Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 17

RIN ID: RIN 1018-AG96

NOTICE: RULES

ACTION: Endangered and threatened species:

DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Two Larkspurs From Coastal Northern California

DATES: This rule becomes effective on April 17, 2003.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for Delphinium bakeri (Baker's larkspur) and Delphinium luteum (yellow larkspur). We are designating 2 units totaling approximately 740 hectares (ha) (1,828 acres (ac)) for D. bakeri, and 4 units totaling approximately 1,022 ha (2,525 ac) for D. luteum, in Marin and Sonoma counties, California. The total critical habitat for both plants is approximately 1,762 ha (4,353 ac) in 6 units. This critical habitat designation provides additional protection under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other relevant impacts when specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We solicited data and comments from the public on all aspects of this proposal, including data on economic and other impacts of the designation.

SUMMARY: Critical habitat designations—; Baker's larkspur and yellow larkspur,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Delphinium bakeri is a perennial herb in the buttercup family (Ranunculaceae). Ewan (1942) described Delphinium bakeri based on type material collected by Milo Baker in 1939 from ``Coleman Valley, Sonoma Co., California.'' In the most recent treatment, Warnock (1997) retained the taxon as a full species. It grows from a thickened, tuber like, fleshy cluster of roots. The stems are hollow, erect, and grow to 65 centimeters (cm) (26 inches (in)) tall. Shallowly fiveparted leaves occur primarily along the upper third of the stem and are green (as opposed to withering) at the time the plant flowers. The flowers are irregularly shaped. The five sepals (members of the outermost set of flower parts) are conspicuous, bright dark blue or purplish, with the rear sepal elongated into a spur (hollow, often coneshaped, projection). The inconspicuous petals occur in two pairs. The lower pair is oblong and bluepurple; the upper pair is oblique (having unequal sides or an asymmetric base) and white. Seeds are produced in several dry, manyseeded fruits, which split open at maturity on only one side (i.e., follicles). D. bakeri flowers from April through May (Warnock 1993). D. bakeri can be differentiated from other members of the genus by its crenate leaf margins (margins notched or scalloped so as to form rounded teeth), leaves that are not withering at time of flowering, and flowers that are loosely arranged (California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 1977).

Delphinium bakeri has only been known from three locations: Coleman Valley in southern Sonoma County, near the town of Tomales in northern Marin County, and approximately 10 km (6 mi) east of Tomales Bay in northern Marin County (California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 2001). D. bakeri is thought to have been extirpated from Coleman Valley sometime prior to 1986, and from the site near Tomales, where the species has not been relocated since 1925 (CNDDB 2001). At the only known extant (currently existing, not extirpated or destroyed) population, approximately 10 km (6 mi) east of Tomales Bay, the number of individuals has varied from 0 to 67 individuals over the last 20 years (CNDDB 2001).

Delphinium bakeri occurs on decomposed shale. The sites where it is found range from 90 to 205 meters (m) (295 to 672 feet (ft)) in elevation (CNDDB 2001). The collection from the type locality (the location where the species was first described) in Coleman Valley was described by Joseph Ewan as growing ``along fence rows and in heavy low brush'' (Ewan 1942). Two species listed as growing with D. bakeri at the type locality were Potentilla elata (now known as Horkelia californica ssp. dissita (California honeydew)) and Ranunculus orthorynchus (straightbeak buttercup) (Ewan 1942). No information is reported for the associated species or habitat for the other occurrence near Tomales that is thought to be extirpated (CNDDB 2001).

The single extant occurrence of Delphinium bakeri grows in mesic (moderate moisture) conditions along an extensive northfacing slope under an overstory that includes Umbellularia californica (California bay), Aesculus californica (California buckeye), and Quercus agrifolia (coastal live oak). Other native plants associated with D. bakeri at this site include: Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea (coyotebrush), Symphorcarpos cf. rivularis (snowberry), Rubus ursinus (California blackberry), Pteridium aquilinum (braken fern), Polystichum munitum (sword fern), Pityrogramma triangularis (goldback fern), Dryopteris arguta (coastal woodfern), Adiantum jordanii (maidenhair fern), Polypodium glycyrrhiza (licorice fern), Toxicodendron diversilobum (poison oak), Ceanothus thyrsiflorus (blueblossom ceanothus), Lithophragma affine (woodland star), and Holodiscus discolor (oceanspray) (J. Koontz, Center for Biodiversity, in litt., 2002; CNDDB 2001). These plants are important indicators of remaining areas of natural habitat that support D. bakeri, and are likely to support ecological processes such as water retention, shading, nitrogen processing, and other factors that create suitable habitat conditions for D. bakeri. The property is privately owned, but Sonoma County has a rightofway along the road. Pollinators have not specifically been identified for D. bakeri, but pollinators for species in the genus Delphinium typically are large hymenoptera, especially Bombus ssp. (bumblebees) (Guerrant 1978).

In 1942, Ewan noted that the habitat of Delphinium bakeri was formerly more abundant, but had been reduced by cultivation (Ewan 1942). Habitat conversion, grazing, and roadside maintenance activities are cited as the reasons for the decline of the species, and two of the three known occurrences of D. bakeri in Marin and Sonoma counties, including the occurrence at the type locality in Coleman Valley, have been extirpated (California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1994). The single location where D. bakeri is known to remain extant is threatened by road work, such as rightofway maintenance (including use of herbicides), overcollection, and sheep grazing (CNDDB 2001). For example, many plants were accidentally mowed by a county road maintenance crew in May 2002 (J. Koontz, in litt., 2002). Because of the restriction in its range to a single population and the small population size of the one remaining occurrence, D. bakeri is extremely vulnerable to extinction from random natural events, such as unseasonal fire or insect outbreaks (Shaffer 1981; Primack 1993).

