Upload File

federal register i vol 59, no. 22 i wednesday. february 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · federal...

  • Home
  • Documents
  • Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845
23
Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845 filing * separate transmittal letter (see § 1312.4(b) of this part). the title page of every activating range tariff shall provide the name, title and phone number of the party authorized to submit the publication for filing with the Commission, and the fee account number established for the filing carrier or agent~ Or - (ii) Two copies of each activating tariff transmitted by hand in accordance with the requirements of § 1312.3 and 1312.4(a) and (b) of this part. (d) Except as expressly provided in this section, range tariffs are subject to the provisions of §~ 1312.1 through 1312.40 of this part. Decided: January 10. 1994 By the Commission. Chairman McDonald. ViceChairman Simmons, Commissioners Phillips, and Philbin. Commissioner Phillips concurred In part and dissented in part with a separate expression. Sidney L Strickland. Jr., Secretaiy. IFR Doc. 94—2358 Filed 2—1—94; 8:45 am) Bn.UNO COOS 7035-O%- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AA95 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Least Befl’s Vlreo AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) designates critical habitat for the least BeU’s vlreo (Vireo bellii pusiltus). an endangered species. pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This designation encompasses a total of about 36,000 acres at 10 Localities in portions of 6 counties in southern California. This designation results in additional protection requirements under section 7 of-the Act for activities that are funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency. The Service has considered economic and other relevant impacts in making a final decision on the size and scope of critical habitat. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 1994. ADDRESSES The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Field Office, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California 92006. FOR FURThER W~FORMA11ON CONTACT: Larry Saints or Loran Hays, Fish and Wildlife Biologists, (see ADDRESSES section) at 619/431—9440. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background IntroductJon The Act requires the Service to designate critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable concurrently with listing a species as endangered or threatened. On November 8, 1979, the Service received a petition from James M. Greaves to list the Arizona (V. b. arizonee) and least Bell’s vlreos as endangered. A notice of acceptance of the petition and status review was published on February 6, 1980 (45 FR 8030). Based on the best scientific and commercial data available and comments submitted during the status review, the Service found that the petitioned action was warranted for the least Bell’s vireo on October 13, 1983 (49 FR 2485, January 20, 1964); however, a listing action was precluded by other pending listing actions of higher priority, in accordance with section 4(W(3)(C)(i) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Section 4(b)(3)(CXi) recycles such petitions, resulting in a new flndingdeadline of October 13, 1984. A finding was made on October 12. 1984, that this action was still warranted but.precluded. The Service published a proposed rule to determine the least Bell’s vireo to be an endangered species, and to designate critical habitat for the species on May 3. 1985 (50 FR 18968). This proposed rule constituted the next finding required under section 4(b)(3)(B)(il) of the Act. A correction to some of the legal descriptions of the proposed critical habitat was published in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 23458). Rather than delay protected status for the vireo while the economic analysis- that must accompany the final rule designating critical habitat was being prepared, the Service decided to make final only the listing portion of the rule to provide the Act’s protection to the least Bell’s vixen. Section 4{b)(6)(c)(iI) of the Act allows the Service to postpone designation of critical habitat for up to 12 months. On May 2, 1986, the vlreo was listed as endangered and the comment period on proposed designation of critical habitat was reopened for an additional 90 days (51 FR 16483). A further extension of the comment period to January 1, 1087, was published on July 31. 1986 (51 FR 27429). A revised proposed rule was published on August 7, 1992 (57 FR 34892) at which time the public comment period was reopened for 90 days. Definition of Critical Habitat Critical habitat Is defined in section 3(5){A) of the Act as (I) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (U) that may require special management considerations or protection, and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it Is listed, upon determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Section 3(5)(C) further indIcates that in most cases, critical habitat should not encompass the entire geographical area that can be occupied by the species. Role in Species Conservation The term “conservation,” as defined in section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring an endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary (i.e., the species has recovered). The definition of critical habitat, while explicitly mentioning the features essentIal to conservation of a species. implicitly requires that the areas themselves be essential to the species’ survival and recovery. Not all areas containing those features of a listed species’ habitat are necessarily essential to Its conservation. Conversely, areas not currently containing all of the essential features, but with the capability to do so in the future. may be designated as critical habitat. However, areas not Included in critical habitat that contain one or more of the essential features are also important to the species’ conservation and would be addressed under other facets of the Act and other conservation laws and regulations. Relationship to Recovery Section 2(c)(1) of the Act declares that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes ofthe Act. Section 3(3) of the Act defines conservation to include all measures needed to recover the species and justify its removal from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife and - plants. The Act mandates the

Upload: others

Post on 15-Aug-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Report

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

FederalRegister I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday.February 2. 1994 1 Rulesand Regulations 4845

filing * separatetransmittalletter (see§ 1312.4(b)of thispart).thetitle pageofeveryactivatingrangetariff shallprovidethename,title andphonenumberof thepartyauthorizedtosubmit the publication for filing withthe Commission,andthe feeaccountnumberestablishedfor thefiling carrieror agent~Or -

(ii) Twocopiesof eachactivatingtariff transmittedby handin accordancewith the requirementsof § 1312.3 and1312.4(a) and(b) of thispart.

(d) Except asexpresslyprovidedinthissection,rangetariffsaresubjecttothe provisionsof §~1312.1 through1312.40of this part.

Decided: January10. 1994

By the Commission. ChairmanMcDonald.ViceChairmanSimmons,CommissionersPhillips,andPhilbin.CommissionerPhillipsconcurredIn partanddissentedin partwitha separateexpression.SidneyL Strickland.Jr.,Secretaiy.

IFR Doc. 94—2358Filed 2—1—94; 8:45 am)Bn.UNO COOS7035-O%-

DEPARTMENTOF THE INTERIOR

Fish andWildlife Service

50 CFRPart17RIN 1018-AA95

EndangeredandThreatenedWildlifeand Plants; Designation of CriticalHabitat for theLeast Befl’s Vlreo

AGENCY: Fish andWildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The FishandWildlife Service(Service)designatescritical habitat forthe leastBeU’s vlreo (Vireobelliipusiltus).anendangeredspecies.pursuantto theEndangeredSpeciesActof 1973,asamended(Act). Thisdesignationencompassesa totalofabout36,000acresat 10 Localitiesinportionsof 6 countiesin southernCalifornia.Thisdesignationresultsinadditionalprotectionrequirementsundersection7 of-theAct for activitiesthatarefunded,authorized,or carriedout by a Federalagency.The Servicehasconsideredeconomicandother relevantimpacts in makinga final decisiononthe sizeandscopeof critical habitat.EFFECTIVEDATE: March4, 1994.ADDRESSES The completefile for thisrule is available for inspection,byappointment,duringnormalbusinesshoursat the U.S. Fish andWildlifeService,CarlsbadField Office, 2730

LokerAvenueWest,Carlsbad,California92006.FOR FURThERW~FORMA11ONCONTACT:Larry Saintsor LoranHays, FishandWildlife Biologists,(seeADDRESSESsection)at 619/431—9440.SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION:

Background

IntroductJonThe Act requiresthe Service to

designatecritical habitatto themaximumextentprudent anddeterminableconcurrently with listing aspeciesasendangeredor threatened.OnNovember8, 1979,the Servicereceiveda petition from JamesM. Greavesto listthe Arizona (V. b. arizonee)and leastBell’s vlreos asendangered.A noticeofacceptanceof the petition and statusreviewwaspublishedon February6,1980(45 FR 8030).Basedon the bestscientificandcommercialdata availableandcommentssubmitted during thestatusreview,the Servicefoundthat thepetitioned actionwaswarrantedfor theleastBell’s vireo on October13,1983(49 FR 2485,January20,1964);however,a listing action wasprecludedby otherpending listing actionsofhigher priority, in accordancewithsection4(W(3)(C)(i) of theEndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973(Act), asamended(16 U.S.C.1531 etseq.). Section4(b)(3)(CXi) recyclessuchpetitions,resultingin anew flndingdeadline ofOctober13,1984.A finding wasmadeon October12. 1984,that this actionwasstill warrantedbut.precluded.TheServicepublisheda proposedruletodeterminethe leastBell’s vireoto be anendangeredspecies,and to designatecritical habitatfor thespeciesonMay3.1985 (50FR 18968).Thisproposedruleconstituted thenext finding requiredundersection4(b)(3)(B)(il) of the Act. Acorrection to someof the legaldescriptionsof theproposedcriticalhabitat was publishedin the June 4,1985,FederalRegister(50 FR 23458).Ratherthan delayprotectedstatus forthe vireowhile the economicanalysis-that must accompanythe final ruledesignatingcritical habitat wasbeingprepared, the Servicedecidedto makefinal only the listing portion of the ruleto provide the Act’s protectionto theleastBell’s vixen. Section4{b)(6)(c)(iI) ofthe Act allowsthe Serviceto postponedesignationof critical habitat for up to12 months. On May 2, 1986, the vlreowaslisted asendangeredandthecommentperiod on proposeddesignationof critical habitat wasreopenedfor an additional 90 days(51FR 16483).A furtherextensionofthecomment periodto January 1, 1087,waspublishedon July 31.1986(51 FR

27429).A revisedproposedrulewaspublishedonAugust7, 1992(57 FR34892)at which time the publiccommentperiodwasreopenedfor 90days.DefinitionofCritical Habitat

Critical habitat Isdefined in section3(5){A) of the Act as (I) The specificareaswithin thegeographicalareaoccupiedby a speciesonwhich arefound thosephysicalor biologicalfeatures (I) essentialto the conservationof the speciesand(U) thatmay requirespecialmanagementconsiderationsorprotection, and(ii) specificareasoutsidethegeographicalareaoccupiedby a speciesat the time it Is listed, upondetermination that suchareasareessentialfor theconservationof thespecies.Section3(5)(C) further indIcatesthat in mostcases,critical habitatshould not encompassthe entiregeographicalareathat can be occupiedby thespecies.

Rolein SpeciesConservationThe term“conservation,”asdefined

in section3 of the Act,meansto useandtheuseof all methodsand procedureswhich are necessaryto bring anendangeredspeciesor threatenedspeciesto the point at which themeasuresprovided pursuant to this Actareno longer necessary(i.e., the specieshasrecovered).

The definition of critical habitat,while explicitly mentioningthe featuresessentIalto conservationof a species.implicitly requiresthat the areasthemselvesbeessentialto the species’survivaland recovery.Not all areascontaining thosefeaturesof a listedspecies’habitat arenecessarilyessentialto Its conservation.Conversely,areasnot currentlycontaining all of theessentialfeatures,butwith thecapability to do soin thefuture.maybedesignatedascritical habitat. However,areasnot Included in critical habitatthat contain one or more of the essentialfeaturesare alsoimportant to thespecies’conservationandwould beaddressedunder otherfacetsof the Actandother conservationlawsandregulations.

Relationship to RecoverySection2(c)(1) of theAct declaresthat

all Federaldepartmentsand agenciesshall seekto conserveendangeredandthreatenedspeciesandshallutilize theirauthoritiesin furtheranceof thepurposesoftheAct. Section3(3)of theAct definesconservationto include allmeasuresneededtorecoverthespeciesand justify its removal from the list ofendangeredand threatened wildlife and -

plants. The Act mandatesthe

Page 2: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

4846 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 22 I Wednesday,February 2, 1994 / Rules and Reguiations

conservationof listed speciesthroughdifferentmechanisms,suchas: Section7 (requiringFederalagenciesto furtherthe purposesof the Act by carryingoutconservationprogramsandinsuringthatFederalactionswill not likelyjeopardize the continued existenceofthe listed speciesor resultin thedestruction or adversemodification ofdesignatedcritical habitat); section9(prohibition of taking of listed animalspecies);section10 (wildlife researchpermits andconservationplanning onStateand private lands); section6(cooperativeStateandFederal grants);land acquisition; andresearch.

Recoveryplanning under section4(f)of the Act isthe ‘~umbrella”thateventuallyguidesall of theseactivitiesandpromotes a species’conservationandeventualdelisting.Recoveryplansprovideguidance,whichmayincludepopulation goalsand identification ofareasin needof protection or specialmanagement,sothat a speciescanberemovedfrom the list of endangeredandthreatened wildlife and plants. Recoveryplans usually include managementrecommendationsfor areasproposedordesignatedascritical habitat.

The Service considerstheconservation of a speciesin itsdesignationof critical habitat. Thedesignationof critical habitat will not,in itself, lead to the recovery of thespecies,but is one of severalmeasuresavailable to contribute to theconservationof a species.Criticalhabitat helpsfocus conservationactivities by identifying areasthatcontain essentialhabitat features(primaryconstituent elements)that mayrequire specialmanagement.Theprotection givencritical habitat undersection 7 alsoimmediately increasestheprotectiongivento theseprimaryconstituentelementsand essentialareasandpreservesoptionsfor the long-termconservationof thespecies.Theprotectionof theseareasmayalsoshortenthetimeneededto achieverecovery.

