HCP proposed or final regulation that subject to take authorization within the development process would provide an designates critical habitat those Service’s internal section 7 consultation opportunity for more intensive data activities involving a Federal action that on the habitat conservation plan. Other collection and analysis regarding the may destroy or adversely modify such listed species that occur in the same use of particular habitat areas by D. habitat or that may be affected by such general area as the Delphinium luteum bakeri or D. luteum. The process would designation. Activities that may destroy include the Myrtle’s silverspot butterfly also enable us to conduct detailed or adversely modify critical habitat (Speyeria zerene myrtleae) and the evaluations of the importance of such include those that appreciably reduce California red-legged frog (Rana aurora lands to the long-term survival of the the value of critical habitat for both the draytonii). species in the context of constructing a conservation of Delphinium bakeri or D. If you have questions regarding biologically configured system of luteum. Within critical habitat, this whether specific activities will interlinked habitat blocks. pertains only to those areas containing constitute adverse modification of We will provide technical assistance the primary constituent elements. We critical habitat, contact the Field and work closely with applicants note that such activities may also Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and throughout the development of any jeopardize the continued existence of Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER future HCPs to identify lands essential the species. INFORMATION CONTACT section). Requests for the long-term conservation of Activities that, when carried out, for copies of the regulations on listed Delphinium bakeri or D. luteum and funded, or authorized by a Federal wildlife, and inquiries about appropriate management for those agency may directly or indirectly prohibitions and permits may be lands. Furthermore, we will complete destroy or adversely modify critical addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife intra-Service consultation on our habitat for Delphinium luteum or D. Service, Portland Regional Office, 911 issuance of section 10(a)(1)(B) permits bakeri include, but are not limited to: NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232– for these HCPs to ensure permit

VerDate May<23>2002 10:13 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNP1 41376 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules

issuance will not destroy or adversely values,’’ and reductions in and independent specialists regarding modify critical habitat. administrative costs); and this proposed rule. The purpose of this (6) Whether our approach to critical review is to ensure listing decisions are Economic Analysis habitat designation could be improved based on scientifically sound data, Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us or modified in any way to provide for assumptions, and analyses. We will to designate critical habitat on the basis greater public participation and send these peer reviewers copies of this of the best scientific and commercial understanding, or to assist us in proposed rule immediately following information available and to consider accommodating public concern and publication in the Federal Register. We the economic and other relevant comments. will invite these peer reviewers to impacts of designating a particular area If you wish to comment, you may comment, during the public comment as critical habitat. We may exclude areas submit your comments and materials period, on the specific assumptions and from critical habitat upon a concerning this proposal by any one of conclusions regarding the proposed determination that the benefits of such several methods: (1) You may submit designation of critical habitat. exclusions outweigh the benefits of written comments and information to We will consider all comments and specifying such areas as part of critical the Field Supervisor at the address information received during the 60-day habitat. We cannot exclude such areas provided in the ADDRESSES section comment period on this proposed rule from critical habitat when such above; (2) You may also comment via during preparation of a final exclusion will result in the extinction of the electronic mail (e-mail) to rulemaking. Accordingly, the final the species. We will conduct an analysis [email protected]. Please determination may differ from this of the economic impacts of designating submit e-mail comments as an ASCII proposal. file avoiding the use of special these areas as critical habitat prior to a Public Hearings final determination. When completed, characters and any form of encryption. we will announce the availability of the Please also include ‘‘Attn: [1018–AG96] The Act provides for one or more draft economic analysis with a notice in and your name and return address in public hearings on this proposal, if the Federal Register, and we will open your e-mail message.’’ If you do not requested. Requests for public hearings a 30-day public comment period on the receive a confirmation from the system must be made within 45 days of the date draft economic analysis and proposed that we have received your e-mail of publication of this proposal within rule at that time. message, contact us directly by calling the Federal Register. We will schedule our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office public hearings on this proposal, if any Public Comments Solicited at phone number (916) 414–6600. Please are requested, and announce the dates, We intend that any final action note that the Internet address times, and places of those hearings in resulting from this proposal will be as [email protected] will be the Federal Register and local accurate and as effective as possible. closed out at the termination of the newspapers at least 15 days prior to the Therefore, we solicit comments or public comment period; and (3) You first hearing. suggestions from the public, other may hand-deliver comments to our Clarity of the Rule concerned governmental agencies, the Sacramento office (see ADDRESSES scientific community, industry, or any section above). Executive Order 12866 requires each other interested party concerning this Our practice is to make comments agency to write regulations and notices proposed rule. We particularly seek available for public review during that are easy to understand. We invite comments concerning: regular business hours, including names your comments on how to make this (1) The reasons why any habitat and home addresses of respondents. proposed rule easier to understand, should or should not be determined to Individual respondents may request that including answers to questions such as be critical habitat as provided by section we withhold their home address from the following: (1) Are the requirements 4 of the Act, including whether the the rulemaking record, which we will in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2) benefits of designation will outweigh honor to the extent allowable by law. In Does the proposed rule contain any threats to the species due to some circumstances, we would technical jargon that interferes with the designation; withhold from the rulemaking record a clarity? (3) Does the format of the (2) Specific information on the respondent’s identity, as allowable by proposed rule (grouping and order of amount and distribution of Delphinium law. If you wish for us to withhold your sections, use of headings, paragraphing, bakeri and D. luteum and their habitats, name or address, you must state this etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the and which habitats are essential to the prominently at the beginning of your description of the proposed rule in the conservation of these species and why; comment. However, we will not ‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of (3) Land use designations and current consider anonymous comments. To the the preamble helpful in understanding or planned activities in the subject areas extent consistent with applicable law, the proposed rule? What else could we and their possible impacts on proposed we will make all submissions from do to make the proposed rule easier to critical habitat; organizations or businesses, and from understand? (4) Any foreseeable economic or other individuals identifying themselves as Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this notice impacts resulting from the proposed representatives or officials of easier to understand to: Office of designation of critical habitat, in organizations or businesses, available Regulatory Affairs, Department of the particular, any impacts on small entities for public inspection in their entirety. Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, or families; Comments and materials received will Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail (5) Economic and other values be available, during normal business your comments to this address: associated with designating critical hours at the above address. habitat for Delphinium bakeri and D. [email protected]. Peer Review luteum such as those derived from non- Required Determinations consumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, In accordance with our policy bird-watching, enhanced watershed published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR Regulatory Planning and Review protection, improved air quality, 34270), we will solicit the expert In accordance with Executive Order increased soil retention, ‘‘existence opinions of at least three appropriate 12866, this document is a significant

VerDate May<23>2002 10:13 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41377