Delphinium luteum is a perennial herb in the buttercup family (Ranunculaceae). Heller (1903) described D. luteum based on type material collected from ``grassy slopes about rocks, near Bodega Bay, along the road leading to the village of Bodega'' in Sonoma County. Although Jepson (1975) reduced D. luteum to a variety of D. nudicaule (red larkspur), it is currently recognized as a full species (Warnock 1993). D. luteum grows from thin tuberous roots up to 30 cm (12 in) long to a height of 55 cm (22 in) tall. The leaves are mostly basal, fleshy, and green at the time of flowering. The flowers are cornucopia shaped. The five conspicuous sepals are bright yellow, with the posterior sepal elongated into a spur. The inconspicuous petals occur in two pairs. The upper petals are narrow and unlobed; the lower petals are oblong to ovate (eggshaped). The fruit is a follicle. D. luteum flowers from March to May. The species is distinguished from other Delphinium by its yellow flowers and its erect seed follicles (CNPS 1977). In contrast to typical pollinators for the genus Delphinium, potential pollinators for D. luteum are Allen's hummingbirds (Selasphorus sasin), which have been observed visiting D. luteum flowers. In addition, the flower shape and sucrosedominated nectar are consistent with characteristics of species that are typically pollinated by hummingbirds (Guerrant 1978).

Delphinium luteum inhabits coastal prairie and coastal scrub areas, which typically have no overstory vegetation, at elevations ranging from sea level to
[[Page 12836]]
about 100 m (300 ft) within northwestern Marin and southwestern Sonoma counties, California (CNDDB 2001). The species occurs on moderate to steep slopes, generally near areas showing evidence of some level of ground disturbance in the past, including landslides (Guerrant 1978, CNDDB 2001). Roots of D. luteum are tuberous, long, and thin, an unusual combination in this genus, which may provide an advantage in thin, unstable soils (Weaver 1919 as cited in Guerrant 1978). Typical soil types supporting D. luteum include the Kneeland series in Sonoma County and the Yorkville series in Marin County. These soils derive from sandstone or shale, and share qualities of rapid runoff and high erosion potential (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1972; Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 1985). The most recently documented populations of D. luteum (those seen in the 1980s or later) tend to grow on northfacing slopes in canyon complexes with steep sides (LSA Associates (LSA) 1997; CNDDB 2001). Presumably the more shaded north facing slopes provide a more moist microclimate than slopes facing other directions, while the steepsloped canyon walls increase the likelihood of erosion and landslides in the vicinity. Two potential exceptions to this trend are evident (CNDDB 2001): one population near Tomales, California, is mapped on a southfacing slope, and a relatively nearby population does not appear to grow near any steep sloped canyon walls. Both of these populations are in critical habitat Unit L4, described below. The first population has not been documented since 1983, and its mapped location is precise to a 0.32 km (0.20 mi) radius. This could put its actual location across the canyon on a northfacing slope. The other population is growing in a road cut, which might provide erosional and soil disturbance characteristics similar to those near canyon walls (CNDDB 2001).

Temperatures in the region inhabited by Delphinium luteum are moderated by fog. As a result, the summers are relatively cool and winters are relatively warm compared to inland habitats.

Much of the coastal prairie in this species' range has been grazed by livestock for over a century, and is now characterized by a mixture of nonnative annuals and forbs and native prairie plants. Native plants typically occurring with D. luteum include Arabis blepharophylla (rose rockcress), Calochortus tolmei (Tolmei startulip), Mimulus aurantiacus (orange bush monkeyflower), Dudleya caespitosa (sea lettuce), Polypodium californicum (California polyploidy), Eriogonum parviflorum (sea cliff buckwheat), Toxicodendron diversilobum (poison oak), Romanzoffia californica (California mistmaiden), Hesperevax sparsiflora (evax), Pentagramma triangularis (goldenback fern), and Sedum spathulifolium (broadleaf stonecrop) (CNDDB 2001; J. Koontz, in litt., 2002;). These plants are important indicators of remaining areas of natural habitat that support D. luteum, and are likely to support ecological processes such as water retention, shading, nitrogen processing, and other factors that create suitable habitat conditions for D. luteum.

We know of 12 occurrences of Delphinium luteum, 11 of which are documented in the CNDDB (CNDDB 2001). (The CNDDB defines an ``occurrence'' of a plant species as a location where the species is present and which is separated from other such locations by at least 0.40 kilometer (km) (1/4 mile (mi)). All occurrences of D. bakeri and D. luteum mapped by the CNDDB GIS data layers indicate single populations.) Since the early 1980s, however, only 6 of these 11 occurrences have been documented (reported in the CNDDB or other reputable source). Of the other five occurrences in the CNDDB, three have not been documented since 1935 or earlier (two of which were revisited in the 1980s with negative results), another is based entirely on unsupported and undated information found on a 1979 map, and the fifth is a questionable identification never confirmed by a second sighting (CNDDB 2001). The six occurrences documented more recently in the CNDDB grow in three separate drainages, one in Sonoma County and two in Marin County. These groupings form the basis of three of the four critical habitat units we are proposing (see Units L1, L2 and L4, below). The twelfth occurrence, not yet recorded in the CNDDB, occurs in a third Marin County drainage (Amme 1993; D. Amme, California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), in litt. 2002; D. Amme, pers. comm. 2002), and forms the basis of critical habitat Unit L3, as described below.