Designatingcritical habitatdoesnotcreatea managementplan; it doesnotestablishnumericalpopulationgoals;itdoesnot prescribespecificmanagementactions (inside or outsideof criticalhabitat); and it hasno direct effect onareasnot designated.Specificmanagementrecommendationsforcritical habitataremoreappropriatelyaddressedin recovery plansand insection 7 consultation.Areasoutsideofcritical habitat alsohave an importantrole in the conservationof a listedspeciesthat is notaddressedthroughdesignationof critical habitat.

The designationof critical habitatmay be reevaluatedarid revisedat any

time that newinformation indicatesthatchangesare warranted. The Servicewillreassessproposalsfor designationofcritical habitat if land managementplans, recoveryplans, or otherconservationstrategiesaredevelopedand fuily implementedthat may reducethe needfor the additional protectionprovided by anycritical habitatdesignation,PrimaryConstituent Elements

The Service is requiredto basecriticalhabitat designationson thebestscientificdata available (50~FR424.12).In determining what areasareto be designatedascritical habitat, theService considersthosephysical andbiologicalattributes that are essentialtothe conservationof thespeciesand thatmay require specialmanagementconsiderationsor protection. Suchrequirements,asstatedin 50 CFR424.12,include, but are not limited to,the following:

• Spacefor individual and populationgrowth, and for normal behavior;

• Food,water, or other nutritional orphysiological requirements;

• Coveror shelter;• Sites for breeding,reproduction, rearing

of offspring; and generally; and• Habitats that areprotected from

disturbanceor arerepresentativeof thehistoric geographicalandecologicaldistributionof aspecies.

TheServicehasdetenninedthatthephysical and biological habitat features(referred to as the primaryconstituentelements)that support feeding, nesting,roostingand shelteringare essentialto theconservationof theleastBell’s vireo.Thesehabitatfeaturescanbedescribedas riparianwoodland vegetationthat generallycontainsboth canopyand shrub layers, and includessomeassociatedupland habitats. Vireos meettheir survival and reproductive needs(food,cover, nest sites,nestlingand fledglingprotection) within theriparianzonein mostareas.In someareastheyalso forage inadjacentupland habitats.

EcologicalConsiderationsThe leastBell’s vireo is a small gray

migratory songbird that has declineddramaticallyin both numbersanddistribution.Thissubspecieswasoncewidespreadand abundant throughoutthe Central Valley and other lowelevationriverine areasof California.Least Bell’s vireoshistoricallybred inriparian woodlands from the interior ofnorthern California (near Red Bluff,Tehama County) to northwestern BajaCalifornia, Mexico. Its currentbreedingdistribution is restrictedto a fewlocalitiesin southernCaliforniaandnorthwesternBajaCalifornia,Mexico(Franzreb1989).

Least Bell’s vireos nestprimarily inwillows (Salixspp.)but alsousea

variety of other shrub and treespeciesfor nestplacement(Gray and Greaves1984,Salata 1987).LeastBell’s vireosforage in riparian andadjoininguplandhabitats (Salata 1983,Kus andMiner1987).Preliminary studiesof vireoforaging behavior along the SantaYnezRiverandwithin theMono CreekBasin(SantaBarbara County) indicated that alargepercentageof their foraging mayoccurin the adjacent chaparralcommunity up to 300 or more yardsfrom the nest (Tom Keeney,biologist,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.July 31,1985).

The reduction of leastBell’s vireonumbersanddistribution is associatedwith widespreadlossof riparianhabitats and brood parasitism by thebrown-headedcowbird (Molothrus ater).Destructionor significantalterationofriparianwoodlandsmay have renderedthe leastBell’s vireopopulationincapableof withstanding the increasein brown-headedcowbirdnumbers thatbegan in the 1920’s (Grinnell and Miller1944, Gaines1974).

The population decline of the vireohasbeenwell documented.In 1973,noleastBell’s vireoswerefoundduringanintensive search in nearly all remainingriparianhabitat betweenRed Bluff,TehamaCounty, and Stockton,SanJoaquin County (Gaines1974).In 1977.the Servicereviewedthe literature,examined museummaterial, andcontactednumerousNational AudubonSocietychaptersandknowledgeablefield observersfor informationon thestatusof the leastBell’s vireo (Wilbur1980). Sincethen, several intensivesurveys of virtually all potentialbreeding habitat in California have beenconducted(Gaines1977, Goldwasser1978,Goidwasseretal. 1980,RECON1989,unpublished data on file with theFish and Wildlife Service).Least Bell’svireos remain at only about 40 of over150historically occupiedsites(somelocalitiescover many miles of a watercourse)surveyed in the United Statesfrom 1977 through 1991.Most oftheselocationscontainfewerthanfive pairsof vireos.About 76 percentof the U.S.populationis found at just fivelocalities.The currentbreedingpopulation of the leastBell’s vireo inCaliforniaconsistsof approximately500pairs. Fewerthanseveralhundredpairsareestimatedto occurinMexico.

ConsiderationofNewInformation

The final rule is basedon newbiological and economicdata, andmaterialreceivedduring thecommentperiodfor theproposedrule andrevisedproposedrule.

Page 3: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

FederalRegister I Vol. 59, No. 22 / Wednesday,February2, 1994 / Rulesand Regulations 4847

TotalAcresIncluded in Critical HabitatTheServiceis designatingcritical

habitatfor the leastBell’s vireoat 10areasencompassingapproximately38,000acres(15,200ha) in SantaBarbara,Ventura,Los Angeles,SanBernardino,Riverside,andSanDiegoCounties,California. About 49 percentof thevireo populationin theUnitedStatesoccurswithin these10 areas.Critical habitatfor the vireooccursonthe SantaYnez River (SantaBarbaraCounty),SantaClara River(VenturaandLosAngelesCounties),SantaAnaRiver(RiversideandSanBernardinoCounties),andSantaMargaritaRiver,SanLuisReyRiver. SweetwaterRiver,SanDiegoRiver,TijuanaRiver, CoyoteCreek,andJamul.DuLzuraCreeks(SanDiego County).

Federallandwithin the criticalhabitatconsistsof approximately10,979acres(4,392ha)includingapproximately7,600acres(3,040ha) inSantaBarbaraCountyunderthejurisdictionof theForestService,3,338acres(1,335ha) in Riverside and SanBernardinoCountiesunderthejurisdiction of theCorpsof Engineers,and 53 acres(21ha) in San DiegoCountyunderthejurisdiction of theInternationalBoundaryandWaterCommission.The remainder of thecritical habitat is in State,county, city,IndianTribe, or private ownership.DifferencesFromProposedRule andRevisedProposedRuleandFinal Rule

The May 3, 1985.proposedruleidentifiedapproximately43,000acresfor designationas critical habitat. Inpreparingthe revisedproposedrule, itwasdiscoveredthat the 43,000-acrecritical habitat figurewas in error andshouldhavebeenreportedasapproximately45,805acres.Therefore,this final ruleandassociateddocumentsreferto the45,805-acrefigure asthecorrectacreagefigurefrom theMay 3,1985,proposed designation.

Theareaencompassedby the10critical habitatareashasbeenadjustedfrom approximately 45,805acres(18,322ha) in theoriginal proposedruleto 48,025acres(19,210ha) in therevisedproposedrule to about38,000acres(15,200ha) in the final rule. Inadjustingtheboundaries,1,400acres(560ha) weredeletedfrom criticalhabitaton theSantaYnez Riverand3,620acres(1,448ha)wereadded,resultingin a net increaseof 2,220 acres(888 ha). This adjustment wasrecommendedby theForestServiceandwasbasedonthe results of additionalfield researchon thestatus,distribution,andbehaviorof the leastBell’s vireo onthe SantaYnezRiver during the 1986

breedingseason.An additional120acres(48 ha), adjacentto the northernborder of Gibraltar Reservoir, were alsorecommendedfor deletionby theForestServicebut theServicedoesnotbelievethat this changeIs warrantedbecausethis areacontainspotential nestinghabitat. All the landsuggestedfor eitherwithdrawaloradditionto the SantaYnez River critical habitat is underthejurisdiction of theForest Service.Theadditional 3,620acres (1,448ha) thatwere added areunderFederaljurisdiction, withdrawnfrom mineralentry,andwithout any private orcommercialinterests.

Two adjustments havebeenmadeinthe Santa Margarita River critical habitatarea. About 420 acres(168ha)of uplandprivatepropertywereremovedbasedonarefinementin the legal description.Thisadjustmentdid not excludeanyvireohabitat.About 9,600acres(3,840ha) on CampPendletonMarineCorpsBasewere removedbasedon the findingthat an existingMemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU) betweentheServiceandthe Marine Corps for vireomanagementis providing anadequatelevelof protectionto thevireoand itshabitat.Although this areais essentialto the conservationof the species.theServicefinds that a formal criticalhabitatdesignationis unnecessarybecausethe MOU containsprovisionsfor section7 consultationfor proposedactionsthatmaydestroyor adverselymodify vireohabitat.TheServicealsofinds thata level of protectionequivalentto or greaterthanthatprovidedby a critical habitatdesignationcanbeachievedfor thevireo on this portion of theSantaMargaritaRiver throughcooperationwith theMarineCorpsundertheMOU.The managementactions implementedunderthis agreementhavesignificantlybenefittedthevireapopulationatthislocality. It hasincreasedfrom 98territorial malesin 1986when the MOUwasestablishedto 212 territorialmalesin 1991. However, theServicewillreconsiderits positionto designatecritical habitaton theCampPendletonreachof the SantaMargarita River ifconditionswarrant.TheServicewill useits authorityundersections7 and 9 oftheAct to insurecompliancewith theprohibitions on unauthorized take.

Oneadjustmenthasbeenmadein theSan Luis Rey River critical habitat area:About 80 acres(32 ha)of uplandprivatepropertywere removedbasedon arefinementin the legal description.Thisadjustmentdid notexcludeanyvireohabitat.

Available ConservationMeasures

Section7 ConsultationSection 4(b)(8)of the Act requires, for

anyproposedor final regulation thatdesignatescritical habitat,a briefdescriptionandevaluationof thoseactivities (publicor private) thatmayadverselymodify suchhabitatormaybeaffectedby suchdesignation.Regulationsfound at 50 CFR 402.02define destruction or adversemodificationof critical habitatasadirector indirectalterationthatappreciablydiminishesthevalueofcritical habitat for boththe survivalandrecoveryof alistedspecies.Suchalterations include, but arenot limitedto, alterationsadverselymodifyinganyof thosephysicalor biological featuresthatwerethebasis for determining thehabitatto be critical.

Oncecritical habitat is designated,section7(a)(2)requiresFederalagenciesto ensurethatactivitiesthey authorize.fund, or carry out are not likely todestroyor adverselymodify criticalhabitat.ThisFederalresponsibilityaccompanies,and is in additionto, therequirementinsection7(a)(2)of theActthat Federal agenciesinsure that theiractionsarenot likely to jeopardizethecontinuedexistenceof anylistedspecies.As required by 50 CFR 402.14,a Federalagencymustconsultwith theServiceif it determinesan actionmayaffecta listedspeciesor its designatedcritical habitat.Thus,therequirementtoconsideradversemodificationof criticalhabitatis an incrementalsection7considerationaboveandbeyondsection7 reviewto evaluatejeopardyandincidentaltake. Regulationsimplementingthis interagencycooperationprovisionof theAct arecodifiedat 50 CFRpart402.

BasisforAnalysis

Theevaluationof actionsthatmayadverselymodify leastBell’s vireocritical habitat should consideranumberof factorssuchasthepresentconditionof thehabitat,thenumberofcurrentpairs.the reproductive successof breedingpairs,theexpectedtime toregeneratesufficienthabitat to supportaneffectivepopulationata particularsite,and local andregionalproblems.Although the Serviceconsideredtheentirerangeof the leastBell’s vireo indetermininganapproachto criticalhabitatdesignation,its section7analysisofactionsthatmay adverselyaffect vireocritical habitatwill considerthesignificanceof impactsat individualcritical habitatareasaswell astheentirerange. All proposedactionsshould beviewedasto their impactson all fourconstituent elementsrelative to the

Page 4: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

4848 FederaiRegister/ Vol. 59, No. 22 / Wednesday,February2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

potential for adversemodificationonindividual critical habitatareas.