rule and was reviewed by the Office of rule will not have a significant effect on believe this will result in any additional Management and Budget (OMB). The a substantial number of small entities. regulatory burden on Federal agencies Service is preparing a draft economic The following discussion explains our or their applicants because consultation analysis of this proposed action. The rationale. would already be required due to the Service will use this analysis to meet We must determine whether the presence of the listed species, and the the requirement of section 4(b)(2) of the proposed rulemaking will affect a duty to avoid adverse modification of ESA to determine the economic substantial number of small entities. critical habitat would not trigger consequences of designating the specific Small entities include small additional regulatory impacts beyond areas as critical habitat and excluding organizations, such as independent non- the duty to avoid jeopardizing the any area from critical habitat if it is profit organizations, and small species. determined that the benefits of such governmental jurisdictions, including Even if the duty to avoid adverse exclusion outweigh the benefits of school boards and city and town modification does not trigger additional specifying such areas as part of the governments that serve fewer than regulatory impacts in areas where these critical habitat, unless failure to 50,000 residents, as well as small species are present, designation of designate such area as critical habitat businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small critical habitat could result in an will lead to the extinction of businesses include manufacturing and additional economic burden on small Delphinium bakeri or D. luteum. This mining concerns with fewer than 500 entities due to the requirement to analysis will be available for public employees, wholesale trade entities reinitiate consultation for ongoing comment before finalizing this with fewer than 100 employees, retail Federal activities. However, we have designation. The availability of the draft and service businesses with less than $5 only completed one conference and one economic analysis will be announced in million in annual sales, general and consultation on Delphinium bakeri and the Federal Register. heavy construction businesses with less D. luteum since they were proposed for than $27.5 million in annual business, listing. As a result, the requirement to Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 special trade contractors doing less than reinitiate consultation for ongoing et seq.) $11.5 million in annual business, and projects will not affect a substantial This discussion is based upon the agricultural businesses with annual number of small entities. information regarding potential sales less than $750,000. If the proposed When the species are clearly not economic impact that is available to the rulemaking will affect a substantial present, designation of critical habitat Service at this time. This assessment of number of small entities, we must could trigger additional review of economic effect may be modified prior determine if there will be a significant Federal activities under section 7 of the to final rulemaking based upon economic impact on them. Act. Because Delphinium bakeri and D. development and review of the To determine if the rule would affect luteum have been listed only a economic analysis being prepared a substantial number of small entities, relatively short time and there have pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA we consider the number of small been few activities with Federal and E.O. 12866. This analysis is for the entities affected within particular types involvement in these areas during this purposes of compliance with the of economic activities (e.g., housing time, there is not a detailed history of Regulatory Flexibility Act and does not development, grazing, oil and gas consultations based on the listing of reflect the position of the Service on the production, timber harvesting, etc.). We these species. Therefore, for the type of economic analysis required by apply the ‘‘substantial number’’ test purposes of this review and certification New Mexico Cattle Growers Assn. v. individually to each industry to under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 248 F.3d determine if certification is appropriate. are assuming that any future 1277 (10th Cir. 2001). In some circumstances, especially with consultations in the area proposed as Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act proposed critical habitat designations of critical habitat will be due to the critical (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the very limited extent, we may aggregate habitat designation. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement across all industries and consider No Federal lands are included in this Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whether the total number of small proposed critical habitat designation, so whenever an agency is required to entities affected is substantial. In this rule will not affect any small publish a notice of rulemaking for any estimating the numbers of small entities entities involved in grazing or other proposed or final rule, it must prepare potentially affected, we also consider activities on Federal lands. On private and make available for public comment whether their activities have any lands, activities that lack Federal a regulatory flexibility analysis that Federal involvement; some kinds of involvement would not be affected by describes the effects of the rule on small activities are unlikely to have any the critical habitat designation. Current entities (i.e., small businesses, small Federal involvement and so will not be activities of an economic nature that organizations, and small government affected by critical habitat designation. occur on private lands in the area jurisdictions). However, no regulatory Designation of critical habitat only encompassed by this proposed flexibility analysis is required if the affects activities conducted, funded, or designation are primarily agricultural, head of the agency certifies the rule will permitted by Federal agencies; non- such as livestock grazing and farming. not have a significant economic impact Federal activities are not affected by the Because these areas are zoned rural and on a substantial number of small designation. In areas where these not near cities or towns, multiple-unit entities. SBREFA amended the species are present, Federal agencies are residential or commercial development Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to already required to consult with us is unlikely. Therefore, Federal agencies require Federal agencies to provide a under section 7 of the Act on activities such as the Economic Development statement of the factual basis for that they fund, permit, or implement Administration, which is occasionally certifying that a rule will not have a that may affect Delphinium bakeri or D. involved in funding municipal projects significant economic impact on a luteum. If this critical habitat elsewhere, is unlikely to be involved in substantial number of small entities. designation is finalized, Federal projects in these areas. In rural regions SBREFA also amended the RFA to agencies must also consult with us if of Sonoma and Marin counties, previous require a certification statement. In their activities may affect designated consultations under section 7 of the Act today’s rule, we are certifying that the critical habitat. However, we do not between us and other Federal agencies

VerDate May<23>2002 10:13 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNP1 41378 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules

most frequently involved the U.S. Army risk of violating section 7(a)(2) of the substantial number of small entities. It Corps of Engineers (ACOE) or the Act if it chose to proceed without would not affect a substantial number of Federal Highway Administration implementing the reasonable and small entities. The entire designation (FHWA). In FHWA consultations, the prudent alternatives. likely involves fewer than 100 privately applicant is either the California State Secondly, if we find that a proposed owned parcels; many of these parcels Department of Transportation or the action is not likely to jeopardize the are located in areas where likely future County, neither of which is considered continued existence of a listed animal land uses are not expected to result in a small entity as defined here. The species, we may identify reasonable and Federal involvement or section 7 ACOE consultations involve wetlands or prudent measures designed to minimize consultations. As discussed earlier, waterways and occur due to the the amount or extent of take and require most of the private parcels within the presence of species (or their critical the Federal agency or applicant to proposed designation are currently habitat) that spend at least part of their implement such measures through non- being used for agricultural purposes life in aquatic habitats. Delphinium discretionary terms and conditions. and, therefore, are not likely to require bakeri and D. luteum are upland plant However, the Act does not prohibit the any Federal authorization. In the species and unlikely to be the subject of take of listed plant species or require remaining areas, Federal involvement— consultations with the ACOE, unless the terms and conditions to minimize and thus section 7 consultations, the project is very large and would include adverse effect to critical habitat. We may only trigger for economic impact under wetlands otherwise not associated with also identify discretionary conservation this rule—would be limited to a subset these species. In agricultural areas, the recommendations designed to minimize of the area proposed. The most likely Natural Resources Conservation Service or avoid the adverse effects of a Federal involvement could include (NRCS) occasionally funds activities on proposed action on listed species or ACOE permits, permits we may issue farms or ranches that require critical habitat, help implement under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, consultation with us. We have not had recovery plans, or to gather information FHWA funding for road improvements, any formal consultations with the NRCS that could contribute to the recovery of and voluntary watershed management on this type of project within Marin or the species. and restoration project funding by Sonoma counties over the past 5 years. Based on our experience with section NRCS. Sonoma and Marin counties encompass 7 consultations for all listed species, This rule would result in project about 1.3 million acres of land and virtually all projects—including those modifications only when proposed support over 35 listed species. Based on that, in their initial proposed form, Federal activities would destroy or the low level of past activity, we expect would result in jeopardy or adverse adversely modify critical habitat. While few consultations with the NRCS or modification determinations in section this may occur, it is not expected 7 consultations—can be implemented other Federal agencies on the 4,412 frequently enough to affect a substantial successfully with, at most, the adoption acres of non-Federal lands proposed in number of small entities. Even when it of reasonable and prudent alternatives. this rule. For these reasons, the Service does occur, we do not expect it to result These measures, by definition, must be determines that the number of small in a significant economic impact, as the economically feasible and within the entities likely to be affected by this rule measures included in reasonable and scope of authority of the Federal agency will not be substantial. prudent alternatives must be involved in the consultation. As we economically feasible and consistent In general, two different mechanisms have a very limited consultation history with the proposed action. We anticipate in section 7 consultations could lead to for Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum we that the kinds of reasonable and prudent additional regulatory requirements. can only describe the general kinds of alternatives that we would provide can First, if we conclude, in a biological actions that may be identified in future usually be implemented at low cost. opinion, that a proposed action is likely reasonable and prudent alternatives. Therefore, we are certifying that the to jeopardize the continued existence of These are based on our understanding of proposed designation of critical habitat a species or adversely modify its critical the needs of the species and the threats for Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum habitat, we can offer ‘‘reasonable and they face, especially as described in the will not have a significant economic prudent alternatives.’’ Reasonable and final listing rule and in this proposed impact on a substantial number of small prudent alternatives are alternative critical habitat designation, as well as entities, and an initial regulatory actions that can be implemented in a our experience with similar listed plants flexibility analysis is not required. manner consistent with the scope of the in California. In addition, the State of Federal agency’s legal authority and California listed D. bakeri and D. luteum Small Business Regulatory Enforcement jurisdiction, that are economically and as rare species under the California Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)) technologically feasible, and that would Endangered Species Act in 1978, and In the economic analysis we will avoid jeopardizing the continued we have also considered the kinds of determine whether designation of existence of listed species or would actions required through State critical habitat would cause (a) any result in adverse modification of critical consultations for this species. The kinds effect on the economy of $100 million habitat. A Federal agency and an of actions that may be included in or more, (b) any increases in costs or applicant may elect to implement a future reasonable and prudent prices for consumers, individual reasonable and prudent alternative alternatives include conservation set- industries, Federal, State, or local associated with a biological opinion that asides, management of competing non- government agencies, or geographic has found jeopardy or adverse native species, restoration of degraded regions, or (c) any significant adverse modification of critical habitat. An habitat, construction of protective effects on competition, employment, agency or applicant could alternatively fencing, and regular monitoring. These investment, productivity, innovation, or choose to seek an exemption from the measures are not likely to result in a the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to requirements of the Act or proceed significant economic impact to project compete with foreign-based enterprises. without implementing the reasonable proponents. and prudent alternative. However, In summary, we have considered Executive Order 13211 unless an exemption were obtained, the whether this proposed rule would result On May 18, 2001, the President issued Federal agency or applicant would be at in a significant economic effect on a an Executive Order (E.O. 13211) on