Recent surveys have not found many plants in any of these populations. The largest number recorded by CNDDB is 134 plants for one of the Marin County populations in 1993. The total number of remaining individuals of Delphinium luteum currently is estimated at 100 to 175 plants (J. Koontz, in litt., 2002). Each recently documented population faces one or more potential threats to its existence, including overcollection, road widening, inadequately managed sheep grazing, fire suppression, and hybridization with another Delphinium species (B. Guggolz, CNPS, pers. comm., 1995; CNDDB 2001). Additionally, the combination of few populations, small numbers of individuals within each population, narrow range, and restricted habitat makes D. luteum susceptible to extirpation in significant portions of its range from random natural events such as unseasonal fire, drought, disease, or other natural occurrences (Shaffer 1981; Primack 1993).

Previous Federal Action

Federal actions on the two plant species began when the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, as directed by section 12 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), prepared a report on those native U.S. plants considered to be endangered, threatened, or extinct in the United States. This report, known as House Document No. 9451, was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975, and included Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum as species the Smithsonian considered to be endangered. On July 1, 1975, we published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 27823) accepting the report as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3)) of the Act, and of our intention to review the status of the plant taxa named in the report. On June 16, 1976, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (41 FR 24523) determining approximately 1,700 vascular plant species, including D. bakeri and D. luteum, to be endangered species pursuant to section 4 of the Act. We assembled the list of 1,700 plant taxa on the basis of House Document No 9451, our July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication (40 FR 27823), and comments and data received in response to both documents. General comments received in response to the 1976 proposal were summarized in an April 26, 1978, Federal Register publication (43 FR 17909).

In 1978, Congress passed amendments to the Act requiring us to withdraw all listing proposals more than 2 years old. The amendments included a 1year grace period for proposed rules which already were more than 2 years old. On December 10, 1979, we published a notice in the Federal Register (44 FR 70796) withdrawing the portion of the June 16, 1976, proposed rule that had not been made final, along with four other proposals that had expired. We published an updated Notice of Review (NOR) for plants on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This NOR included Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum as ``category 1 candidates'' (defined at that time as species for which data in our
[[Page 12837]]
possession was sufficient to support proposals for listing).

On February 15, 1983, we published a notice in the Federal Register (48 FR 6752) of our prior finding that the listing of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum was warranted but precluded in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, such findings must be recycled annually, until the species is either proposed for listing or the petitioned action is found to be not warranted. Each October from 1983 through 1994, further findings were made that the listing of D. bakeri and D. luteum were warranted, but that the listing of these species was precluded by other pending proposals of higher priority.

On November 28, 1983, we published a supplement to the plant NOR (48 FR 53640). This supplement changed Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum from ``category 1'' to ``category 2 candidates'' (defined at the time as species for which data in our possession indicated listing was possibly appropriate, but for which substantial data on biological vulnerability and threats were not currently known or on file to support proposed rules).

The plant NOR was revised again on September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526). Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum were included as category 2 candidates. Another revision of the plant NOR was published on February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184). In this revision D. bakeri and D. luteum were included as category 1 candidates, and remained as category 1 candidates in the plant NOR published on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144). Upon publication of the February 28, 1996, NOR (61 FR 7596), we ceased using category designations and included D. bakeri and D. luteum as candidate species. We define candidate species as those for which we have on file sufficient information on the biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list them as threatened or endangered. On June 19, 1997, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (62 FR 33383) to list D. bakeri and D. luteum as endangered.

On June 17, 1999, our failure to issue final rules for listing Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum and seven other plant species as endangered or threatened, and our failure to make a final critical habitat determination for the nine species, was challenged in Southwest Center for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bruce Babbitt (Case No. C992992 (N.D.Cal.)). We subsequently published a final rule listing D. bakeri and D. luteum as endangered species on January 26, 2000 (65 FR 4156). On May 22, 2000, the judge signed an order requiring us to propose critical habitat for the two species by September 30, 2001. The court subsequently extended this deadline to June 10, 2002, based on a settlement agreement reached on October 1, 2001 (Center for Biological Diversity, et al., v. Gale Norton, et al. (D.D.C.) (Case. No. Civ. 01 2063)). The agreement also established March 10, 2003, as the date by which we would reach a final critical habitat determination for the species.

We published a proposed critical habitat designation for Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum in the Federal Register on June 18, 2002 (67 FR 41367). Publication of the proposed rule opened a 60day public comment period, which closed on August 19, 2002. On November 1, 2002, we published a notice announcing the availability of our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation (67 FR 66599). The notice opened a public comment period on the draft economic analysis, and reopened the comment period on the proposed critical habitat designation. This second public comment period lasted approximately 30 days, closing on December 2, 2002.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In our June 18, 2002, proposed critical habitat designation (67 FR 41367) we solicited comments from all interested parties on all aspects of the proposed rule, including information related to biological justification, economic impacts, proposed critical habitat boundaries, and proposed projects. In our November 1, 2002, notice of availability for the draft economic analysis (67 FR 66599), we invited comments on the draft analysis and on the proposed critical habitat designation. In addition to these Federal Register publications, we also sent notification letters to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, scientific organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment. We solicited independent peer review of the proposed designation from three botanists with applicable areas of expertise (see Peer Review section below). We also invited public comment through the publication of notices in three local newspapers: the Marin Independent Journal (June 26, 2002), the Santa Rosa Press Democrat (June 27, 2002), and the Point Reyes Light (July 3, 2002).

