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

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: October 24, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 206)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65413-65445]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24oc02-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AG75

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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

[[Page 65415]]

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

[[Page 65416]]

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

Previous Federal Action

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

[[Page 65417]]

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

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

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

Issue 1: Biological Justification and Methodology

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

[[Page 65418]]

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

[[Page 65419]]

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

Issue 2: Economic Comments

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

[[Page 65420]]

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

Issue 3: Site-Specific Areas and Other Comments

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

[[Page 65421]]

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

[[Page 65422]]

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

Issue 4: Legal and Procedural Comments

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

[[Page 65423]]

habitat. Once consultation is complete, Fort Hunter Liggett will not
need to reinitiate it unless their proposed actions have changed or new
information becomes available on the species that would warrant a re-
evaluation. The population of Chlorogalum pupureum var. purpureum found
in Fort Hunt Liggett has survived in the midst of military training.
There is little basis for expecting this circumstance will change in
the absence of a critical habitat designation, particularly in light of
the fact that the military and the Service are developing an INRMP to
ensure special management. Conversely, the cost of disruption of
military training is large in terms of both additional expenditures and
adverse impacts to military readiness.
Comment 22: Eleven commenters recommended that the Service initiate
section 7 consultation with the Army as soon as possible, and on an
ongoing basis.
Our Response Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies
to consult with the Service to insure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of habitat determined to be critical to a species.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Army Reserve, the CANG, and
LPNF to initiate consultation with the Service for those actions that
may jeopardize the continued existence of Chlorogalum purpureum.
Comment 23: Based on survey results, eleven commenters suggested
that changes in the critical habitat designation should be considered
on an ongoing basis.
Our Response We have taken into account additional information,
including additional survey results, that were provided to us during
the comment period on the proposed rule. We will continue to monitor
and collect new information and may revise the critical habitat
designation in the future if new information supports a change.
Comment 24: One commenter suggested that it is possible that the
proposed designation has minimized the review of scientific data
available at the installations in an attempt to comply with court-
ordered schedules.
Our Response We disagree with this comment. We agree that we are
required under a court approved settlement agreement to finalize this
critical habitat designation by October 11, 2002. When developing any
listing proposal or proposed critical habitat designation we use the
best information available at the time, and solicit information from a
variety of sources. We use information from Federal and State agencies,
consultants, and researchers during the development of the proposal.
When available, we incorporate information from recovery plans as well.
These plans often have information that was not available at the time a
species was listed. Comments received on the proposed designation, the
draft economic analysis, and additional information received during the
comment periods have been taken into account in the development of this
final determination.

Peer Review

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

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 65424]]

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

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations
or protection; and, (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are
necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at
which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult
with the Service to ensure that any action it authorizes, funds, or
carries out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of habitat determined to be critical to a species. Section
7 of the Act also requires conferences on Federal actions that are
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed
critical habitat. In our regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define
destruction or adverse modification as ``a direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat
for both the survival and recovery of a listed species. Such
alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations adversely
modifying any of those physical or biological features that were the
basis for determining the habitat to be critical.'' Aside from the
added protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not
provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical
habitat. Because consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply
to activities on private or other non-Federal lands that do not involve
a Federal nexus, critical habitat designation would not afford any
additional protections under the Act against such activities.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must
first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Critical
habitat designations identify (to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available) habitat areas that provide
essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are
found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR
424.12(b)).
Section 4 requires that we designate critical habitat for a
species, to the extent such habitat is determinable, at the time of
listing. When we designate critical habitat at the time of listing or
under short court-ordered deadlines, we will not often have sufficient
information to identify all areas essential for the conservation of the
species. Nevertheless, we are required to designate those areas we know
to be critical habitat, using the best information available.
Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we will
designate only areas currently known to be essential to the
conservation of the species. We will not speculate about what areas
might be found to be essential if better information becomes available,
or what areas may become essential over time. If the information
available at the time of designation does not show that an area
provides essential life-cycle needs of the species, then the area will
not be included in the critical habitat designation. Within the
geographic area occupied by the species, we will not designate areas
that do not now have the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50
CFR 424.12(b), which provide essential life cycle needs of the species.
However, we may be restricted by minimum mapping unit or map scale.
Our regulations state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as
critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied
by the species only when a designation limited to its present range
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species'' (50 CFR
424.12(e)). Accordingly, we will not designate critical habitat in
areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species when the best
available scientific and commercial data do not demonstrate that the
conservation needs of the species require designation of those areas.
Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271),
provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides guidance to
ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial
data available. It requires our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of
information should, at a minimum, be the listing rule for the species.
Additional information may be obtained from a recovery plan, articles
in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and
counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological
assessments, unpublished materials, and expert opinions.
Habitat is often dynamic, and populations may move from one area to
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may
eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, it should be understood that critical
habitat designations do not suggest that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Areas
outside the critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to
conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) and
to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard and the prohibitions of section 9, as determined on the basis
of the best available information at the time of the action. We
specifically anticipate that federally funded or assisted projects
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly,
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information to these
planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