VerDate May<23>2002 10:13 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41379

regulations that significantly affect constituent elements of the habitat Government-to-Government energy supply, distribution, and use. necessary to the survival of the species Relationship With Tribes Executive Order 13211 requires agencies are identified. While this definition and In accordance with the President’s to prepare Statements of Energy Effects identification does not alter where and memorandum of April 29, 1994, when undertaking certain actions. what federally sponsored activities may ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations Although this rule is a significant occur it may assist these local with Native American Tribal regulatory action under Executive Order governments in long range planning Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 12866, it is not expected to significantly (rather than waiting for case-by-case Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we readily affect energy supplies, distribution, or section 7 consultation to occur). use. Therefore, this action is not a acknowledge our responsibility to significant energy action and no Civil Justice Reform communicate meaningfully with Statement of Energy Effects is required. federally recognized Tribes on a In accordance with Executive Order Government-to-Government basis. We Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 12988, the Department of the Interior’s have determined that there are currently U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) Office of the Solicitor has determined no Tribal lands essential for the that this rule does not unduly burden conservation of Delphinium bakeri or D. The Service will use the economic the judicial system and meets the analysis to evaluate consistency with luteum because they do not support requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) populations, nor do they provide the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 of the Order. We are proposing to U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). essential habitat. Therefore, critical designate critical habitat in accordance habitat for D. bakeri and D. luteum has Takings with the provisions of the Endangered not been designated on Tribal lands. In accordance with Executive Order Species Act. The rule uses standard References Cited 12630 (‘‘Government Actions and property descriptions and identifies the Interference with Constitutionally principal constituent element within the A complete list of all references cited protected Private Property Rights’’), we designated areas to assist the public in herein is available upon request from have analyzed the potential takings understanding the habitat needs of the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office implications of designating critical Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum. (see ADDRESSES section) habitat for the two Delphinium species Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Author from Marin and Sonoma counties, U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) California in a preliminary takings The primary authors of this proposed implication assessment. This This rule does not contain any new rule are staff of the Sacramento Fish and preliminary assessment concludes that collections of information that require Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). this proposed rule does not pose approval by the Office of Management List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 significant takings implications. and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork However, we have not yet completed Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Endangered and threatened species, the economic analysis for this proposed This rule will not impose new Exports, Imports, Reporting and rule. Once the economic analysis is recordkeeping or reporting requirements recordkeeping requirements, available, we will review and revise this on State or local governments, Transportation. preliminary assessment as warranted. individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not Proposed Regulation Promulgation Federalism conduct or sponsor and a person is not Accordingly, we propose to amend In accordance with Executive Order required to respond to a collection of part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 13132, the rule does not have significant information unless it displays a 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as Federalism effects. A Federalism currently valid OMB control number. set forth below: assessment is not required. In keeping National Environmental Policy Act with the Department of the Interior PART 17—[AMENDED] policy, we requested information from, We have determined we do not need and coordinated development of this to prepare an Environmental 1. The authority citation for part 17 critical habitat designation with, the Assessment or an Environmental Impact continues to read as follows: appropriate State resource agencies in Statement, as defined by the National Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. California. Where the species are Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– present, the designation of critical regulations adopted pursuant to section 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. habitat imposes no additional 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act, as 2. In § 17.12(h) revise the entries for restrictions to those currently in place, amended. We published a notice ‘‘Delphinium luteum’’ and for and therefore, has little environmental outlining our reason for this ‘‘Delphinium bakeri,’’ under impact on State and local governments determination in the Federal Register ‘‘FLOWERING PLANTS,’’ to read as and their activities. The designation on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This follows: may have some benefit to these proposed rule does not constitute a governments in that the areas essential major Federal action significantly § 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. to the conservation of these species are affecting the quality of the human * * * * * more clearly defined, and the primary environment. (h) * * *