Seven individuals, including one peer reviewer, responded with comments. One of those individuals initially requested a public hearing, but subsequently decided to meet instead with Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office's Listing Branch personnel to submit his comments verbally. Four of the seven commenters indicated their overall support of the proposed designation, two were neutral, and one was opposed. We have reviewed all the comments we received for substantive issues and new information regarding Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum, and for potential impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation. The comments are addressed in the following summary.
Issue 1: Comments on the Biology of the Species
(1) Comment: One commenter questioned whether Delphinium luteum qualifies as a valid species.

Our Response: Although Jepson (1975) reduced Delphinium luteum to a variety of D. nudicaule, it currently is recognized as a full species (Warnock 1993). Guerrant (1978) proposed, based on morphological, ecological, and chemical characteristics, that D. luteum might have originated as a species from the hybridization of D. nudicaule (red larkspur) and D. decorum (yellowtinge larkspur). However, genetic testing by Koontz et al. (2001) has shown that if this did in fact occur, it was many generations ago, and that naturally occurring D. luteum cannot now be ``recreated'' simply by hybridizing D. nudicaule and D. decorum. Thus, the best available scientific information supports the recognition of D. luteum as a valid species.
(2) Comment: One commenter argued that we lack evidence to conclude, with regard to Delphinium luteum, that ``sheep grazing, fire, water run, rock quarry activities, etc. are a threat, and that there is a need to restrict them * * * The commenter also mentioned a study by Richard Knight of Colorado State University which found grazing land to be an important resource for many native wildlife species.

Our Response: The proposed critical habitat designation included ``unmanaged sheep grazing'' and ``unseasonal fire'' among potential threats faced by Delphinium luteum (67 FR 41367, at 41369), not just ``sheep grazing'' or ``fire.'' We did not list ``water run'' as a threat, and we are not aware of any populations currently being threatened by rock quarrying, although this has threatened populations in the past (Service 2000). The CNDDB (2001) lists sheep grazing as a threat for two of the three largest remaining occurrences of D. luteum, and specifically notes that flowers were
[[Page 12838]]
found to have been chewed off some of the plants. We recognize that properly controlled grazing can often benefit some native species by cropping back competing plants and by providing an incentive to avoid urban or agricultural development, but we also believe that overgrazing remains a threat for this species. The establishment of critical habitat is unlikely to restrict or affect grazing levels unless the activity has the involvement of a Federal agency, such as a permit or funding.
(3) Comment: Another commenter referred to unmanaged sheep grazing as one of the main threats to Delphinium luteum. The commenter argued that the remaining population locations may be limited to the steeper and brushier northfacing slopes specifically because those are the places which sheep find most difficult to reach. This commenter recommended that critical habitat for D. luteum include ``the larger coastal prairie community with all the traversing canyons and watersheds,'' possibly the entire Marin Gap between Bodega Bay and the Bolinas Ridge, to encourage the future establishment of conservation easements that could eventually ease grazing pressures and allow D. luteum populations to expand back outward.

Our Response: We agree that sheep grazing may be a key factor in restricting the species to northfacing slopes in some areas. We want to ensure it is understood, however, that although all but one recently documented population of D. luteum occurs on basically northfacing slopes, the species is not restricted to northfacing slopes. Slopes with other aspects can support the species, they support continuity within the units, and provide a range of microhabitat sites for potential expansion that is necessary for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we have redefined the primary constituent elements of the species to more clearly indicate that slope and aspect are separate requirements. Because areas within the defined units are considered critical habitat if they possess at least one of the primary constituent elements of the species, the treatment of slope and aspect as separate constituent elements will more clearly indicate our intent that critical habitat should include areas within each unit that are either steeply sloping or north aspected. However, we believe the possible historical impacts of sheep grazing on the range of Delphinium luteum are too speculative to support the expansion of the units beyond their current boundaries in the manner suggested by the commenter. (4) Comment: One commenter thought the Delphinium luteum units followed specific soil types too closely and should include more steeply sloped (30 percent or greater) areas with other sandstone or shalebased soil types. He specifically recommended the TocalomaSaurin hillsides within Unit L4 and within the Walker Creek watershed east of Unit L4. He also recommended including sloped areas of Tomales series soils between Units L2 and L3.

Our Response: The reference to Kneeland and Yorkville series soils in the list of primary constituent elements for the species was meant as an example and not a limitation, so the areas in Unit L4 with TocalomaSaurin soils and slopes of 30 percent or greater do contain the primary constitutent element regarding soils, and we consider such areas to be included in our designation of critical habitat in Unit L4.

In response to the recommendation regarding the areas between two of the proposed units, we considered expanding the critical habitat boundaries to include the TocalomaSaurin hillsides along Walker Creek and the Tomales series soils between units L2 and L3. Given our limited current knowledge of the species and its conservation requirements, however, and because we have no records of D. luteum growing in the suggested locations, we have little certainty that these areas would meet the definition of critical habitat (as defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) as areas on which are found physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species. Within the geographical area occupied by the species, we designate only areas currently known to be essential, and consequently we do not believe it is appropriate to include the suggested areas in our designation of critical habitat for D. luteum.

As further described in the section of this preamble entitled ``Critical Habitat'' (below), we recognize that our designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that might eventually be determined to be necessary for the conservation of the species. For these reasons, critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome. Also, as provided for by section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we can revise our designation of critical habitat in the future if it is appropriate to do so.
Issue 2: Site Specific Comments
(5) Comment: Two commenters questioned the validity of the Delphinium luteum occurrence in Unit L3.