Examplesof ActionsAffectingCriticalHabitat

Activities that disturbor removetheprimary constituentelementswithinproposedcritical habitatareasmayconstitutedestructionoradversemodificationof critical habitat.In thecaseof thevireo, theseactivitiesinclude: (1) Removalor destructionofriparian vegetation.(2) thinningofriparian growth,particularlyneargroundlevel.(3) removalor destructionof adjacentchaparralor otheruplandhabitatsusedfor foraging, and(4)increasesin human-associatedorhuman-induceddisturbance.Specificactionsthatcouldadverselyaffectvireocritical habitatincludestreamchannelization,waterimpoundmentorextraction,waterdiversion,livestockgrazing,intensiverecreation,andconversionof presentlyexistingriparianor adjacentuplandareasto residential,agricultural,or commercialuse.Completeor majordestructionofriparianvegetationwould resultin theextirpationof the leastBell’s vireo fromtheaffectedarea,whichcould furtherendangerthespeciesthroughouttheremainderof its rangeand precludeopportunitiesfor recovery.Thinningorselectivelyremovingcomponentsofriparian vegetationcouldcausevireostoabandonanareabecausesuitablenestingandforagingsitesarescarceorabsentor couldresultin loweredreproductivesuccessbecauseofdiminishedhabitatquality. Increasesinrecreationcouldcauseactualdestructionof nestsor coulddisruptnestingactivitieswhich in turn couldcausenestabandonment,loweredhatchingsuccess,increasedratesofcowbird parasitismanddepredationevents,and a decreasein the numberoffledgedyoung.

Other ConservationMeasures:Non-FederalLands

Section9 of theActprohibitsintentionalandunintentional“take” oflisted speciesandappliesto alllandownersregardlessof whetherornottheir landsareWithin critical habitat(see16 U.S.C.1538(a)(1),1532(la)and50 CFR17.3). Section10(a)(1)(B)authorizestheServiceto issuepermitsfor thetaking of listedspeciesincidentalto otherwiselawful activitiessuchasagriculture,sandandgravelmining,andurbandevelopment.Incidentaltakepermitsmustbe supportedby a habitatconservationplan (HCP) that identifiesconservationmeasuresthat thepermitteeagreesto implementtoconservethespecies,usuallyon the

permittee’slands.A keyelementof theService’sreviewof anHCP is adeterminationof theplan’seffectuponthe long-termconservationof thespecies.TheServicewould approveanHCP,andissuea section10(a)(1)fB)permit if the planwould minimizeandmitigatetheimpactsof thetakingandwould notappreciablyreducethelikelihood of thesurvival andrecoveryof thatspeciesin thewild.

TheSan DiegoAssociationofGovernments(SANDAG) is coordinatingthedevelopmentof HQ’sfor theSanDiegoRiverandSweetwaterRivercritical habitatareas.Thiseffort alsoincludedthedevelopmentof draft plansfor theSantaAnaRiver and San LuisReyRiver critical habitatareas,buttheseplansare no longerunderconsideration.The intentof theseplansis to addresslanduseconflictsandtoconservethevireoandits habitat.TheServicewill issuesection10(a)(1)(B)permits,if theHCPsareacceptable.InNovember1991,the Servicereceivedtwo permit applications andfinal draftHCPsfrom SANDAG for the incidentaltakeof vireoson theSan DiegoandSweetwaterRivers.SANDAG iscurrentlyfinalizing theHCPsandadraftEnvironmentalAssessmentis underpreparation.Basedonthe reviewofdraftsof theseplans, the Serviceanticipatesthat theywill becompatiblewith the designationof critical habitat.Summaryof Economic Analysis

Section4(b)(2) of theAct requirestheServiceto designatecritical habitatonthebasisof thebestscientificdataavailableand to considerthe economicimpactandanyotherrelevantimpact ofspecifyinganyparticularareaascriticalhabitat.The Secretarymayexcludeanyareafrom critical habitat if hedeterminesthat thebenefitsof suchexclusionsoutweighthebenefitsofspecifyingsuchareaaspartof thecritical habitat, unlessit is determined,basedon thebestscientificandcommercialdataavailable,that thefailure to designatesuchareaascriticalhabitatwould resultin theextinctionofthe speciesconcerned.TheAct thusrequirestheServiceto evaluatethoseeconomicandothereffectslikely to takeplacedue to the designationof criticalhabitat,andto considerwhethertoexcludesomecritical habitat.

Theeconomiceffectsof designatingcritical habitat for the leastBell’s vireoaretheproject-relatedcostsof habitatmitigationwithin the10 areasdesignatedascritical habitatoverandabovethosecostsincurredasa result oflisting thevireo asan endangeredspeciesin May 1986 andasa resultofcompliancewith theFederalClean

WaterAct for thoseactivities involvingtheplacementof fill intowatersof theUnited States.

AffectedAgencies

TheServiceassumesin theeconomicanalysisthatthe impactsto Federalagenciesarerelatedto activitiesthatphysically altercritical habitat.TheForestService,Corpsof Engineers(Corps).FederalHighwayAdministration,andInternationalBoundaryandWaterCommissionaretheagenciesmostlikely to beaffectedby thecritical habitatdesignation.

EconomicEffects

Activitiesthatmaybeaffectedincludeconstructionandmaintenanceofdams,watercontrol andtransport,fire suppression,recreation,oil andgasproductionandtransport,sand-mining,residentialandcommercialdevelopmentand relatedfacilities,agriculture,andhighwayandbridgeconstruction.

Privatelandswithin criticalhabitat(15,961acres)are currentlyusedprimarily foragriculturalpurposesandarenotexpectedto beeconomicallyaffected.Thereareno known proposalswith Federalinvolvement.

NumerousFederal,State,andlocalagencieshavejurisdiction overtheaffectedactivities.SeveralinformedtheServicethatcriticalhabitatdesignationis consistentor compatiblewith theirmanagementobjectives.Althoughanumberof agenciesexpressedconcernthat the designationof critical habitatwouldaffectproposedor futureprojectsandaskedto havevariousprojectareasremoved,the economiccostsattributableto critical habitat for thoseprojectsareexpectedto be insignificant.

Federalagenciesexpectedto incureconomiccostsattributabletodesignationof critical habitatincludetheForestService,Corpsof Engineers.andthe InternationalBoundaryandWaterCommission.TheForestServiceanticipatesanincreasedcostof $2,000peryearfor additional fire suppressionactivitiesand$1,000per year foradditional rangerpatrolsto protectvireohabitatin theSantaYnez Rivercriticalhabitatarea.It may becomenecessaryfor theCorpsof Engineersto initiatepatrolsof its land in the SantaAnaRivercritical habitatareato controltrespassing,at ananticipatedcostof$20,000ayear.The Servicebelievesthatthe InternationalBoundaryandWaterCommissionflood controlactivitiesintheTijuanaRiver areawill incur nosignificanteconomiccosts.

Constructionof theHamnerAvenueBridge in theSantaAna River areawascompletedin 1985. Theproject

Page 5: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 22 / Wednesday,February 2. 1994,1 Rules and Regulations 484~

includedacompensationpackageforadverseeffectsto wildlife andwetlandsthat costa totalof $462,000,of which$113,400was for cowbirdcontrol andnestmonitoring to compensateforimpactsto vireo habitat.The annualizedvalueof thecritical habitateffectis$8,000peryear.

A numberof projectsmay incureconomiccostsbecausecritical habitatdesignationis expectedin somecasestorequirehabitatmitigation orcompensationthatgoesbeyondcurrentrequirements.Undercurrentprocedures,wheneverproposedprojectsaffectwetlands,theproposingagencyisrequiredto replacehabitatvalueseitherconcurrently(up to 5 acresreplacedforeveryI acrelost) or prior to theirdestruction(1 acrereplacedfor everyiacrelost). In mostcases,theagencieshavechosento replacethehabitatvaluesconcurrentlyin orderto avoidexpensiveprojectdelays.With criticalhabitatdesignation,theServiceexpectsin somecasesto requirereplacementofhabitat valuesprior to implementationof theaction.The Serviceanticipatesthat themaximumadditionalcostwould be$75,000peracreforreplacementof vireo habitatvaluespriorto their destructionratherthanconcurrently.The incrementalcost isdueprimarily to theneedfor additionallandscapingandrevegetationto createfully functional vireo habitat in a2 to3-yearperiod.The cestof landacquiredfor mitigation purposesin suchcasesisattributableto theprovisionsof theCleanWaterAct, or otherlawsandregulationsprotectingtheenvironment.In somecases~%‘hereland valuesarehigh, thetotal costperacreof habitatdestroyedmay belessfor priorreplacementthan for concurrentreplacement.

A proposedroadcrossingof theSanDiegoRiverassociatedwith theMissionTrails RegionalPark couldadverselyaffectcritical habitat.The projectis stillin theplanningstageandtheexactamountof habitatthat would beaffectedis not known.TheServiceestimatesthatup to 5 acresof habitatmay needto bereplaced.At $75,000per acre,anadditional costof $375,000would berequiredfor prior replacementof lostvireo habitatvalues.Theannualizedequivalentof the$375,000one-timecostis $27,000peryear.

TheHomeCapitalDevelopmentGroup’splannedRanchoSanDiegoprojectmayadverselyaffect criticalhabitatin theSweetwaterRiverarea.TheServiceestimatesthat up to 3 acresof habitatmay needto be replacedpriorto projectinitiation at anadditional costof $225,000.The annualizedequivalent

of the $225,000one-timecostis $16,000peryear.

TheCorpsof Engineersauthorizesanumberof activitiesin thePradoBasinof theSantaAnaRiver critical habitatarea.Futurechangesin someof theseexistingactivitiescouldaffectcriticalhabitat,andproponentsmayincuradditional costsasa result. However,becauseprojectproposalswerenotidentifiedduring thepublic commentperiodof the proposedrule, theServiceis unableto providean estimateof anyeconomicimpactdue to critical habitatconsiderations.

Sandandgravelmining activities thatare regulatedundertheCleanWaterActcouldaffectcritical habitat,especiallyalongthe SanLuis Rey River.Althoughtherearenospecificprojectproposals.theServiceanticipatesthatthemaximumadditionalcostwould be$75.000peracreof habitatdestroyed.

SANDAG is coordinatingthedevelopmentof HCPsundersection10of theEndangeredSpeciesAct for theSanDiegoRiverandSweetwaterRivercritical habitatareas.This effort alsoincludedthedevelopmentof draft plansfor theSantaAna RiverandSanLuisRey Rivercritical habitatareasbut thesesitesare no longerunderconsideration.Thehabitatconservationplanningprocessis beingusedto addresslanduseconflictsandto conservetheleastBell’s vireo.The Servicewill issuesection10(a)permitsif theseplansareacceptable.Basedon Servicereviewofdraftsof theseplans,it is anticipatedthat theywill becompatiblewith thedesignationof critical habitat,andnoadditionaleconomiccostsareexpected.

The totalcost attributableto thedesignationof critical habitatforprojectswith supportingdataisapproximately$74,000peryear.Projectsexpectedto be affectedbycritical habitatdesignationfor whichadequatecostdataarenot availablewould not addsubstantiallyto thattotal. Impactson regionalemployment,householdincome,and tax revenuesareexpectedto beinsignificant.

Summaryof CommentsandRecommendations

In theproposedrulepublishedMay 3.1985,the revisedproposedrulepublishedon August 7, 1992,andassociatednotifications,all interestedpartieswererequestedto submit factualreportsor informationthatmightcontributeto thedevelopmentof a finalrule for thevireo or itscritical habitat.AppropriateStateagencies,countygovernments,Federalagencies,scientificorganizations,andotherinterestedpartieswerecontactedandrequestedto comment.A correctionto

someof the legaldescriptionsof theproposedcritical habitatwas publishedin theJune4, 1985, Federal Register(50FR 23458).Newspapernoticeswerepublishedby June7, 1985,in theBladeTribune,Enterprise,Los AngelesTimes.NewsPress,RiversidePress,SanBernardinoSun, SanDiegoTranscript,SanDiegoTribune,andSanDiegoUnion,all of which invited generalpublic comment.Notification of publichearingsandanextensionof thecommentperiodto August 30, 1985,waspublishedon July9, 1985(50FR27992).Public hearingswereconductedin SanDiegoon July 30, 1985, inOxnardon July 31, 1985. andinAnaheim,California, on August 1, 1985.

An additional notification extendingthecommentperiodto December2,1985,waspublishedon October3, 1985(50FR 40424).Thesetwo additionalnotifications werealsopublishedin theaforementionednine newspapersin JulyandOctober,respectively.On May 2,1986, theleastBell’s vireo waslisted asendangered,andthepublic commentperiodon proposedcritical habitatwasreopenedfor anadditional 90 days (51FR 16483).A furtherextensionof thecommentperiodtojanuarv1,1987, waspublishedon July 31, 1986 (51 FR27429).Approximately120 interestedpartieswerenotifiedregardingthisextensionof thecommentperiod.