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

[[Page 65425]]

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

Primary Constituent Elements

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

[[Page 65426]]

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

Site Selection

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

Special Management Considerations or Protections

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

[[Page 65427]]

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

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

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

[[Page 65428]]

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

Critical Habitat Designation

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

[[Page 65429]]

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

Jolon Unit

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

Camatta Canyon Unit

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

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

[[Page 65430]]

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

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do
not destroy or adversely modify a species' critical habitat to the
extent that the action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical
habitat for the conservation of the species. Individuals,
organizations, States, local governments, and other non-Federal
entities are affected by the designation of critical habitat only if
their actions occur on Federal lands, require a Federal permit,
license, or other authorization, or involve Federal funding.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is designated or proposed. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitat. Conference reports provide
conservation recommendations to assist the action agency in eliminating
conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The conservation
recommendations in a conference report are advisory. We may issue a
formal conference report, if requested by the Federal action agency.
Formal conference reports include an opinion that is prepared according
to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species was listed or critical habitat
designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as the biological
opinion when the species is listed or critical habitat designated, if
no substantial new information or changes in the action alter the
content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). If a Federal action may
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with us.
Through this consultation, we would ensure that the permitted actions
do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we also provide ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to the
project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives
are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during
consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the
intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of
the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are
economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director
believes would avoid the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from
slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the
project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent
alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed if those actions may affect designated
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical
habitat.
Activities on Federal lands that may affect Chlorogalum purpureum
or its critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. Activities
on private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency,
such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act or any other activity requiring
Federal action (i.e., funding, authorization) will also continue to be
subject to the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not
affecting listed species or critical habitat, as well as actions on
non-Federal lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or
permitted, will not require section 7 consultation.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly describe and
evaluate in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely
modify such habitat or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat would
be those that alter the primary constituent elements to the extent that
the value of critical habitat for the conservation of Chlorogalum
purpureum is appreciably reduced. We note that such activities may also
jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Activities that,
when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, may
directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify critical habitat
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Destruction of grassland, oak woodland, and oak savannah
communities, and open areas found within shrubland communities,
including but not limited to, introduction of nonnative species, heavy
recreational use, maintenance of an unnatural fire regime, development,
road maintenance, agricultural activities, discing, mowing, or
chaining;
(2) Unmanaged soil compaction or disturbance of upper soil
surfaces. These activities include, but are not limited to, grazing,
fire management, or mechanical disturbance such as by vehicles with
tracks or heavy wheels, and trampling by livestock and people; and,
(3) Unmanaged application or runoff of pesticides, herbicides,
fertilizers, or other chemical or biological agents.
To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may
affect a listed species. Section 7 ensures that actions funded,
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or
adversely modify the listed

[[Page 65431]]

species' critical habitat. Actions likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species are those that would appreciably reduce the
likelihood of the species' survival and recovery, and actions likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that would
appreciably reduce the value of critical habitat for the survival and
recovery of the listed species.
Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on
both survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of
these definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species
concerned, particularly when the area of the proposed action is
occupied by the species concerned. The units we are designating are
occupied by either above-ground plants or a Chlorogalum purpureum seed
bank. Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas
where the species may be present to ensure that their actions do not
jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The units also
contain some areas which are considered unoccupied. However, we believe
for those areas we have ultimately identified as critical habitat, that
the designation of critical habitat is not likely to result in a
significant regulatory burden above that already in place due to the
presence of the listed species. Few additional consultations are likely
to be conducted due to the designation of critical habitat. Actions on
which Federal agencies consult with us include, but are not limited to:
(1) Development on private lands requiring permits from Federal
agencies, such as authorization from the Corps, pursuant to section 404
of the Clean Water Act, or a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the
Service, or some other Federal action that includes Federal funding
that will subject the action to the section 7 consultation process
(e.g., from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, or the Department of Housing and Urban Development);
(2) Military activities of the U.S. Department of Defense (Army
Reserve) on their lands or lands under their jurisdiction;
(3) Activities of the Forest Service on their lands or lands under
their jurisdiction;
(4) The release or authorization of release of biological control
agents by the U.S. Department of Agriculture;
(5) Regulation of activities affecting point source pollution
discharges into waters of the United States by the Environmental
Protection Agency under section 402 of the Clean Water Act; and
(6) Construction of communication sites licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission, and authorization of Federal grants or
loans.
Where federally-listed wildlife species occur on private lands
proposed for development, any Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)
submitted by the applicant to secure a permit to take, according to
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, would be subject to the section 7
consultation process. Several other species that are listed under the
Act have been documented to occur in the same general areas as the
current distribution of Chlorogalum purpureum. Listed wildlife species
identified either on Fort Hunter Liggett or in close proximity to this
area include San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), vernal pool
fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), California red-legged frog (Rana
aurora draytonii), arroyo toad (Bufo californicus), bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), California condor (Gymnogyps
californianus), and least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). The
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum californiense), a
candidate wildlife species (taxon for which the Service has sufficient
biological information to support a proposal to list as endangered or
threatened), has also been documented at Fort Hunter Liggett. Species
that are listed under the Act that may occur in the same general area
as C. p. var. reductum include vernal pool fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy
shrimp (Branchinecta longientenna), California red-legged frog, and
California condor.
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will
likely constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the
Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section). Requests for copies of the regulations on listed wildlife and
inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Regional Office, 911 NE 11th
Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 (503/231-6131, FAX 503/231-6243).