Our Response: This occurrence was documented in Amme (1993), and reconfirmed by both discoverers (D. Amme, in litt. 2002; D. Amme, pers comm. 2002; C. Patterson, pers comm. 2003). It was also cited in a plant survey conducted in 1997 (LSA 1997), although that survey did not attempt to directly reconfirm the occurrence's existence. Mr. Amme is a biologist for CalTrans, while Mr. Patterson is a consulting botanist with over 20 years' experience. Although Mr. Amme has indicated some concern that the occurrence may have hybridized to some extent with another species, a small amount of genetic introgression would be unlikely to invalidate the protections of the Act (Service 1996 (61 FR 4710)). Mr. Amme has mentioned to us the possibility that the occurrence could be a yellowflowered hybrid of two other larkspur species: Delphinium nudicaule (red larkspur) and D. decorum (coast larkspur) (D. Amme, in litt., 2003). While this possibility cannot be conclusively ruled out, we believe that given the extremely few D. luteum occurrences remaining, in the absence of evidence to indicate the occurrence is not D. luteum, we must proceed on the assumption that it is. If future evidence demonstrates conclusively that this occurrence is not D. luteum, the critical habitat designation can be revised at that time.
(6) Comment: Two commenters provided information regarding separate areas in Unit L3 that indicates the areas do not contain Delphinium luteum plants or appropriate habitat.

Our Response: Although developed areas such as buildings, roads, or lawns may inadvertently be included within critical habitat boundaries, such areas generally do not have any of the primary constituent elements of the species, and so do not qualify as critical habitat. Where possible we prefer to exclude such areas directly, so we have redrawn Unit L3 to avoid the areas in question. See the ``Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule'' section below.
(7) Comment: A commenter argued that Units L2 and L3 have been actively grazed or farmed for over 100 years and either they do not contain Delphinium
[[Page 12839]]
luteum or else D. luteum can coexist with current land uses, and therefore critical habitat designation in those areas is unnecessary.

Our Response: Maps of grazing impact, habitat quality, and habitat type prepared as part of an ``Overview Summary'' for a planned golf ranch in the area in 1992 show extensive grazing impacts (Marin Coast Associates 1992). However, the maps also show areas with relatively high quality habitat, and the L2 and L3 Delphinium luteum occurrences fall within these areas. Hence, D. luteum apparently can coexist with sheep grazing in areas which are not heavily grazed.

The Act defines critical habitat as areas on which are found physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. We believe that the occurrences in Units L2 and L3 are areas with features essential to the conservation of the species, and we also believe they may need special management considerations to survive despite having persisted to this point, because they remain subject to the various threats as described above. While critical habitat designation imposes no special management requirements on private landowners, it does require Federal agencies to take the species' habitat needs into account whenever their actions might adversely modify the habitat. It also alerts the public to the importance of the area for the species, thereby making it easier for landowners to obtain support or compensation from public or private sources for special management actions they are willing to take. (8) Comment: A commenter stated that Units L2 and L3 need ground truthing to see if Delphinium luteum plants are still there.

Our Response: Based on consideration of the best available information, we have determined that Units L2 and L3 meet the definition of critical habitat. In general, more ground truthing would be helpful, but we are limited by our inability to enter private property without permission. In the case of Units L2 and L3, we have requested permission from one owner but have not received an answer. Ground truthing would be useful to ascertain further the value of the habitat for Delphinium luteum. Plants may be missed if they are not mature and flowering, and a seed bank may be present even when mature plants are not.
Issue 3: Legal and Procedural Comments
(9) Comment: A commenter recommended that we provide more accurate maps of unit boundaries and more background information on field reconnaissance work.

Our Response: The maps we publish are limited by the printing capabilities of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations. We can provide more accurate maps on request, however, as well as answer questions regarding field reconnaissance of particular areas. We also commonly publish maps and information on our Web page, http://sacramento.fws.gov. Because of private property considerations, our field reconnaissance was limited to habitat inspections made from public roads for Units B1, B2, L1, and L4, and at some other historically documented sites for Delphinium luteum which had not been confirmed since the early 1980s.
(10) Comment: A commenter found the comment period too short and asked us to extend it.

Our Response: As detailed above in the Previous Federal Action section, the initial comment period for the proposed rule lasted 60 days, and was followed by a second 30day comment period to allow comment on both the proposed rule and the draft economic analysis. These time periods are within the requirements of our regulations, and we believe they allow a reasonable time for comment. We were unable to reopen the comment period a third time because we are under a court imposed deadline to reach a final critical habitat determination by March 10, 2003.
(11) Comment: One commenter argued that the Act requires us to make a draft economic analysis available prior to proposing critical habitat.

Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to ``designate critical habitat * * * after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.'' We interpret this to mean the economic analysis must precede the final critical habitat designation, not the proposed designation. It would not be possible for us to weigh the economic impacts of a designation which we had not yet proposed, since the projected costs of critical habitat depend on the location and size of the areas which may be designated. We made the draft economic analysis available for review, and accepted comments on it, from November 1 to December 2, 2002.
(12) Comment: A commenter pointed out that we had not provided a map showing the locations of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum occurrences, or the number of plants and date observed for each occurrence.

Our Response: We have access to much of this information through a use agreement with the CNDDB database, compiled and maintained by the CDFG. We do not believe it would be prudent for us to publish the exact locations of these plants because we might thereby facilitate collection or vandalism of them. We can provide more accurate maps on request, however, as well as answer questions regarding field reconnaissance of particular areas.
(13) Comment: A commenter argued that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires us to complete an Environmental Impact Report for this critical habitat designation because it could result in a change in agricultural use.