Thepublic commentperiodwasagainreopenedfor 90 dayssubsequentto thepublicationof therevisedproposedruleon August 7, 1992 (57 FR 34298).Twoadditional public hearingswerealsoscheduledby the Service.A legalnoticeannouncingthehearingsandinvitinggeneralpublic commenton therevisedproposalwaspublishedin theSanDiegoUnion-Tribuneon August 17,1992. About 200potentially rifrectedorinterestedpartieswerenotifiedregardingthis revisedproposedaction.Public hearingswereheld in GardenGrove,California, on October20, 1992.and in San Diegoon October22, 1992.A total of about30 individualsattendedthesehearings.

Multiple commentswhetherwrittenororal from thesameinterestedpartyareregardedasonecomment.‘Writtencommentsandoral statementsquestioningor opposingcritical habitatdesignationas originally proposedweregroupedinto 24 issuesanddiscussedintherevisedproposedrule (57 FR 34892).

Of the87 commentsreceivedon therevisedproposalto designatecriticalhabitat,24 (28 percent)supportedthedesignation,3 (3 percent)opposedthedesignation,51 (59 percent)recommendedthat theServicechangetheboundariesor delaythedesignation.and9 (10percent)werenon-committal.

Page 6: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

4850 FederalRegister/ Vol. 59, No. 22 / Wednesday,February 2, 1994 / Rules and-Regulations

TheServicehas identified 25 issuesassociatedwith these87 commentsthatreflecta questioningof, or oppositionto,critical habitatdesignationandarediscussedbelow.

Issue1: Certainareasshouldbeexcludedfrom critical habitatbecausethehabitat is alreadydegraded,orproposedplanswill indirectlydegradethehabitat.Along the SantaClaraRiver,for example,cowbirdsarenumerouswithin thehabitatandmakeit lesssuitablefor vireos. Also, reclaimedsewagewaterflows throughtheSantaClaraRiver, andtreatmentchemicalsmayaffectthevireo.At expectedbuild-out conditions,thenoisegeneratedbytraffic alongsuchareasasJamulCreekand theSanLuis ReyRivermayrenderthehabitatunsuitablefor vireos.

ServiceResponse:As long astheconstituentelementsof critical habitatarepresent,thefactorsleadingto thedegradationof suchhabitatarenotconsideredin thedesignationprocess.Noise, cowbirdparasitism,pollution,andother factorscontributeincrementalimpactsuponthevireo, butmanagementof criticalhabitatareasmay reduceor eliminatetheseimpacts.Extensiveunmitigatedhabitatloss mayprecludetheability of a listed speciesto recover.Critical habitatdesignationshouldreducethechancesof thisoccurringwith respectto theleastBell’svireo.

TheAct alsospecifiesthatcertainmanagementconsiderationsmaybenecessaryin critical habitatareas.Cowbirds arecommonin riparianhabitatthroughouttherangeof theleastBell’s vireo. The judicioustrappingofcowbirdsandmonitoringof vireo nestshassignificantly reducedthedetrimentaleffectsof cowbirdparasitismon thevireo atseverallocalities.

Issue2: Critical habitatshouldbemodified to moreaccuratelyreflectthelocationof nestingand foraginghabitat.Urban developments,agricultural lands,industrialoperations,recreationalfacilities, highways,railroads,etc.,areincludedwithin theboundariesofcritical habitatdesignation.

The ServicehasexceededitsauthorityundertheAct by including inthecritical habitatarea,land which itknowsdoesnot meettheAct’sdefinition of critical habitat.Theregulationsstatethat “critical habitatwill be definedby specificlimits usingreferencepointsandlines asfound onstandardtopographicmapsof thearea”[50 CFR424.12(c)l.TheServiceshouldchoosereferencepoints thataremoreprecisethansectionlines,andlessephemeralthan treesandsandbars.

ServiceResponse:The suggestiontodesignatemorepreciseboundariesmaybe possiblein somecases.No specificson suggestedboundarieswere provided.Attemptingto redefinethecriticalhabitatby anothermeanswould undulydelaya final decisionon this matter.

TheServiceis requiredto useexisting,readilyrecognizableboundariesin thedevelopmentof legaldescriptionsfor critical habitat. TheServicecannotuseephemeralfeaturessuchasvegetationfor boundaries.Incaseswhere areasdesignatedascriticalhabitatdo not contain theprimaryconstituentelements,impactsoccurringwithin this areawill not resultin afinding of adversemodificationby theService.Thus,designationof criticalhabitatwill not effectthoseareaswithinthelegalcritical habitat boundariesthatdo not containvireo nestingor foraginghabitat.

Issue3: The Servicehasnotclarifiedthepotentialeffectsof critical habitatdesignationon privatelandowners.Forexample,Serviceresponsesto Issues7and18 in the revisedproposedrule (SOFR 34892)appear contradictory.Theresponseto Issue7 statesthatmostactivitiespotentiallytaking placewithincritical habitatwill requireFederalapproval,andthereforebesubjectto therequirementsof section7 consultation.Thediscussionof Issue18, however,implies that Federalinvolvement in -

projectson private landwould beunusual.

Federalcaselaw indicatesthatdesignationof critical habitatwill,contraryto theService’srepresentations,affectactivities on Stateandprivatepropertyevenif thereis noFederalinvolvement.For example,inPaula v. Hawaii, 639F. 2d 495 (9th Cir.1981),thecourtheldthat thestateofHawaii’s maintenanceof sheepandgoatswithin Paula(Loxioidesbailleul)critical habitatconstitutedatake,eventhough therewasno Federalinvolvement. -

ServiceResponse:Section7 of theActappliesonly to Federalagencies,directingthemto ensurethat theiractionsdo not jeopardizethecontinuedexistenceof listed speciesoradverselymodify critical habitat.The Servicemaintainsthataprojectpotentiallyaffectinga federallylistedspecieswillonly requiresection7 consultationwhenFederalfunding,approval,permitting,licensing,or otherdiscretionaryauthorityis involved.BecausetheleastBell’s vireo criticalhabitatis primarily wetland,it isanticipatedthattheArmy CorpsofEngineerswill beinvolved in projectsaffectingthis habitat,throughthesection404 permittingprocessof the

Clean Water Act. A section404 permitis requiredfor projectsinvolving dredgeor fill of jurisdictional wetlands orwatersof theUnited States.For projectson private property,wherewetlandwithin critical habitatis neitherdredgednorfilled, Federalinvolvementundersection7 is not anticipated.

By contrast,section9, whichprohibits theunpermitted“take” ofendangeredspecies.appliesto all“persons”(as definedin theAct) withinthejurisdiction of theUnitedStates.Pursuantto section9 of theAct andtheregulationsandstatutespertainingthereto,“take” meansto “harass,harm,pursue,hunt,shoot, wound, kill, trap,captureorcollect, or to attempttoengagein any suchconduct”jiB U.S.C.1532(19)1.In thecaseof Paulav.Hawaii, the Courtrenderedan opinionon the legal definition of “take.” TheCourtruledin Poilla v. Hawaii thathabitatdestructionharmsaspeciesbyindirectlycausingadeclinein thepopulation,andprecludingrecoveryofthespecies.Therefore,thecourt’srulingin this casepertainedto thelegaldefinition of “take” andnot thedesignationor function of criticalhabitat.A landownerdestroyingvireohabitatmightbe involved in asection9taking,but would haveno incrementallegalexposureasa resultof criticalhabitatdesignation.

Issue4: Therevisedproposedruleusesanimproperincrementalapproachto theeconomicanalysisrequiredby theAct. In therevisedproposedrule, theServicestatedthattheeconomicanalysisshouldonly apply to project-relatedcostsof mitigation withincritical habitatdesignationoverandabovethosecoststhatwould beincurredas aresultof listing thevireo.TheServicetherebyeliminatedtherestraintsimposedthroughthebalancingprocesssetforth in section4of theAct.

ServiceResponse:Theeffectsofcritical habitatdesignationareincremental,andrepresentonly aportion of the total costof a species’conservation.A high level ofprotectionis alreadyaffordedto leastBell’s vireohabitatby theCleanWaterAct andFederalwetlandspolicy. An additionallayerof protectionhasbeenaddedtothis by the listing of thevireo, whichprohibits jeopardyand takeof thespecies.Evenwithout designationofcritical habitat,modificationofoccupiedvireo habitatcanconstitutejeopardyor take.Federalagenciescannotadverselymodify designatedcritical habitat.As discussedaboveunder“Available ConservationMeasures,”that is in addition to therequirementto avoid jeopardizing the

Page 7: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

FederalRegister/ Vol. 59, No. 22 I Wednesday,February 2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 4851

continuedexistenceof a federally listedspecies.Furthermore,if aFederalagencymayaffectcriticalhabitat,thatagencymustconsult with theServiceeven if the habitat happensto beunoccupied.Theseaddedsection7requirementswereconsideredin thedevelopmentof theeconomicanalysis.

In the 1982 amendmentsto section4of theAct, Congressaddedtheword“solely” to thestatutorydirectivethattheSecretarybaselisting on thebestscientific andcommercialdataavailable.A Houseof Representativesreportstates:

Theadditionof theword “solely” isintendedto removefrom theprocessofthe listing ordelistingof speciesanyfactornot relatedto thebiological statusof thespecies.Thecommitteestronglybelievesthateconomicconsiderationshaveno relevanceto determinationsregardingthestatusof species* *

Applying economiccriteria to theanalysisof thesealternativesand to anyphaseof thespecieslistingprocessisapplyingeconomicsto thedeterminationsmadeundersection4 oftheAct andis specificallyrejectedbythe inclusion of theword “solely” inthis legislation.EH.R. Rep.No. 97—304;see16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)]

TheJointRegulationson EndangeredSpeciesalsostatethattheSecretarymaymakea determinationoflisting “solelyon thebasisofthebestavailablescientificandcommercialinformationregardinga species’status,withoutreferenceto possibleeconomicor otherimpactsto suchdetermination”(50CFR§ 424.11(b)).In 1978, Congressamendedsection4 of theAct to requiretheSecretaryto takeinto consideration“theeconomicimpact,andanyotherrelevantimpact,of specifyinganyparticularareaascritical habitat” (16U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)).Federal -

regulationson implementationof theAct statethat “A final designationofcritical habitatshall bemadeon thebasisof thebestscientificinformationavailable,after taking into considerationtheprobableeconomicandotherimpactsofmaking suchadesignationinaccordancewith § 424.19”(50 CFR§ 424.12(a)).TheServiceinterpretsthehistory of theAct andFederalregulationsto clearly indicatethattheeconomicanalysisshouldonly takeintoaccounttheeffectsof designatingcritical habitat,andnot thoseof listingthespecies.

Issue5: Someindividualswantedtoknow if critical habitatdesignationwould resultin theneedfor additionalmitigation for projectswith ongoingmanagementorconservationplansdesignedto mitigateimpactsto vireos.

ServiceResponse:For projectsthathavecompletedthesection7consultationprocessto developmitigation measuresfor directandindirect impactsto the leastBell’s vireoandvireohabitat,it is highly unlikelythatadditionalmeasureswill berequiredasaresultof thecritical habitatdesignation.

For example,two CaliforniaDepartmentof Transportation(CALTRANS) projectsin SanDiegoCounty andan OrangeCountyWaterDistrict waterconservationprojectinthePradoBasinthat involve Federalfunds, permits,or authorizationspromptedformal section7 consultationsbecauseof proposedimpactsto vireosand/orvireo habitat irrespective(andinadvance)of critical habitatdesignation.In eachcase,theoverallproject-relatedimpactsto thevireo wereevaluatedanddisclosed,andmitigation wasproposedin therequiredenvironmentaldocumentation.Mitigation wasappropriatelydevelopedin eachinstancethatcompensates,to theextentdeemedreasonableandprudent.forunavoidabledirectandindirect impactsto thevireo,vireo habitat,andpublicfish andwildlife resourcesin general.Therefore,theServicefully anticipates,in theseinstances,thatno additionalmitigation would berequired,prudent,orevenpossibleasaresultof thedesignationof critical habitat. In thisregard,theServicecannotsummarilydismisstheOrangeCountyWaterDistrict’s (District) position that ‘barringunforeseencircumstances,themitigation andconservationmeasuresthathavebeenimplementedandproposedfor implementation”as aresultof a currentsection7 consultationwill fully mitigatefor impactsassociatedwith theDistrict’s waterconservationproject.

issue6: Sinceconversionof landtoresidentialorcommercialdevelopmentwould adverselyaffect critical habitat,propertyownerswould losebeneficialuseof their land.Critical habitatdesignationwithin certainareas,suchastheSan Luis ReyMunicipal WaterDistrict, would thusconstitutearegulatorytakingof property.