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Military Lands

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

[[Page 65432]]

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

Economic Analysis

As stated above, section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to
designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial information available and to consider the economic and other
relevant impacts of designating a particular area as critical habitat.
Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat
designation, a draft economic analysis was prepared to estimate the
potential economic effect of the designation. The draft analysis was
made publicly available for review on May 7, 2002 (67 FR 30644). We
accepted comments on the draft analysis through June 6, 2002.

[[Page 65433]]

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

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

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

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

[[Page 65434]]

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

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

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

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended
the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In this rule, we are certifying that the critical habitat
designation for Chlorogalum purpureum will not have a significant
effect on a substantial number of small entities. The following
discussion explains our rationale.
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent
non-profit organizations, small governmental jurisdictions, including
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents, as well as small businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule would affect a substantial number of small
entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing development,
grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting, etc.). We apply the
``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine
if certification is appropriate. In some circumstances, especially with
critical habitat designations of limited extent, we may aggregate
across all industries and consider whether the total number of small
entities affected is substantial. In estimating the numbers of small
entities potentially affected, we also consider whether their
activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by
critical habitat designation. In areas where the species may be
present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities that they fund, permit, or implement
that may affect Chlorogalum purpureum. Federal agencies also must
consult with us if their activities may affect critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat therefore, could result in an
additional economic impact on small entities due to the requirement to
reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities. However, since
C. purpureum was proposed for listing we have conducted only one formal
consultation with Fort Hunter Liggett and one with LPNF. We are
currently in the process of preparing two biological opinions for C. p.
var. purpureum. None of the past or ongoing consultations involves an
applicant that qualifies as a small entity.
In the draft economic analysis, we found that the proposed
designation could potentially impose total economic costs for
consultations and modifications to projects within proposed critical
habitat for Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum on privately-owned
land up to $12,000 over a 10-year period in the

[[Page 65435]]