Our Response: CEQA only applies to discretionary projects of State or local public agencies (Cal. Pub. Res. Code Sec. Sec. 21063, 21080(a)).
(14) Comment: A commenter who had difficulty accessing the economic analysis on our website claimed this constituted a failure to make the information readily accessible, in violation of the Federal Data Quality Act. The commenter clarified in a separate email that he was referring to the Service Information Quality Guidelines.

Our Response: The Information Quality Guidelines (Guidelines) (67 FR 64407) concern the accuracy of information disseminated by our agency. They are not violated by a failure of our ability to disseminate the information over the Internet on a particular day. Additionally, the Guidelines are intended to improve the internal management of information quality and do not create an enforceable legal right or benefit (67 FR 64407). The notice of availability of the draft economic analysis which we published in the Federal Register (67 FR 22404) provided contact information for personnel from our office who could have provided assistance.
Issue 4: Comments on the Economic Analysis
(15) Comment: A commenter stated that critical habitat designation causes a loss in property values which the economic analysis fails to take into account. The commenter suggested that the analysis might have quantified some of the lost land value by totaling the number of acres of grazing land affected, since such lands have a specific grazing value per acre. The commenter also stated that the economic analysis did not attempt to quantify ``the most basic economic effects a critical habitat designation will cause.''

[[Page 12840]]

Our Response: The commenter suggested that critical habitat designation and Federal listing restricts grazing activities which, in turn, reduces property values. In this situation, grazing activities are not expected to be changed by critical habitat designation or Federal listing because there are no section 7 requirements triggered specifically by private landowner grazing activities in the areas being designated as critical habitat. Although the implementation of section 7 regulations is not likely to reduce the value of land designated as critical habitat, uncertainty about the scope and impact of the designation may cause the areas to be temporarily stigmatized. Because public uncertainty about the section 7 process is often heightened immediately after critical habitat designation, stigma associated with the proposed designation may cause a reduction in a willingnesstopay for the land. This, in turn, can result in a reduced land value. By definition, stigma effects are associated with perceived regulatory or landvalue effects as opposed to actual regulatory or landvalue effects. As explained in the final economic analysis, once the public understands the actual effect of critical habitat, any stigma associated with the area may be greatly reduced or even disappear. While stigma effects are solely attributable to critical habitat designation, the impacts are generally difficult to quantify. Therefore, a count of grazing acres within critical habitat would not have helped to quantify property values lost due to stigma effects.

Critical habitat designation and Federal listing of species do not impose on a private landowner any additional costs if future land uses are not changed by the designation and listing. The economic analysis concluded that because of county land use restrictions, no future development would occur in the areas we are designating as critical habitat. The county land use restrictions are independent of our designation of critical habitat. No section 7 consultation requirements are expected to be triggered within Marin County habitat units due to development.

The commenter also stated that the economic analysis did not attempt to quantify ``the most basic economic effects a critical habitat designation will cause.'' The intent of this statement is not entirely clear to us, and it may have been meant to reiterate the point discussed above, namely that the concern the economic analysis did not quantify possible losses in property value. Alternatively, the comment may be interpreted as being intended to point out that the economic benefits of critical habitat designation remained unquantified in the analysis, so we also are responding to that possible concern. We typically report all quantified benefits of critical habitat designation if there are peer reviewed and published studies estimating benefits, and if these studies use a relatively sound methodology. Because no such studies exist for Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum, the draft economic analysis discusses these benefits in qualitative terms, but does not provide a numerical estimate of their value. The section of this preamble entitled ``Critical Habitat'' (below) also addresses the benefits of designating critical habitat.
(16) Comment: A commenter stated that the draft economic analysis did not consider additional development plans in the designated critical habitat units located in Marin County.

Our Response: We consulted with officials of the Marin County Community Development Department (CDD) in an effort to obtain the most current and comprehensive information about the likelihood of future planned and proposed development within areas that were proposed for critical habitat. CDD officials confirmed that no development applications had been submitted for the critical habitat units in Marin County, and that future development is unlikely due to lack of utility infrastructure, distance to jobs and basic supplies, and agricultural zoning restrictions established by the Marin County General Plan. (17) Comment: Two commenters mentioned that the economic analysis failed to account for costs associated with the treatment of critical habitat by State and local requirements such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the general plan for Marin County.

Our Response: The comments could be interpreted as expressing concern over the potential costs to landowners, or the concern may have been the potential costs to State and local governments of revising documents such as the county general plan to reflect critical habitat designation. We are responding to both of these potential
interpretations. Critical habitat designation is not likely to affect the content or implementation of Marin County's General Plan, nor will it result in additional review under CEQA. Zoning and land use designations were determined prior to the proposed designation of critical habitat, and our rulemaking is unlikely to trigger any revisions of the General Plan. According to section 15065 (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3) of CEQA guidelines, an environmental impact report (EIR) is required by local lead agencies, when, among other things, a project has the potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species.'' Although federally listed species are presumed to meet the CEQA definition of ``endangered, rare or threatened species'' under section 15380 (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3), few additional constraints should result from the designation of critical habitat beyond those now in place as a result of the earlier listing of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum as endangered species. Only if loss or degradation of the proposed project site's habitat resources (viewed comprehensively) are determined to be significant will significant impacts to habitat be analyzed and mitigation, where feasible, be planned as part of a project. Because officials from the CDD confirmed that no new development applications are anticipated for the proposed Marin County habitat units, no EIRs are likely to be prepared. Therefore, neither landowners nor State or local governments are likely to experience additional costs anticipated by the commenters. (18) Comment: A commenter questioned why the draft economic analysis does not account for impacts of critical habitat designation on existing land uses such as stock pond maintenance and quarry operations.