ServiceResponse:Propertyownerswithin thecritical habitatboundariesarenot expectedto losebeneficialuseof their landasa resultof critical habitatdesignationitself. In evaluatingproposedprojectswithin critical habitatboundaries,undersection7 of theAct,theServicewould first determineif thespecificareacontainedforagingornestinghabitat for leastBell’s vireos.Thedesignationof critical habitatwould only affectthoseareasthatcontainedelementsof nestingor

foraginghabitat.Areasthat lackforagingor nestinghabitat would not be affectedby thedesignation.Furthermore,withincritical habitat,only thoseactivitieswith Federalinvolvementwould besubjectto section7 consultation.Suchinvolvement is mostlikely to occurwhena project involvesdredgeor fill ofwatersof theUnitedStates.In caseswheresection7 consultationisrequired,reasonableandprudentalternativesor measuresarelikely to bedevelopedthat do not precludethedevelopmentof privateproperty.Giventhepertinentdatapertainingto pastsection7 consultationsinvolving thevireoor otherlistedspeciesin southernCalifornia,it is extremelyunlikely thatanyprojectwould beeffectivelystoppedor significantlymodifiedbecauseof thesection7 process.In fact, aWorldWildlife Fundstudy,using12 yearsofdatafrom theentireUnited States,concludedthat “The vastmajority offederalactivitiessubjectto consultationsuccessfullyproceededto completionwhile accommodatingtheneedsofendangeredandthreatenedspecies.”Lessthan1 percentof theactionsthatwerethesubjectof formal consultationduringthis study were“blocked”becauseof section7 (Barry et ai. 1992).

In the rarecaseswhen theServiceissuesjeopardyopinionswithoutacceptablereasonableandprudentalternatives,theactionagencymaytaketheprojectto anexemptioncommitteeandaskthat its projectsbeexemptedfrom therequirementsof theAct. TheServiceanticipatesthat few, if any,opinions would not containacceptablereasonableandprudentalternatives.

Issue7: If it is foundthat waterextractionis damagingto leastBell’svireo critical habitat,thenrestrictionson waterextractionwould impinge ontherights of landownersandhavealargeeconomicimpacton agriculture.Such restrictionswouldalsothreatenthesupply of domesticwaternecessaryto meetthewaterdemandsfor certaincommunities.

ServiceResponse:As discussedin theresponseto Issue3 above,only thoseprojectswith Federalinvolvementwould bedirectly affectedby criticalhabitatdesignation.The Servicedoesnot anticipateanycircumstancesinwhich therewould be Federalinvolvement in waterextractionprocesseson privatepropertywithinanyof thecritical habitatareas.Waterextractionrightson privatepropertycouldnot benegatedbecauseof criticalhabitatdesignation.

issue8: Thebenefitsof designatingcertainareassuchasNewhall propertyon theSantaClara Riverdo not exceedtheeconomiccostsof suchdesignation.

Page 8: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

4852 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 22 I Wednesday,February 2, 1994 / Rulesand Regulations

Currentandpotentialrevenuesfromagriculture,housingdevelopment,andfilming activities onNewhall property,within proposedcritical habitat,exceed$200million, andrevenuesfromadjacentNewhall activitiespotentiallyimpactedby thedesignationexceed$160million. In additionto Newhall,otherpropertyownershaveexpressedconcernsoverthecostsof mitigationrequirementsthatwould begeneratedby thecritical habitatdesignationontheir lands.

ServiceResponse:Newhall’sanalysis(NewballLandandFarmingCompany1992)andcommentssubmittedby otherlandownersarebasedon theassumptionthat designationof criticalhabitatwould prohibit or substantiallymodify all activitieswithin thedesignatedboundaries.The responsetoIssue6 aboveindicatesthattheServiceanticipatesveryfew, if any.projectstobestoppedor significantly modifieddueSto critical habitatdesignationitself. Anyimpacton theseprojectswould bethroughsection9 prohibitionsontaking.

In addition,habitatoccupiedbyvireosis alreadyprotectedbecauseof itsstatusasa federally-listedspecies.TheCleanWaterAct, NationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act, Fish andWildlife CoordinationAct, Federalwetlandpolicy, sections1601 and1603of theCalifornia FishandGameCode,andtheCalifornia EnvironmentalQuality Act alsoprovidevariousdegreesof considerationor protectionfor theseareas.The requirementsof thesestatutesoverlapconsiderably,andascribingcostsincurredfor mitigation orcompensationto eachof thesestatutesseparatelyis problematical.

If occupiedvireohabitat,jurisdictionalwetlandsorwatersof theUnitedStatesareto beaffectedby aFederalagencyorprojectproponent,that agencyor projectproponentispresentlyrequired(in theabsenceofcritical habitatdesignation)to replacethosevalueswith from I to 5 acresofappropriatehabitatcreatedfor everyacrelost. However,this replacementisgenerallymandatedat theFederallevelonly if theimpactexceedsI acreundertheCorps’ NationwidePermitProgramimplementing,In part,section404 oftheCleanWaterAct or if vireoswouldbeaffectedby theprojectpursuanttosection7 of theAct andtheimplementingregulationspertainingthereto.

With critical habitatdesignation,theessentialelementsof suitable,butunoccupied,habitatmustbe preservedthroughprojectdesignor mitigation.Thus,designationof critical habitatgenerallywould haveanincremental

economiceffectonly on federallyinvolved projectsthatarelessthananacrein sizeor that requiremitigationmeasuresaboveandbeyondwhat iscurrentlybeingnegotiatedor requiredgiventhevireo’s statusasa listedspeciesandthe regulatoryauthorityoftheCorpsof EngineersandCaliforniaDepartmentof FishandCameto requiretheminimization ormitigation ofimpactsto jurisdictionalwetlandsorwaters.Therefore,thosemitigationmeasuresattributablesolely to criticalhabitatdesignation(e.g., thereplacementor rehabilitationof smallamountsof habitat,contributionstohabitator speciesmanagementfunds)areexpectedto berelativelyinfrequentandaddonly incrementallyto projectcosts.Costsassociatedwith wetlandcreationarediscussedundertheresponseto Issue3 in therevisedproposedrule(57FR 34892).

In anycase,theNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct andtheEndangeredSpeciesAct statethat costsassociatedwith mitigation orcompensationarepartof theprojectcosts.Becausethe leastBell’s vireo isessentiallyanobligatewetlandspecies,thecostsassociatedwith impactstounoccupiedvireohabitatwould beborneby theprojectapplicantwhetheror not criticalhabitatwasdesignated.However,the Servicebelievesthat nomitigationcostswill be attributabletothe designationof critical habitatforprojectson privatelandsthatareoutsidethejurisdiction of Federalregulatoryagencies.

Issue9: Thedesignationof criticalhabitatmay impact flood controlprojects.If periodicremovalof riparianvegetationfrom flood controlchannelsis restricted,theimpactswill involvenot onlylossesof wateranduncontrolledflooding, butalsocostsintermsof humanlife.

ServiceResponse:TheresponsetoIssue6 abovestatesthat projectsarerarelyblocked,sincereasonableandprudentalternativesor measuresareusuallydevelopedthat allow theprojectto proceedin a timely manner.Theresponseto Issue8 aboveaddressesthepotential increasein regulationduetocritical habitatdesignation.A high levelof protectionis affordedto wetlandsbytheCleanWaterAct andFederalwetland policy. Regulationsto avoid,minimize, or compensatefor impactstowetlandsin general.andvireo habitatinparticular,would beincurredevenifcritical habitatwasnot designated.Thelayerof regulationaddedthroughcritical habitatdesignationis notexpectedto preemptpublic healthandsafety.Although theServiceencourageslong-rangeplanningof all projectsthat

adverselyaffectthevireo orvireohabitat,it recognizesthatemergencies(e.g..fires)developthatnecessitateacceleratedconsultationsor theassessmentof impactsanddevelopmentof appropriatemitigation measuresafter-the-fact.

Issue10: Utility corridorsandaccessroadsshould not beincludedascriticalhabitat.Both routine andemergencymaintenancearenecessaryto maintainpublic safetyandservice.

ServiceResponse:Utility corridorsexist within leastBell’s vireo criticalhabitat;however,nobiological evidenceorother basisjustifies theexclusionofsuchcorridors from acritical habitatdesignation.TheServicewill addresseachprojecton a case-by-casebasisandassisttheFederalactionagencyinavoiding,minimizing, andmitigating forimpactsto thevireo andits criticalhabitat.In addition,agenciesaregenerallyencouragedto requestformalconsultationon programmaticactivities.Such consultationswould facilitate longrangeplanningefforts.TheServiceisunawareof any instanceswherethemaintenanceof utility structuresorfacilitieswasprecludedby the listing ofthevireo; it is anticipatedthatthedesignationof critical habitatsimilarlywill not impinge on necessaryoperations.Furthermore,aswasexplainedin the responseto Issue9above,pertinentregulationsandServicepolicy providefor theresolutionofimpactsto listed speciesandtheircritical habitat thatresult fromcorrectiveactionstakenin trueemergencysituations.

Issue11: Designationof criticalhabitatrequiresanEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS) pursuantto therequirementfor Federalagenciestocomply with theNationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA).

ServiceResponse:Forthe reasonscitedin theNEPA sectionof this rule,theServicehasdeterminedthatrulesissuedpursuantto section4(a) of theEndangeredSpeciesAct do not requirethepreparationof anEIS.

Issue12: Prior replacementof habitatshouldonly berequiredwhenit canbeconclusivelydeterminedthatexistinghabitatis beingusedat its full potential.Severalcommentersalsoexpressedtheopinionthatthemandatedreplacementof vireohabitatprior to projectcommencementwould beanunreasonableandexcessiverequirement.

ServiceResponse:In thevastmajorityof section7 consultationson potentialimpactsto thevireo,theServicehasrecommmendedprior replacementofvireo habitat,anddoesnot anticipatechangingthis patternwith designation

Page 9: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 22 I Wednesday,February 2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 4853

of critical habitat.Only in casesinvolving a relatively largeacreageofunoccupiedvireo habitatwould sucharequirementresultfrom critical habitatdesignation.Becauserequirementsforhabitatreplacementin advancehaveinvariablybeenpromptedby projectswith substantialimpactsto vireosorsignificantportionsof occupiedvireohabitat,it is anticipatedthatpriorhabitatreplacementwould be necessaryin thosecircumstancesregardlessofwhethercritical habitathasbeendesignated.In somecases,especiallywherelandcostsarehigh, projectproponentshavechosento mitigateproject-relatedimpactsin advancetoincreasethe likelihood of “no netloss”of wetlandorvireo habitatvalues.Thisapproachhasalsobeenusedasa meansto minimize the requiredamountofhabitatcompensation.

issue13: SeveralcommenterssuggestedthattheServiceshouldspecifythecriteriausedto distinguishvireoquality habitatwithin thedesignatedboundaries.SomesuggestedthattheServiceshould havedesignatedboundariesto moreaccuratelyreflecttheactualhabitatboundaries.

ServiceResponse:In establishingtheapproximatelimits of actualcriticalhabitatwithin thedesignatedcriticalhabitatareaboundaries,theServiceutilized NationalWetlandInventorymaps.Becausethe largemajority ofvireo habitatconsistsof mixedwoodlandorwillow woodlandhabitatsthatarecontainedwithin jurisdictionalwetlandsandwatersof theUnitedStates,thesemapsfairly accuratelydesignatetheextentof actualorpotentialhabitatat a designatedlocale.

issue14:The Servicehasnotaddressedthebiological implicationsofartificially sustainingriparianhabitatinthesuccessionalstageappropriatetosupportleastBell’s vireos. Whatassociatedhabitatsandspecieswillsufferfrom receivinga lower level ofprotectionasa director indirect effectof the designation?

ServiceResponse:TheServiceis notadvocatingartificial maintenanceofriparian habitatataparticularsuccessionalstage.Rather,theServiceisadvocatingmaintenanceofnaturalsystemsunderconditionsthatwill beconduciveto supportingvireopopulations.Sincethevireo wasfirstlisted by thestateof California in 1980,it hasnot beennecessaryto artificiallymaintainvireo habitatat agivensuccessionalstage.

Issue15:Designationof criticalhabitatshouldbepostponeduntilongoingconservationplansto mitigatenegativeimpactsto thevireoareinplaceandevaluated,or until further

studiesaiecompletedandweknowexactlywhy thevireo hasdeclined.