Species Historic range Family Status When listed Critical habi- Special Scientific name Common name tat rules

FLOWERING PLANTS

VerDate jun<06>2002 19:01 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 18JNP1 41380 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules

Species Historic range Family Status When listed Critical habi- Special Scientific name Common name tat rules

******* Delphinium bakeri .... Baker’s larkspur ...... U.S.A. (CA) ...... Ranunculaceae ...... E 681 17.96(b) NA Delphinium luteum ... Yellow larkspur ...... U.S.A. (CA) ...... Ranunculaceae ...... E 681 17.96(b) NA

*******

3. In § 17.96, as proposed to be (i) Soils that are derived from (iii) Mesic conditions on extensive amended at 65 FR 66865, November 7, decomposed shale; north-facing slopes. 2000, amend paragraph (b) by adding (ii) Plant communities that support (3) Critical habitat does not include critical habitat for Delphinium bakeri associated species, including, but not existing man-made features and and for Delphinium luteum in limited to: Umbellularia californica structures, such as buildings, roads, alphabetical order under Family (California bay), Aesculus californica aqueducts, railroads, airport runways Ranunculaceae to read as follows: (California buckeye), and Quercus and buildings, other paved areas, lawns, agrifolia (coastal live oak). Other native and other urban landscaped areas not § 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. plants associated with D. bakeri containing one or more of the primary * * * * * include—Baccharis pulularis ssp. constituent elements. (b) * * * consanguinea (coyotebrush), (4) Critical Habitat Map Units. Symphorcarpos cf. rivularis (i) Data layers defining map units Family Ranunculaceae: Delphinium ′ bakeri (Baker’s larkspur) (snowberry), Rubus ursinus (California were created on a base of USGS 7.5 blackberry), Pteridium aqulinum quadrangles obtained from the State of (1) Critical habitat units are depicted (braken fern), Polystichum munitum California’s Stephen P. Teale Data for Sonoma and Marin counties, (Sword fern), Pityrogramma triangularis Center. Proposed critical habitat units California, on the maps below. (goldback fern), Dryopteris arguta were then mapped using Universal (2) The primary constituent elements (coastal woodfern), Adiantum jordanii Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. of critical habitat for Delphinium bakeri (maidenhair fern), and Polypodium (ii) Map 1—Index map follows: are the habitat components that provide: glycyrrhiza (licorice fern); and BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate May<23>2002 10:13 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41381

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate jun<06>2002 19:01 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 18JNP1 EP18JN02.011 41382 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules

(5) Unit B1: Sonoma County, 4250710; 499510, 4250490; 499840, 4250220; 501070, 4250030; 500720, California. 4250710; 499880, 4250840; 500250, 4249960; 500550, 4249990; 500220, (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 4250840; 500580, 4250770; 500730, 4249930; 500190, 4249700; 499680, maps Camp Meeker and Duncan Hills, 4250780; 501020, 4250950; 501080, 4249760; 499520, 4249850; 499250, California, land bounded by the 4251070; 501360, 4251270; 501520, 4249830; 499210, 4249730; 498880, following UTM10 NAD83 coordinates 4251370; 501730, 4251520; 502100, 4249750; 498620, 4250050; 498600, (E,N): 498360, 4249440; 498030, 4251370; 502190, 4251180; 502120, 4249490; 498360, 4249440 4249650; 498040, 4249990; 498160, 4251090; 501830, 4251060; 501570, 4250150; 498430, 4250320; 498420, 4250750; 501380, 4250720; 501400, (ii) Map 2—Unit B1 follows: 4250440; 499140, 4250680; 499380, 4250360; 501230, 4250330; 501090, BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate jun<06>2002 19:01 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 18JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41383

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate May<23>2002 10:13 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNP1 EP18JN02.012 41384 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules

(6) Unit B2: Marin County, California. 4223760; 519410, 4223800; 519530, 4224620; 524460, 4224710; 524860, (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 4223970; 519640, 4224090; 519830, 4224530; 525010, 4224370; 525030, maps Petaluma and Point Reyes NE, 4224140; 519980, 4224160; 520440, 4224250; 524690, 4224190; 524590, California, land bounded by the 4224100; 520760, 4224100; 520990, 4224200; 524360, 4224100; 524280, following UTM10 NAD83 coordinates 4224170; 521130, 4224160; 521460, 4223950; 524050, 4223780; 523920, (E,N): 521780, 4222900; 521560, 4224080; 521740, 4223960; 521820, 4223650; 523700, 4223480; 523600, 4223000; 521350, 4223070; 521230, 4223870; 521960, 4223770; 522130, 4223640; 523480, 4223720; 523210, 4223130; 520980, 4223320; 520890, 4223810; 522290, 4224000; 522320, 4223700; 522880, 4223510; 522650, 4223460; 520680, 4223430; 520220, 4224070; 522480, 4224160; 522550, 4223450; 522370, 4223230; 522170, 4223440; 520100, 4223460; 519940, 4224310; 522830, 4224380; 523160, 4223120; 522050, 4223080; 521860, 4223460; 519870, 4223360; 519720, 4224240; 523340, 4224250; 523470, 4222980; 521780, 4222900 4223280; 519510, 4223340; 519400, 4224360; 523660, 4224430; 523750, (ii) Map 3—Unit B2 follows: 4223480; 519350, 4223630; 519360, 4224480; 523920, 4224510; 524070, BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate jun<06>2002 19:01 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 18JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41385

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate May<23>2002 10:13 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNP1 EP18JN02.013 41386 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules

Family Ranunculaceae: Delphinium erosion potential, such as Kneeland or containing one or more of the primary luteum (Yellow larkspur) Yorkville series soils; constituent elements. (1) Critical habitat units are depicted (iii) Generally north aspected areas (4) Critical Habitat Map Units. for Sonoma and Marin counties, near steep sloped canyon walls; and California, on the maps below. (iv) Habitat upslope and downslope (i) Data layers defining map units (2) The primary constituent elements from known populations to maintain were created on a base of USGS 7.5′ of critical habitat for Delphinium disturbance such as occasional rock quadrangles obtained from the State of luteum are the habitat components that slides or soil slumping that the species California’s Stephen P. Teale Data provide: appears to require. Center. Proposed critical habitat units (i) Plant communities that support the (3) Critical habitat does not include were then mapped using Universal appropriate associated species, man-made existing features and Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. including north coastal scrub or coastal structures, such as buildings, roads, (i) Index map follows. prairie communities; aqueducts, railroads, airport runways (ii) Soils derived from sandstone or and buildings, other paved areas, lawns, BILLING CODE 4310–55–P shale, with rapid runoff and high and other urban landscaped areas not

VerDate jun<06>2002 19:01 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 18JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41387

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate May<23>2002 10:13 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNP1 EP18JN02.014 41388 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules

(5) Unit L1:-Bodega Bay, Sonoma 498220, 4241010; 497940, 4241050; 4238970; 500580, 4239030; 500630, County, California. 497590, 4241010; 497450, 4241220; 4239070; 500720, 4239040; 500850, (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 497500, 4241630; 497750, 4241830; 4238840; 500890, 4238860; 500970, map Bodega Head. Lands bounded by 497760, 4241970; 497720, 4242010; 4238830; 501050, 4238740; 501170, 497630, 4242010; 497520, 4241940; the following UTM10 NAD83 4238740; 501180, 4238650; 501300, 497480, 4241850; 497320, 4241860; coordinates (E,N): 496820, 4241560; 4238460; 501440, 4238320; 501510, 497170, 4241680; 497100, 4241500; 496870, 4241690; 497130, 4241990; 4238120; 501340, 4238000; 501270, 497030, 4241410; 496910, 4241440; 497110, 4242130; 497170, 4242240; 4238010; 501190, 4238000; 501120, 496820, 4241560; 4238010; 500900, 4237990; 500870, 497250, 4242220; 497470, 4242550; (6) Unit L2: Estero Americano, Marin 497440, 4242700; 497930, 4242940; 4237960; 500860, 4237860; 500730, County, California. 4237850; 500570, 4237760; 500470, 498340, 4242940; 498430, 4243040; (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 4237800; 500380, 4237730; 500250, 498640, 4242960; 498720, 4243080; map Valley Ford. Lands bounded by the 4237890; 500240, 4237940; 500180, 499110, 4243090; 499410, 4242960; following UTM10 NAD83 coordinates 499690, 4242760; 499650, 4242560; (E,N): 499970, 4238100; 500010, 4237980; 499990, 4238060; 499970, 500250, 4242210; 500030, 4241880; 4238150; 500010, 4238240; 499870, 4238100 500140, 4241320; 499900, 4240730; 4238480; 500010, 4238710; 500140, (ii) Map 2—Units L1 and L2 follows: 499750, 4240650; 498690, 4240750; 4238860; 500280, 4238940; 500470, BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate May<23>2002 10:13 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 18JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41389