Jolon Unit (formerly Fort Hunter Liggett Unit) and up to $2,000 over a
10-year period in the Camp Roberts Unit. We also found the proposed
designation could potentially impose total economic costs for
consultations and modifications to projects within proposed critical
habitat for C. p. var. reductum on privately-owned land up to $14,000
over a 10-year period in the Camatta Canyon Unit.
For the final designation, the Service has concluded that the
proposed lands within the boundaries of Camp Roberts, as discussed in
the ``Relationship of Critical Habitat to Military Lands'' section of
this rule, do not meet the definition of critical habitat under section
3(5)(A) of the Act. Therefore, any projects or activities on these
lands will not be subject to consultations as a result of critical
habitat designation for Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum and the
estimated cost of up to $2,000 over a 10-year period for private lands
in the Camp Roberts Unit would no longer be applicable.
While SBREFA does not explicitly define either ``substantial
number'' or ``significant effect,'' the Small Business Administration,
as well as other Federal agencies, have interpreted these terms to
represent an impact on 20 percent or greater of the number of small
entities in any industry and an effect equal to three percent or more
of a business' annual sales. In determining whether this rule could
``significantly affect a substantial number of small entities,'' the
economic analysis first determined whether critical habitat could
potentially affect a ``substantial number'' of small entities in
counties supporting critical habitat areas.
On Federal lands included in this proposed critical habitat
designation, grazing is the only activity identified as possibly having
an economic effect on small entities. Currently, there is only one
grazing permittee at LPNF out of all Federal lands included in this
rule, and there is no indication that other entities will apply for
grazing permits in the foreseeable future. This does not represent a
substantial number of small grazing entities. The grazing permittee at
LPNF is for the Navajo Allotment in the Santa Lucia Ranger District.
Only a portion of critical habitat lies within this grazing allotment.
The draft economic analysis and final addendum address the potential
costs associated with activities taking place in LPNF, totaling
approximately $38,000 to all parties including LPNF, the Service, and
private landowners.
Most of the remainder of the proposed designation is on private
land. On private lands, activities that lack Federal involvement would
not be affected by the critical habitat designation. Current activities
of an economic nature that occur on private lands in the area
encompassed by this proposed designation are primarily agricultural,
such as live-stock grazing and farming. Because these areas are zoned
rural and not near cities or towns, multiple-unit residential or
commercial development is unlikely. Therefore, Federal agencies such as
the Economic Development Administration, which is occasionally involved
in funding municipal projects elsewhere, are unlikely to be involved in
projects in these areas. In rural regions of San Luis Obispo and
Monterey counties, previous consultations under section 7 of the Act
between us and other Federal agencies most frequently involved the
Corps or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). In FHWA
consultations, the applicant is either the California State Department
of Transportation or the County, neither of which is considered a small
entity as defined here. Corps consultations involve wetlands or
waterways and occur due to the presence of species (or their critical
habitat) that spend at least part of their life in aquatic habitats.
Chlorogalum purpureum is an upland plant species and unlikely to be the
subject of consultations with the Corps. In agricultural areas, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) occasionally funds
activities on farms or ranches that require consultation with us. These
consultations are infrequent, however. In the last decade, in all of
Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties combined, the NRCS has completed
only four formal consultations with the Service. NRCS is currently
initiating two additional formal consultations, although neither
involve C. purpureum. San Luis Obispo and Monterey counties encompass
about 4 million acres of land and support over 40 listed species. Based
on the low level of past activity, we expect few, if any, consultations
with the NRCS or other federal agencies on the approximately 4,821
acres of non-federal lands in this rule. For these reasons, the Service
determines that the number of small entities likely to be affected by
this rule will not be substantial.
In general, two different mechanisms in section 7 consultations
could lead to additional regulatory requirements for any small
businesses that may be required to consult with us regarding their
project's impact on Chlorogalum purpureum and its critical habitat.
First, if we conclude, in a biological opinion, that a proposed action
is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species or
adversely modify its critical habitat, we can offer ``reasonable and
prudent alternatives.'' Reasonable and prudent alternatives are
alternative actions that can be implemented in a manner consistent with
the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
that are economically and technologically feasible, and that would
avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or
resulting in adverse modification of critical habitat. A Federal agency
and an applicant may elect to implement a reasonable and prudent
alternative associated with a biological opinion that has found
jeopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat. An agency or
applicant could alternatively choose to seek an exemption from the
requirements of the Act or proceed without implementing the reasonable
and prudent alternative. However, unless an exemption were obtained,
the Federal agency or applicant would be at risk of violating section
7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed without implementing the
reasonable and prudent alternatives. Second, if we find that a proposed
action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed
animal species, we may identify reasonable and prudent measures
designed to minimize the amount or extent of take and require the
Federal agency or applicant to implement such measures through non-
discretionary terms and conditions. We may also identify discretionary
conservation recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse
effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat,
help implement recovery plans, or to develop information that could
contribute to the recovery of the species.
Based on our experience with consultations pursuant to section 7 of
the Act for all listed species, virtually all projects--including those
that, in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or
adverse modification determinations in section 7 consultations--can be
implemented successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and
prudent alternatives. These measures, by definition, must be
economically feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal
agency involved in the consultation. As we have a very limited
consultation history for Chlorogalum purpureum, we can only describe
the general kinds of actions that may be identified in future
reasonable and prudent alternatives. These are based on our
understanding of the needs of the species and the threats

[[Page 65436]]

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

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

In the economic analysis, we determined whether designation of
critical habitat would cause (a) any effect on the economy of $100
million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or
geographic regions, or (c) any significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. Refer to the final economic analysis for a discussion of
the effects of this determination.

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

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

Executive Order 13211

On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Although this rule is
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for Chlorogalum purpureum in a takings
implication assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes
that this final rule does not pose significant takings implications.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat in
areas currently occupied by Chlorogalum purpureum would have little
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities.
The designations may have some benefit to these governments in that the
areas essential to the conservation of these species are more clearly
defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary
to the survival of the species are identified. While making this
definition and identification does not alter where and what federally
sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these local governments
in long-range planning, rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7
consultation to occur.

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the
Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does
not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have designated critical
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act. The rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the
primary constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the
public in understanding the habitat needs of Chlorogalum purpureum.

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

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

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive

[[Page 65437]]

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

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others,
is available upon request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

2. In Sec. 17.12(h) revise the entry for Chlorogalum purpureum
under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' to read as follows:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * *
Chlorogalum purpureum............ Purple amole U.S.A. (CA)........ Liliaceae--Lily.... T 689 17.96(a) NA
(Camatta Canyon
amole).

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.

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

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 65438]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR24OC02.002
[[Page 65439]]

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

[[Page 65440]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR24OC02.003
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 65441]]

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

[[Page 65442]]

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

[[Page 65443]]

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

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 65444]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR24OC02.004
[[Page 65445]]

* * * * *

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

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Local Navigation