ServiceResponse:On thebasisof pastexperiencewith otherlisted speciesandcritical habitatdesignations,theServicebelievesthatthedesignationof criticalhabitatwill not beincompatiblewithexisting conservationor managementplans.Currentdraftsof habitatconservationplansfor theSanDiegoandSweetwaterRiversareconsideredby theServiceto becompatiblewithcritical habitatdesignation.Thedesignationof critical habitatmay, infact,simplify thecreationandfundingof areaor drainage-specificmanagementplans.

Basedon the demonstrated,relativesuccessof severalvireo managementplansandotherconservationeffortswithin its rangeandtheendangeredstatusof this species,theServicecannotjustify thepostponementof criticalhabitatdesignationuntil allmanagementplansareevaluatedor inplace. Sucha postponementcouldreducethechancesfor thesurvival orrecoveryof thespecies.

Issue16: TheOrangeCountyWaterDistrict requestedtheexclusionof alllandsbelowthe505-footelevationinthePradoBasinfrom critical habitatdesignationbecauseof its commitmentto mitigateimpactsto vireosandvireohabitatbelowthatelevationalcontour.

ServiceResponse:The Corps’DraftEIS for theOrangeCountyWaterDistrict’s waterconservationprojectindicatesthat implementationof theDistrict’s projectwill bephased.Thelevel of thewaterconservationpooi willbe incrementallyraised:(i) Oncehabitatabovethe505-footelevationisrehabilitated,restored,or createdtoreplaceoccupiedandpresentlyunoccupiedvireo habitatbelow505-ftthat is destroyedor degradedbecauseoftheproject, and(2) it is demonstratedthatthevireo populationis notadverselyimpactedby theirdisplacementor thedestructionordegradationof preferredhabitat.Forthesereasons,theServicedid notremovelandsfrom critical habitatdesignationwithin thePradoBasin thatcurrentlyaccommodatea majority of thenestingpairsrepresentingthesecondlargestvireo populationin theUnitedStates.

Issue17:SeveralcommentersnotedthattheServiceshould alsolist criticalhabitat for otherareas(e.g.,the lowerSantaYnezRiverin SantaBarbaraCounty) or for all areaswith populationsof morethan 10 pairsof vireos.

ServiceResponse:The Serviceretainstheoption to considerthedesignationofadditional critical habitat.Designationof morecritical habitatwould bethe

subjectof anew proposedrulethatwould solicit public commentsandprovidefor a public hearing,if sorequested.

Issue18: Giventhehigh levelsofcowbirdnestparasitismandhabitatloss, it mayalreadybetoo late to savethevireo evenif habitat is preserved.

ServiceResponse:Thestability orinstability of populationsis not oneofthecriteria usedto determinetheappropriatenessof designatingcriticalhabitat.TheAct requirestheServicetodesignatecritical habitat for a listedspeciesin areasthatareessentialto theconservationof thespecies,unlessit isnot prudentto do so. TheAct wouldrequirethedesignationof criticalhabitatevenif little couldbe donetominimize mostthreatsfacingthespecies.Fortunately,however,thevireohasrespondedfavorablyto managementin anumberof locationsthroughoutitsrange.Therefore,it seemsreasonabletoconcludethatthedesignationofcriticalhabitatwill provideadditionalprotectionto thevireo andincreasethelikelihood of its recovery.

Issue19: Certainareasshouldnot bedesignatedascritical habitatbecausetheydo not * * * requirespecialmanagementconsiderationsorprotections,”asprescribedby section3(5)(A)(i)(II) of theAct. This commentwasusually followed by abeliefaboutwhich type of regulationsalreadyprovide~‘specialmanagementconsiderationsor protections.”

TheServiceshouldnot designatecritical habitatbecauseotherregulationsandlevelsof governmentalreadyprotectthehabitatsufficiently. Forexample,local and/orStategovernmentscanmanagehabitatandpreventprivatelandownersfromclearingriparianvegetation.Projectsalteringastreamcoursearesubjecttoreviewundersection1601 or 1603 oftheCalifornia Fish andGameCode.

Federalregulationsalsoprotectproposedcritical habitat.Designationofcritical habitat is not necessaryfor areasin whichactivities areplannedthat willrequireNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct (NEPA) reviewandcompliance.Noris it necessaryto designatecriticalhabitaton theSantaYnezRiverbecausethis areais alreadyprotectedunderthejurisdiction of theForestService.Alltheseregulationsandmanagementpracticesprecludetheneedfordesignatingcritical habitat.

ServiceResponse:Localgovernmentshavenot preventedhabitat lossfor theleastBell’s vireo underexistingregulatorymechanisms.AreasunderFederaljurisdiction may requirespecialmanagementconsiderationsorprotectionthat would not be afforded

Page 10: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

4854 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 22 / Wednesday,February2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

without critical habitatdesignation.Forthesereasons,theServicebelievesthatinclusion of areasalreadysubjecttolocal, State,or Federalregulationsis•consistentwith thedefinition of criticalhabitatcitedundersection 3(5)(A)(i)(ll)of theAct.

Issue20: Critical habitatdesignationin thePradoBasinof theSantaAnaRiverwould force theCorpsofEngineersto releasestormwaterquickly(to minimize theadverseeffectsofstandingwateron vireo habitat)andattoo greatavelocity for thelocal waterdistrict to divert it into their percolation(spreading)basinsfor waterconservation.

ServiceResponse:TheServicehasbeenworkingwith theCorpsofEngineers,OrangeCountyWaterDistrict, andThe NatureConservancytoresolveconflicts betweenvireoconservationandflood control/waterconservationactivities in thePradoBasin.Basedon thedistribution andabundanceof thevireo within thePradoBasinrelativeto thereservoirpoolinundationzone,thesewatermanagementactivitiesmay affectalistedspecies.Onthat basis,theCorpsinitiated formalconsultationwith theServiceon October16, 1992.The Corpshasincludedathoroughcompensationpackageas part of theprojectdescription.The proposedcompensationmeasuresvery likelyadequatelyprovide for impactsto thevireo and its habitat.For this reason,theServicebelievesthata critical habitatdesignationis not likely to imposeanyadditional costsfor avoiding,minimizing, or mitigating impactsto thevireo.

Issue21:Thecostof mitigation asaresultof critical habitatdesignationwould placeanunreasonablefinancialrisk on theprojectproponent.Forexample,onecommenterestimateditwould costabout54—10 million tocreatehabitatto compensatefor thehabitatthat would be destroyedbyraisingtheheight of GibraltarDam.Sinceriparianhabitatcreationisexpensiveandtheresultsareunpredictable,theproject proponentsmayspendagreatdealof moneywithno return if themitigation programshould fail.

ServiceResponse:As statedin theresponseto Issue12 above,designationof critical habitatcould, in a few cases,requireprior habitatreplacementofapplicantsfor projectsin areasthatcontainsuitable,but unoccupied,vireohabitat.

Wetlandcompensatorymitigation canbe acostly, time-consuming,anddifficult endeavorwith an uncertainprobability of success.However, in the

6 yearssincethevireo waslisted,twoagencieshaveconstructedprojectsthathavebeensubjectto this priorreplacementrequirement,andboth havesuccessfullycreatedhabitatthatnowsupportsvireos.As restorationtechniquesarefurther refined, it islikely thatrevegetationprojectswillbecomemoresuccessfulin shortertimeframes.The requirementto createvireohabitatbeforeexisting habitatisdestroyedensuresthat this federallylistedspecieswould not sustaina lossof habitat,eventemporarily. In somecases,thetemporaryloss of habitatmayhavea significantadverseimpacton thevireo.Giventheuncertaintyof wetlandcreationor restoration,it is unlikely thattheServicewould supporta projectproposalthatwould resultin thedestructionof largeareasof riparianhabitatwithout first providing adequatereplacementhabitat for theleastBell’svireos in thearea.

Undersection4(b)(2) of theAct, theSecretaryhastheauthorityto excludean areafrom critical habitatdesignation

* * * if hedeterminesthatthebenefitsof suchexclusionoutweighthebenefitsof specifyingsuchareaaspartof thecritical habitat,unlesshedetermines,basedon thebestscientificandcommercialdataavailable,that thefailure to designatesuchareaascriticalhabitatwill resultin theextinction ofthespeciesconcerned.”TheGibraltarReservoirpopulationof thevireorepresentsthenorthernedgeof itscurrentrange,andthereforeis mostlikely to bethesourceof recolonizationto thenorth or to theCentralValley.Becauseof this geographicalsignificance,thedesignationof thisareaascritical habitat is appropriate.

In any case,theproposedproject toraisetheheightof GibraltarDam is notcurrentlybeingconsidered,sincethecity of SantaBarbarais usingeconomicallyfeasiblealternative~.s’atersources.

Issue22: Critical habitatshould not bedesignatedbecauseof projectdelaysdueto lengthypermitting processesand thetimerequiredto offset negativeimpactsbeforea projectcouldbe constructed.

ServiceResponse:Forprojectswhereunavoidableimpactsto unoccupiedvireo habitatwould occur.compensatorymitigation in theform ofhabitatcreationmayhaveto becompletedprior to thedestructionofexisting habitatso that thevireo wouldnot sustaina netloss of availablenestingor foraginghabitat.

The amountof time for successfulhabitatcreationwould vary dependingon themethodsusedandcouldtakeseveralyears.Theactionagencyorpermit applicantwould needto initiate

therestorationactivitiesearlyenoughtoallow sufficient time for vireo habitattodevelop.Most majorprojectsare in theplanningstageslong enoughto provideadequatetime for advancehabitatcreationif thecompensationefforts aredoneexpeditiously.Properplanningwould reducethe likelihood of a projectdelay.

Section7 regulationsrequiretheServiceto completeformalconsultationwithin 90 daysof initiation and issueabiological opinion within anadditional45 days.By policy andin practice,theServiceusuallycompletesformalconsultationwithin 90 days.

Issue23: Designationof criticalhabitat is unnecessarybecausenestparasitismby cowbirdsandpredationareresponsiblefor thedeclineof thevireo,ratherthanhabitatloss. Onecommenterstatedthat vireo habitat isplentiful, andefforts to conservethespeciesshould focus on otheraspectsofits ecology.

ServiceResponse:Two majorfactorshavebeenidentifiedasbeingresponsiblefor therelativelyrecent.dramaticdeclineof the leastBell’svireo: (1) Widespreadhabitatdestruction,and(2) high ratesof nestparasitismby cowbirds(Goldwasseretci. 1980).Thesynergisticeffectsof thesetwo factorsmay havefurtherexacerbatedthesituation.Althoughcowbird removalprogramshaveeffectively solvedtheproblemofexcessiveparasitismat a numberoflocales,habitatconservationandcreationprogramshavenot achievedthesamelevel of success.Theseprogramseventuallymustbe successfulifconservationandrecoveryof thevireois to beachieved.To that end, thedesignationof critical habitataffords ahigherlevel of protectionto riparianwoodlandhabitatsthatcurrently (orpotentially could) supportnestingpairsof vireos. The Serviceconsidersthisactionparticularly appropriatein lightof theinability of existing regulatorymechanisms(e.g., theCleanWaterAct,local regulations)to adequatelyprotectvireo habitat.

issue24:The critical habitatdesignationwould resultin morestringentlocal permitting andapprovalprocesses.

ServiceResponse:The Servicehasnoauthorityto requirelocal agenciestoimplementland userestrictionsconsistentwith theregulationsprotectingdesignatedcritical habitatalthoughtheServicewould supportsuchactions.Thecommenterswhoraised this issuearelandownersin SanDiegoCounty.TheServicecontactedtheSanDiegoCountyDepartmentofPlanningand LandUse(DPLU) with

Page 11: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

Federal Register/ Vol. 59, No. 22 1 Wednesday,February 2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 4855

respectto this issueandwasinformedthattheDPLU doesnot anticipateanychangesin local ordinancesasaresultof critical habitatdesignation(T.Oberbauer,County ofSanDiego,Departmentof PlanningandLand Use,pers.comm.).

Issue25:TheServiceshouldnotdesignatecritical habitaton CampPendletonMarine CorpsBasebecausetheServiceand theMarineCorpshavesigneda MemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU) thatwasdesignedto accomplishthesamedegreeof habitatprotectionascritical habitatwould provide.Themanagementprogramfor the leastBell’s vireo onCampPendletoneliminatestheneedforspecialmanagementconsiderations,andtherefore,designationof critical habitatis unnecessary.

ServiceResponse:TheServicebelievesthattheMOU is providing anadequatelevel ofprotectionto thevireoandits habitaton CampPendleton.UndertheMOU, theServiceagreedtooffer technicalassistanceandto consultunder section7 of theAct whenrequested.TheMarineCorpsagreedtoconsult under section7 of the Act onactivities that may affect the leastBell’svireo, to requestformalconsultationonvariousprogrammaticissuessuch asroadmaintenanceandfire control, tomaintain1,200 acres(480ha)of vireoquality habitatalongtheSantaMargaritaRiver, andto continuecowbird trappingefforts(whichwere initiated in 1983)andnestmonitoring activities(whichwere initiated in 1981) aslong asfunding wasavailable.