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate jun<06>2002 19:01 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 18JNP1 EP18JN02.015 41390 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules

(7) Unit L3: Estero de San Antonio, 4234890; 503710, 4234990; 503610, 4231740; 507270, 4231860; 507400, Marin County, California. 4234970; 503520, 4234840; 503560, 4231820; 507550, 4231930; 507660, From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map 4234620; 503580, 4234470; 503520, 4231930; 507780, 4232080; 507810, Valley Ford. Lands bounded by the 4234440; 503350, 4234580; 503360, 4232220; 507870, 4232340; 507990, following UTM10 NAD83 coordinates 4234710; 503250, 4234860; 502990, 4232290; 508250, 4232250; 508320, (E,N): 502060, 4235600; 502110, 4234970; 502950, 4235100; 502700, 4232050; 508110, 4231810; 508090, 4235750; 502230, 4235770; 502300, 4235170; 502710, 4235260; 502810, 4231660; 507960, 4231700; 507920, 4235840; 502350, 4235930; 502370, 4235330; 502800, 4235510; 502580, 4231670; 507950, 4231580; 507630, 4236030; 502410, 4236100; 502510, 4235480; 502510, 4235510; 502530, 4231410; 507520, 4231200; 507560, 4236150; 502700, 4236150; 502900, 4235580; 502390, 4235560; 502310, 4230830; 507560, 4230620; 507510, 4235910; 503010, 4235860; 502900, 4235470; 502200, 4235470; 502060, 4230590; 507490, 4230470; 507440, 4236160; 502870, 4236120; 502700, 4235600; 4230300; 507440, 4230220; 507330, 4236260; 502880, 4236400; 503060, (8) Unit L4: Tomales, Marin County, 4230050; 507300, 4229930; 507320, 4236370; 503130, 4236240; 503070, California 4229820; 507310, 4229770; 507230, 4236180; 503090, 4236010; 503200, (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 4229730; 507060, 4229730; 506960, 4235950; 503260, 4235990; 503170, map Tomales. Lands bounded by the 4229740; 506780, 4229830; 506710, 4236090; 503280, 4236180; 503410, following UTM10 NAD83 coordinates 4229840; 506580, 4229790; 506600, 4236100; 503470, 4236040; 503430, (E,N): 506200, 4229650; 506000, 4229860; 506720, 4230150; 506770, 4235810; 503460, 4235720; 503600, 4229960; 506040, 4230020; 506330, 4230340; 506640, 4230230; 506460, 4235580; 503800, 4235490; 503950, 4230130; 506450, 4230630; 506550, 4230020; 506200, 4229650; 4235300; 504020, 4235010; 504030, 4230640; 506760, 4230830; 506840, 4234810; 504000, 4234630; 503920, 4231090; 507070, 4231150; 507230, (ii) Map 7—Units L3 and L4 follows: 4234390; 503780, 4234410; 503780, 4231260; 507340, 4231460; 507170, BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate jun<06>2002 19:01 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 18JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41391

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate jun<06>2002 19:01 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 18JNP1 EP18JN02.016 41392 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules

* * * * * Dated: June 11, 2002. Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 02–15340 Filed 6–17–02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate jun<06>2002 19:01 Jun 17, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18JNP1.SGM pfrm15 PsN: 18JNP1