Our Response: Federal assistance for stock pond maintenance is sponsored by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), an agency in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). However, no consultations have occurred with the Service in the past for NRCS programs that provide assistance for stock pond maintenance. Therefore, based on the consultation history, this analysis assumes that the NRCS will continue its current operating procedures and is unlikely to consult with us on these types of activities in the future. As stated in the draft economic analysis, other programs sponsored by NRCS, namely technical and financial assistance to landowners for erosion and flood control projects, have a consultation history, and economic impacts of section 7 regulations for those activities have been estimated.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), that a private landowner obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program permit for any quarry operation that may result in a point source discharge of a pollutant into waters of
[[Page 12841]]
the United States. The commenter gave no specific mention of actual quarries, and, after consulting with an official at Region 2 of the California Water Quality Control Board, we are not aware of any quarries on or near the habitat units proposed for Marin County. Hence, no consultations or project modifications are likely to occur as no plans exist for additional quarries.
(19) Comment: A commenter thought the economic analysis should include the cost of suing us for improperly designating critical habitat.

Our Response: We have followed all of the legal requirements pertaining to the designation of critical habitat and believe we have made the designation properly, and consequently do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to engage in speculation regarding the potential for litigation and costs that might be associated with it. It is possible that litigation may be initiated in response to the rulemaking and if that happens, the court will determine whether the plaintiff(s) should be reimbursed for any of the costs of litigation, and if so, what the level of reimbursement should be.
(20) Comment: A commenter thought we should try to balance the economic impacts of the designation against the benefit to the species.

Our Response: In designating critical habitat, section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to take into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat, and allows us to exclude any area if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless we determine that the failure to designate such an area will result in the extinction of the species. We have estimated the costs associated with the critical habitat designation in our economic analysis, and do not find that the benefits of exclusion, as indicated by the avoided costs, would outweigh the benefits to the species of designating the six units of critical habitat.

Peer Review

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited independent opinions from three knowledgeable individuals with expertise in one or several fields, including familiarity with the species, familiarity with the geographic region in which the species occurs, and familiarity with the principles of conservation biology. One of the three reviewers responded, providing us with comments that are summarized here.

Overall the peer reviewer supported the designation, finding that the proposed rule ``is well written and appears justified'' (J. Koontz, in litt., 2002). He provided us with information regarding further habitat southeast of Unit L1 which appears to contain the primary constituent elements for Delphinium luteum. Although we do not believe that, in the absence of any new occurrences of the plant, the extension of the unit to include this area is essential to the conservation of the species at this time, we will keep the area in mind while developing a recovery plan. We will evaluate the value of this area for species recovery during the development of the recovery plan for these species.

The peer reviewer also suggested certain changes and additions which we have incorporated into the Background, Primary Constituent Elements, and Critical Habitat Designation sections of the rule, as appropriate. These changes include an updated estimate of the number of plants remaining, a more inclusive list of community associates for Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum, information regarding the mowing of the D. bakeri population in May 2002, and information regarding the possible hybrid origin of D. luteum. He also included updated or corrected citations for some of the points made in the proposed rule, and provided useful background information and opinion, such as contact information for other species experts and an overview of the costs and benefits to the species of designating critical habitat in the amounts proposed. Finally, he emphasized the importance of field reconnaissance and questioned the extent to which we were able do this for the proposed units. We addressed this comment in our responses to comments 8 and 9.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

In response to comment 3 (above) we redefined the primary constituent elements of the species to more clearly indicate that slope and aspect are separate requirements. Based on comment 6 (above), we refined our mapping with the result of eliminating approximately 24 ha (60 ac) of land proposed to be designated for Unit L3. The eliminated areas include the northernmost peninsular area of the unit, which contains several buildings and is heavily silted, and another peninsular area at the southwestern end of the unit, which contains a wastewater treatment and disposal system. These areas do not contain Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum plants, nor do they contain the primary constituent elements for these species. We have also incorporated changes suggested by our peer reviewer (see Peer Review section above). Critical Habitat

Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed in accordance with section 4 of this Act, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. ``Conservation,'' as defined by the Act, means the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies shall, in consultation with us, insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 7 also requires conferences on Federal actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Aside from the added protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical habitat. Consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply to activities on private or other nonFederal lands that do not involve a Federal nexus, and consequently critical habitat designation does not afford any additional regulatory protection under the Act under those circumstances.

Critical habitat also provides nonregulatory benefits to the species by informing the public and private sectors of areas that are important for species recovery, and where conservation actions would be most effective. Designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas that contain the physical and biological features essential for the conservation of that species, and can alert the public, as well as landmanaging agencies, to the importance of those areas. Critical [[Page 12842]]
habitat also identifies areas that may require special management considerations or protection, and may help provide protection to areas where significant threats to the species have been identified, by helping people to avoid causing accidental damage to such areas.

In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). Section 3(5)(C) of the Act states that not all areas that can be occupied by a species should be designated as critical habitat unless the Secretary determines that all such areas are essential to the conservation of the species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(e)) also state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by the species only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.''

Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat based on what we know at the time of designation. Habitat is often dynamic and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that our designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary for the conservation of the species. For these reasons, critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Areas that support newly discovered populations in the future, but are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented by Federal agencies under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the section 9 prohibitions, as determined on the basis of the best available information at the time of the action. Federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Within the geographical area occupied by the species, we will designate only areas currently known to be essential. Essential areas should already have the features and habitat characteristics that are necessary to sustain the species. We will not speculate about what areas might be found to be essential if better information became available, or what areas may become essential over time. If the information available at the time of designation does not show that an area provides essential life cycle needs of the species, then the area should not be included in the critical habitat designation. Within the geographical area occupied by the species, we will attempt to avoid designating areas that do not now have the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b), which provide essential life cycle needs of the species. However, we may be restricted by our minimum mapping unit or mapping scale.

Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides guidance to ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial data available. It requires our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of information should, at a minimum, be the listing package for the species. Additional information may be obtained from a recovery plan, articles in peerreviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments or other unpublished materials, and discussions with experts.

Methods

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we used the best scientific information available to determine areas that contain the physical and biological features that are essential for the conservation of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum. We reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat requirements of these species, including data from research and survey observations; regional Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages (e.g., soils, known locations, vegetation, land ownership); information from herbarium collections such as CalFlora ((http://www.calflora.org); from herbarium collections such as CalFlora ((/i.p/outbound/www.calflora.org">www.calflora.org); data from CNDDB (2001); and data collected from projectspecific and other miscellaneous reports submitted to us. This included information from our final rule listing D. bakeri and D. luteum as endangered (65 FR 4156), the CNDDB (2001), soil survey maps (SCS 1972, 1985), certified soil GIS layers for Marin County, geologic formation maps, 1993 digital orthophotoquarterquads, and discussions with botanical experts who have worked closely with these plant species. We also conducted site visits at one historical occurrence of D. bakeri and five historical occurrences of D. luteum as well as one extant occurrence of D. bakeri and three extant occurrences of D. luteum (to the extent we could visit the habitat without going onto private land). Mapping

We delineated the critical habitat units by using data layers in a GIS format with all the known Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum occurrences from the CNDDB (2001) and other sources (D. Amme, in litt., 2002, pers. comm., 2002). We created additional data layers to reflect vegetation types using aerial photographs, GIS data for Marin soils (Natural Resource Conservation Service 2001), and recent development using satellite imagery (CNES/SPOT Image Corporation 2001). We created an additional data layer by digitizing Kneeland soils data for Sonoma County from a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) soil survey (1972). These data layers were laid over a base of USGS 3.75' digital

orthophotographic quarter quadrangle images.

In designating critical habitat, we made an effort to avoid developed areas such as houses, intensive agricultural areas (such as row crops, vineyards, and orchards), and lands unlikely to contain the primary constituent elements for Delphinium bakeri or D. luteum. However, we did not map critical habitat in sufficient detail to exclude all developed areas. Developed areas within the boundaries of the mapped units, such as buildings, lawns, roads, parking lots, and other paved areas will not contain one or more of the primary constituent elements. Federal actions limited to these areas, therefore, would not trigger consultation relative to critical habitat under section 7 of the Act unless they affect the species, or affect primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
[[Page 12843]]

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas to propose as critical habitat, we consider those physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and generally;
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) further direct that when considering the designation of critical habitat, we are to focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements within the defined area that are essential to the conservation of the species, and we are to list known primary constituent elements with the critical habitat description. Our regulations describe known primary constituent elements in terms that are more specific than the description of physical and biological features. Specifically, primary constituent elements may include, but are not limited to, the following: roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water quality or quantity, host species of plant pollinator, geological formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types.

All areas identified as critical habitat for Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum are within the historical range and contain one or more of the primary constituent elements that we have identified, based on the best available scientific information, as essential for the conservation of the species.

Much of what is known about the specific physical and biological requirements of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum is described in the Background section of this final rule. The designated critical habitat is designed to provide sufficient habitat to maintain selfsustaining populations of D. bakeri and D. luteum throughout their ranges, and to provide those habitat components essential for the conservation of these species. These habitat components provide for: (1) Space for individual and population growth, including areas that allow gene flow and provide connectivity or linkage between populations including open spaces and disturbed areas that in some instances may also contain nonnative plant species; (2) areas that provide basic requirements for growth such as water, light, minerals; (3) sites for germination, pollination, reproduction, and seed dispersal; (4) areas that support populations of pollinators and seed dispersal organisms; and (5) habitats that are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of each species.

We believe the conservation of Delphinium bakeri and D. luteum is dependent upon a number of factors, including the conservation and management of sites where existing populations grow, the establishment of D. bakeri at a new location to provide insurance against stochastic (randomly occurring) events, the maintenance of normal ecological functions within these sites, and the preservation of the connectivity between sites to maintain recent levels of gene flow between sites through pollinator activity and seed dispersal agents. The areas we are designating as critical habitat provide some or all of the habitat components essential for the conservation of these two species.

Based on our knowledge to date, the primary constituent elements of critical habitat for Delphinium bakeri consist of:
(1) Soils that are derived from decomposed shale;
(2) Plant communities that support associated species, including, but not limited to: Umbellularia californica (California bay), Aesculus californica (California buckeye), and Quercus agrifolia (coastal live oak), Baccharis pulularis ssp. consanguinea (coyotebrush), Symphorcarpos cf. rivularis (snowberry), Rubus ursinus (California blackberry), Pteridium aqulinum (braken fern), Polystichum munitum (sword fern), Pityrogramma triangularis (goldback fern), Dryopteris arguta (coastal woodfern), Adiantum jordanii (maidenhair fern), Polypodium glycyrrhiza (licorice fern), Toxicodendron diversilobum (poison oak), Ceanothus thyrsiflorus (blueblossom ceanothus), Lithophragma affine (woodland star), and Holodiscus discolor (oceanspray); and
(3) Mesic (modera

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Glen Tarr or Susan Moore, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at the above address (telephone 916/4146600; facsimile 916/4146710).