The SantaMargaritaRiver supported1,200 acresof quality vireo habitatand98 territorial male leastBells’ vireoswhen theMOU wassignedin 1986.Since1986, theMarine Corpshascontinuedcowbird trapping efforts,anduntil 1991 carriedout a thoroughmonitoring program.The vireopopulationalongtheSantaMargaritaRiveron CampPendletonhasincreasedfrom 98 to 212 territorial malesfrom1986 to 1991.

Although this areais essentialto theconservationof thespecies,theServicefinds thata formal critical habitatdesignationis unnecessarybecausetheMOU containsprovisions for section7consultationfor proposedactionsthatmaydestroyor adverselymodify vireohabitat.The Servicealsofinds thatalevel of protectionequivalentto orgreaterthan that providedby a criticalhabitat designationcanbe achievedforthevireo on this portion of the SantaMargaritaRiverthroughcooperationwith theMarineCorpsundertheMOU.However, theServicewill reconsideritsposition to designatecritical habitatat

this locality if conditionswarrant.TheServicewill useits authorityur~dersections7 and9 of theAct to insurecompliancewith theprohibitions onunauthorizedtake.For thesereasons,theServicehasremovedabout9,600acres(3,840 ha)on CampPendletonfrom thecritical habitatdesignation.

NationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act

TheServicehasdeterminedthatanEnvironmentalAssessment,asdefinedundertheauthorityof theNationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act of 1969,neednot bepreparedin connectionwithregulationsadoptedpursuantto section4(a) oftheEndangeredSpeciesAct of1973,asamended.A noticeoutliningtheService’sreasonsfor thisdeterminationwaspublishedin theFederalRegisteron October25, 1983(48FR 49244).

Regulatory Flexibility Act andExecutiveOrder 12B66

This rulehasbeenreviewedunderExecutiveOrder12866.The Departmentof theInteriorhasdeterminedthat thisdesignationwill not haveasignificanteconomiceffect on asubstantialnumberof smallentitiesundertheRegulatoryFlexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).Basedon theinformationdiscussedinthis rule concerningpublic projectsandprivateactivities within thecriticalhabitatareas,it is not expectedthatsignificanteconomicimpactswill resultfrom thecritical habitatdesignation.Inaddition,therearealimited numberofactionson privatelandthat haveFederalinvolvementthroughfundsorpermitsthatwould affect orbeaffectedby thecritical habitatdesignation;thepotentialeconomicimpact of thecriticalhabitatdesignationon theseactionswillbe minor. Also, no directcosts,enforcementcosts,or informationcollectionor recordkeepingrequirementsareimposedon smallentitiesby this designation.This actiondoesnot imposeanyrecordkeepingrequirementsasdefinedby thePaperworkReductionAct of 1980.

ReferencesCited

Barry, D., L. Harroun,andC.Halverson.1992.For conservinglisted species,talkis cheaperthanwe think: TheconsultationprocessundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct. World WildlifeFund, Washington.DC.

Franzreb,K.E. 1989.Ecologyandconservationof the endangeredleastBell’s vireo. U.S. Fishand Wildl. Serv..Biol. Rep.89(1). 17 pp.

Gaines,D. 1974.A new look atthe nestingriparian avifaunaof the SacramentoValley. California. WesternBirds 5:61—79.

Gaines,D. 1977.Thestatusof selectedriparianforestbirds in California.Unpubi. rep.CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame,Sacramento,California.56 + viii pp.

Goldwasser,S. 1978.Distribution,reproductivesuccessandimpactof nestparasitismby brown-headedcowbirdsonleastBell’s vireos. CaliforniaDepartmentof FishandGame,NongameWildlifeInvestigations,Job IV—1.5.1. 27 pp.

Goldwasser.S., D. Gaines,andS. Wilbur.1980.The leastBell’s vireo in California:A defactoendangeredrace.AmericanBirds 34:742—745.

Gray, MV.. andJ. Greaves.1984. Riparianforestashabitatfor the leastBell’s viroo.Pages605—611 in R. Warnerand K.Hendrix, ads.Californiaripariansystems:Ecology,conservationandproductivemanagement.University ofCaliforniaPress,Davis.

Grinnell, J., andA. Miller. 1944.Thedistribution of thebirds of California.Pacific CoastAvifauna27. 608pp.

Kus, BE.,andK.L. Miner. 1987.Foragingbehaviorof the leastBell’s vireo: Useofriparianand non-riparianhabitats.Unpubi. rep. SanDiegoStateUniversity,SanDiego,California. 22 pp.

Newhall LandandFarmingCompany.1992.Public commentssubmittedto theFishandWildlife Serviceon November5,1992, regardingtherevisedproposedrule to designatecritical habitatfor theleastBell’s vireo.

RECON(RegionalEnvironmentalConsultants).1989.Comprehensivespeciesmanagementplanfor theleastBell’s vireo ( Vireobelliipusiilus).Unpubl. rep. preparedfor theSan DiegoAssociationof Governments.San Diego,California.Salata,L. 1983. Statusof theleastBell’s vireo on CampPendleton.California.Unpubl. rep.U.S. FishandWildlife Service,LagunaNiguel.California.62 pp.

Salata,L. 1987.The statusof the leastBell’svireo atCampPendleton.California in1987. Unpubl. rep. U.S. MarineCorps.CampPendleton,California. 43 pp.

U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service.1992.Economicanalysisof critical habitatdesignationfor the leastBell’s vireo.Unpubl. rep.on file atU.S. Fish andWildlife Service,Carlsbad.California.115 pp.

Wilbur, S. 1980. Statusreporton leastDell’svireo. Unpubl. rep.U.S. FishandWildlife Service,Portland,Oregon.46pp.

Authors

This rulewaspreparedby Servicestaff from theCarlsbadField Office,2730Loker AvenueWest, Carlsbad,California 92008(telephone:619/431—9440)andtheRegion 1 RegionalOffice,911 NE 11th Avenue,Portland.Oregon97232—4181(telephone:503/231—6131).

List of Subjectsin 50 CFR Part17

EndangeredandthreatenedspeciesExports,Imports, Reportingand

Page 12: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

4856 FederalRegister / VoL 59, No. 22 / Wednesday,February 2, 1994 / Rulesand Regulations

recordkeepingrequirements,

Transportation.

RegulationPromulgation

Accordingly.part17, subchapterB ofchapterI, title 50 of theCodeof FederalRegulations,isamendedassetforthbelow:

PART 17—(AMENDED]

1. Theauthority citation forpart17continuesto readas follows:

Authosity: 16 U.S.C.1361—1407;16U.S.C.1531—1544;16U.S.C.4201—4245;Pub. L 99—625, 100Stat3500; unlessotherwisenoted.

§17.11 tAmendedi2. Amend § 17.11(h)by revising the

“Critical habitat” entry for “Vireo, leastBell’s,” underBIRDS to read“17.95(b)”.

3. Amend § 17,95(b)by addingcriticalhabitat for theleastBell’s vireo in thesamealphabeticalorderasthespeciesoccursin § 17.11(h).

§ 17.95 CrItical habitat—fishandwildlife.* * a * *

LEAST BELL’S VIREO(Vireobe/lu pusil’us)California:Areasof andandwateras

follows:

1. SantaYnezRive~.SantaBarbaraCounty(IndexmaplocationA).

T.5N.,R.27W.:secs.1,W½,andl2,allexceptNEV*. In addition,all adjacentlandswithin the following circumscribedarea:beginningat a point 0.25mi southof thenortheastcornerof sec. 12, T. 5 N., R. 27W.;thenceeastabout0.5 mi; thencenorthabout1.25 mu; thenceeastapproximately1.3 nil tothe intersectionof Mono Creekandthe LosPrietosY Najalayegualandgrantboundary;thencesouthabout2.5 mi; thenceeastapproxImately2.6 ml to AguaCalienteCreek

(at a point about0.4 nil northand0.1 ml eastof thePendolaGuardStation);thencesouthabout0.5 ml; thenceeastabout1.0 ml; thencesouthabout0.25 ml; thenceeastabout0.5nil; thencesouthabout0.75 ml to thesouthwestcornerofT. 5 N., R. 25 W., sec.19; thenceeastto the southeastcornerof T.5 N., R. 25W., sec20; thencesouth about0.63 mu; thencewestto westernboundaryofT. 5 N.. R.26 W., sec. 25; thencesouthabout0.16mi; thencewestto easternboundaryofT. 5 N.. R. 26 W., sec. 27; thencenorthabout0.25 mi; thencewestto westernboundaryof

T. S N., R. 26W., sec. 27; thencenorthto thenortheasterncornerofT. 5 N., R. 26 W., sec.27; thencenorthto thenortheasterncornerofT. 5 N., R. 26W.,sec.28; thencewestto thenorthwestcornerof T. 5 N.,It 26W., sec.28; thencenorthto thenortheastcornerof T5 N., R. 26 W.. partially unsurveyedsec. 20thencewestto the northeastcornerof T. 5N., R. 26W., unsurveyedsec.19; thencenorthabout0.5 ml; thencewestto thesoutheastcornerof T. 5 N., R. 27W., sec. 13~51/4; andthencenorth to thesoutheastcornerof T. 5 N.. R. 27W., sec.12.

Page 13: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

FederalRegister / Vol. 59, No. 22 / Wednesday,February 2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 4857

2. SantaClaraRiver, Los AngelesandVenturaCounties(IndexmaplocationB).

T. 4 N., Rs.17and18 W.: all landwithin3,500feetperpendicularlyandgenerally

southwardorwestwardof a line commencingat apoint 100yardswestof BM 740 (apointabout2.3 mi eastof theintersectionof MainStreetandStateHighway 126 in Piru); thence

eastalongStateHighway126to itsintersectionwith The Old RoadatCastaicJunction;andthenceeastwardandsouthwardalongTheOldRoadto itsintersectionwith RyeCanyonRoad.

Page 14: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

4858 FederalRegister / Vol. 59, No. 22 / Wednesday,February 2, 1994 I Rules and Regulations

3. SantaAsia River, RiversideandSanBernardinoCounties(IndexsnaplocationC).

All landsbelowthe 543-footcontour inpartially surveyedT. 3 S., R. 7 W.,within thePradoFloodControlBasin(upstreamfromPradoDaml. In addition, the followingadjacentlandsabovethe543-footcontourintheSantaAna River bottomandwithin thefollowing boundaries:commencingata poitit0.1 nil eastand0.2 nil northof thesouthwestcornerof sec.2, T. 3 S., R. 7W.; thencenorthabout0.4 mi; thenceto apoint 0.25 mi eastand0.4 mi north of southwestcornerof sec.31.T. 2 S., It 6 W.; thenceto thenortheastcornerof sec. 31, T. 2 S., R. 6W.; thenceeast

0.35 mi; thenceto midpointof southernsectionline of sec.21, T. 2 S., It 6W.; thenceto apoint 0.6 mi southof the northwestcornerof sec.25,T. 2 S., R. 6W.; thenceeastabout0.6 mi; thenceto apoint 0.2 mi northof thecenterof sec.30,T. 2 S., R. 5 W.;thenceeastabout0.7 mi; thenceto apoint0.6 ml eastof the southwestcornerof sec.20,T. 2 S.. It 5 W.; thenceeastabout0.8 mi;thence0.6 mi south;thenceto a point 0.3 minorth of the southwestcornerof sec.28, T.2 S., It 5 W.; thenceto a point 0.45 mi northof thesouthwestcornerof sec.29, T. 2 S.,It S W.; thencegenerallywestwardandsouthwardalongthe RiversideCorporation

Boundary(asshownonUSGS RiversideQuadrangle1980)to its Intersectionwith VanBurenBlvd.; thenceto a point 0.2 mi eastand0.75 mi south of thenorthwestcornerof sec.27,T. 2 S., It 6 W.; thecce0.25 ml north;thence0.7 ml west;thenceto apoint 0.85 mlnorthof the southwestcornerof sec.32, T.2 S., R. 6 W.; thenceto a point0.75 mi westand0.1 mi southof the northeastcornerofsec.6, T. 3 S., R. 6W.; thence0.5 mi west;andthenceto the543-footcontourat apoint0.3 nil westof the southeastcornerof sec. 2,T. 3 5., R. 7 W.

BSilng Cod. 4310-65-P

Page 15: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

FederalRegister / Vol. 59, No. 22 / Wednesday,February 2. 1994 / Rules and Regulations 4859

BILLING CODE 4310-65-C

Page 16: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

4860 FederalRegister / Vol. 59, No. 22 / Wednesday,February 2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

4. CoyoteCreek.SanDiegoCounty(IndexmaplocationD).

T. 9 S.. R. 5 E.: secs.22, N½,SE¼;and23, SW¼.

Page 17: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

Federal Register/ Vol. 59, No. 22 / Wednesday,February 2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 4861

5. SantaMargaritaRiver, SanDiegoCounty(IndexmaplocationE).

T. 9 S., R. 3 W.: secs.4, all landsbelowthe600-footcontour; 5 SE1/4; 7; and8.

In T 9 S., R. 4 LV., Sec.12 E1

/z; 13 NE¼.

Page 18: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

CaCa

CS

a

Page 19: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 22 / Wednesday,February 2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 4863

6. SanLuis ReyRiver,SanDiegoCounty(IndexmaplocationF).

T. 11 S.. R. S W.:secs.13,S½NE¼,SEI/*NWI/

4, SW’/4; 14, SE¾SW¾,SI2SE’/4;

and23, NW’/4.1. 11 S., R. 4 W.: secs.3, all landnorthof

MurrayRoad; 4,E½NE¼,Eh/2

SE¼SW1/*,W½NE¼SEI/

4,E½NWI/4SE1/*,SWI/

4SE1/

47,

N½NE¼NE’/*,NW¼NE¼.E½W½.

SW1/*SWI/4

8, N½NE1/4,N½N½NW¼;9,Nh/SNWI/4;and.18, NWI/*,

T. 10 S., R. 4 W.: sec.34, S1/2SW¼.Surveyedandunsurveyedportions

accordingto the following metesandbounds;borderedon thenorthby a linecommencingat theintersectionof NorthRiverRoadandthe surveyedeasternsectionline of sec.3, T.11 S., R. 4 W.; thenceeastalongsaidroadto its junctionwith Via PuertaDel Sol;thenceeastapproximately0.5 ml to StateHighway 76 nearestthe midpointof sec.31,

T. 10S., R. 3 W.; thencenorthwardandeastwardalongsaidhighwayto itsintersectionwith theeasternsectionlineofsec.27,T. 9 S., R. 2 W.; andborderedon thesouthby a line commencingat theintersectionof MurrayRoadandthesurveyedeasternsectionlineof sec.3, T. iiS., R. 4 W.; thencesouthwardandeastwardalongsaidroadto its junctionwith StateHighway76; thenceeastwardandnorthwardalongsaidhighwayto its junctionwith SantaFe Avenue;thencesoutheastward3.000feetalongsaid avenue;thencenorthwardalongastraightline to GuajomeLake Roadat apoint800 feet from thejunctionof saidroadandStateHighway 76; thencenorthwestwardalongGuajomeLakeRoadto its junctionwithsaidhighway;thenceeastwardalongsaidhighwayto its junctionwith RiverRoadinsec.31, T. 105., R. 3 W.; thencenorthwardalongsaidroadto its intersectionwith the

surveyedeasternsectionline of sec.20. T. 10S., R. 3 W.; thencenorthto andnortheasterlyalongthe250-footcontourin sec.21 throughpartially surveyedsec. 15,T. 10 S.. R. 3 W.;thencenorthto apoint about0.2 mi southof thenorthwestcornerof sec.14 andcontinuingalongthe 300-footcontourfromthewesternsectionline of sec. 14 eastwardthroughunsurveyedsec.11, surveyedsecs.13 and12, T. lOS.,R. 3 W.; andsurveyedsec.18, T. lOS., R. 2 W.; thenceeastto andalongthe 325-footcontourthroughsec. 1, T.10S., R. 3 W.; thencesouthto andalongthe350-footcontourin secs.6 and5, T. lOS.,R. 2 W., andsecs.32 and33, T. 9 S., R. 2W.. to the northernsectionline of sec.33;thenceeastapproximately1.5 mi to thesoutheasterncornerof sec. 27, T. 9 S., R. 2W.; andthencenorth about0.4 mi to StateHighway 76 in Pala.

BIlling Cod. 4310-65--P

Page 20: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

4864 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 22 / Wednesday,February2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

BliRog Cod 4310-65-C

Page 21: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 22 / Wednesday,February 2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 4865

7. SanDiegoRiver, SanDiegoCounty(IndexmaplocationG).

T. 15 S., Rs. I and 2 W.: commencingattheintersectionof the SecondSanDiegoAqueductandMission GorgeRoad;thenceeastwardalongsaidroadto thewestern-mostintersectionwith FatherJuniperoSerraTrail;thencenorthwardand eastwardalongsaid

trail to theeastern-mostintersectionof saidtrail andsaidroad;thenceeastwardalongMission GorgeRoadto its intersectionwithCantonHills Blvd.; thencenorthwardto itsintersectionwith CantonOaksDrive; thencewestwardalongsaiddrive to its eastern-mostintersectionwith InvernessRoad;thencewestwardalongsaidroadto its intersection

with CarltonOaksDrive; thencewestwardalongsaiddrive to its intersectionwith MastStreet;thencewestwardandsouthwardalongthe320-footcontourto its intersectionwiththeSecondSan DiegoAqueducton thenorthsideof theSailDiegoRiver; thencesoutheastwardalongsaidaqueductto itsintersectionwith MissionGorgeRoad

8. SweetwaterRiver,San DiegoCounty(Index maplocationH).

T. 16and 17 S.. R. 1 W.: commencingatthe intersectionof the320-footcontourand116o58~l4”W longitudeimmediatelynorthof the confluenceof SweetweterRiver andSweetwaterReservoir;thenceeastwardalongthe contourto the intersectionof saidcontourwith StateHighway 94; thencenorthwardalongsaidhighwayto itsintersectionwith StateHighway 54; thencenortheastwardalongsaidhighwayto theSanBernardinoMeridian; thencesouthapproximately1,500feetto the intersection

with the 340-footcontour; thencewestwardand southwardalongsaidcontour to thesouth endof theSteeleCanyonBridgeonStateHighway94; thencesouthapproximately900 feet to the340-footcontour; thencesouthwesterlyalongsaidcontour to its intersectionwith 11&58~l4”Wlongitude;thencenorthto startingpoint.

[InsertMap # 9 herel

9. Jarnul-DulzuraCreeks,San DiegoCounty(IndexmaplocationI).

T. 17 and 18 S., R. I E.: commencingfromapoint approximately2,200 feetwestof BM

515 along OtayLakesRoad,in sec. 5, T. 18S., R. I E.; thenceeastapproximatelyonemile to thecrossingof saidroadatabridgeoverJamulCreek,including all landwithin1,500feet southwardof OtayLakesRoadasmeasuredperpendicularlyfrom theroad;thenceeastwardfor about2.4 ml alongsaidroadandincludingall landswithin 1,500feetnorthwardof saidroadasmeasuredperpendicularlyfrom the road,andincludingall landswithin 500 feetof saidbridgenototherwiseincluded above.

Page 22: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

4866 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 22 1 Wednesday,February 2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

Page 23: Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 … · 1994-02-02 · Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 22 I Wednesday. February 2. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 4845

FederalRegister / Vol. 59, No. 22 / Wednesday,February2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 4867

10. TijuanaRiver,SanDiegoCounty(Index T. 18 S., It 2 W.: secs.34, S½SE1/4SE~/4;location 11. and35, S½SW¼,SW’/4SW%5E¼.

T. 19S., R. 2 W.; sacs.l. W½SW¼NW¾:2.S½NE¼NE¼,NW¼NE¼,N½SEV

4NE’/

4.

N½NE¾NW¾.W½NW¼;3, N½;and4,NE¾,N½NW¼.

Primaryconstituentelements:niverineandfloodplainhabitats(particularly willow-dominatedriparianwoodlandwith denseunderstoryvegetationmaintained,In part, in

anon-climaxstageby periodic floodsorotheragents)andadjacentcoastalsagescrub.chaparral,or otheruplandplantcommunities.

Dated:October12. 1993.RichardN.Smith,ActingDirector. U.S.Fishand WildlifeService.IFR Dec.94—2304Filed 2—1—94;8:45am~BIWNO CODE 4310-65-P


county :For Seasons! I 1994

I Computers register the answer - Cal Poly

The Classic 'Y' - October 1994 - MGCC Y Register · 2019. 6. 17. · THE CLASSIC 'Y' Tne Newsletter of the M, G, 'Y' Type Register, Volume 17, NO,125, Oc tobel'" 1994, EDITOR IAL

COIN REGISTER 1994

Limnol. Oceanogr, 39(5), 1994, 1044-I 060 0 1994, by the ...pc › ~pelagic › s › Montagnes 1994 Limn Ocean.… · Limnol. Oceanogr, 39(5), 1994, 1044-I 060 0 1994, by the American

Animal Registration Application...litters of kittens. Why do I need to register my pet? Pet registration is a legal requirement under the Domestic Animals Act 1994. You can be fined

Ferrarezzi Classificacao Serpentes Parte I 1994

TRADE MARKS ACT 1994 IN THE MATTER APPLICATION OF NO · TRADE MARKS ACT 1994 . IN THE MATTER APPLICATION OF NO. 2563306 . BY . SHINE LIMITED . TO REGISTER THE TRADE MARK. ... choppers,

 · call Bob, KD6XO, at 714 531-0926, for more details. RF JUNE 1994 Register now for the 1994 ARRL S.W. DIVISOJ CONVENTION SAN DIEGO, CA 26 - 28, 1994 TOWN & COUNTRY CONVENTION CENTER

Prescriptie Energetica OG I 207 1994

[Federal Register: June 7, 1994]Federal Register: June 7, 1994] _____ Part II . Department of the Treasury . Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

ANNEXURE - II REGISTER - I Register of Application ...apsec.gov.in/RTI/Register I - RTI monthly Reports - 2013.pdfRegister of Application received and disposed of under RTI Act by

) Act 2014 - ACT Legislation Register · contents 2 Rail Safety National Law (ACT) Act 2014 ... the Public Sector Management Act 1994; (i) ... emergency service—see the Legislation

TRADE MARKS ACT 1994 TO REGISTER THE TRADE MARK: …o-490-17 trade marks act 1994 in the matter of application no 3141992 by prospect if limited to register the trade mark: pingperfect

i^I '**t £-is t* j -i ±-r National Register of Historic Places · National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form Continuation sheet_____Item number 7_____Page

Descent I anno 1994.pdf

9359 Rules and Regulations Federal Register - GPO · PDF fileThis section of the FEDERAL REGISTER ... 10 CFR Part 810 RIN 1994–AA02 Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities

Manual PJ (Sobral, 1994, cap I).pdf

53988 Federal Register /Vol. 60, No. 201/Wednesday ... Federal Register/Vol. 60, No. 201/Wednesday, October 18, 1995/Proposed Rules ... May 1994 revision of the approved ICP/ AES Method

IS 2206 PART I 1994

CS4200/5200 CtAhittIComputer Architecture Ixzhou/teaching/CS4520/LNCS/ISA-Examples.pdf · CS4200/5200 CtAhittIComputer Architecture I ... Register (register-Memory ... Register (Load/Store):

National Park Service MAY i 6 1994 · National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 7 pilasters, and capitals in high relief. These

1. by clicking “Register” under “I am a First Time User Enrollment... ·  · 2017-08-021 1. Register. Go to . To start, register by clicking “Register” under “I am a

Surrey History Centre record accessions 2019 · 2020. 8. 27. · 9035 St Mark's, Tattenham Corner, Epsom Baptism register, 1994 - 2003, and service register, 2002 - 2016 1994 - 2016

I lend ppt how to register

33388 Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 123 Tuesday, June 28 ......Federal Register./ Vol. 59, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 1994 / Rules and Regulations control pressure in the pipeline."

TRADE MARKS ACT 1994 IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION NO ... · o-069-17 . trade marks act 1994 . in the matter of application no. 3150004 by . chiemeka ejiochi . to register: alaanyi

1994 Carryall I and Carryall II

I never thought I could fill - Mito Register

Takagi Universal Mobility I 1994

Trinity Grade 3 1994-1997 i

I - SYSTEM/COMPONENT TESTS - CelicaTech - …bgbonline.celicatech.com/94_6gmanual/I system component...I - SYSTEM/COMPONENT TESTS 1994 Toyota Celica 1994 ENGINE PERFORMANCE Toyota

Agriculture in the Fort Collins UGA, 1862-1994 · 2003-08-14 · Register Bulletin 24, Guidelines for Local Surveys: ... and National Register Bulletin 14, Guidelines for Counting

CRESPO I - 1994

Should I Register My Company Online?