Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 4783

to provide a written copy of their

statement and present it to the Service

at the hearing. In the event there is a

large attendance, the time allotted for

oral statements may be limited. Oral and

written statements receive equal

consideration. There are no limits to the

length of written comments presented at

the hearing or mailed to the Service.

Legal notices announcing the date, time,

and location of the hearing will be

published in newspapers concurrently

with the Federal Register notice.

Comments from the public regarding

the accuracy of this proposed rule are

sought, especially regarding:

(1) The reasons why critical habitat

for any of these species is prudent or not

prudent;

(2) The reasons why any particular

area should or should not be designated

as critical habitat for any of these

species;

(3) Specific information on the

amount and distribution of habitat for

any of these species;

(4) Land use practices and current or

planned activities in the subject areas

and their possible impacts on proposed

critical habitat;

(5) Any economic or other relevant

impacts resulting from the proposed

designations of critical habitat,

including any impacts on small entities

or families; and

(6) Economic and other potential

values associated with designating

critical habitat for the 76 plant species

such as those derived from nonconsumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping,

birding, enhanced watershed protection,

increased soil retention, ‘‘existence

values’’, and reductions in

administrative costs).

Reopening of the comment period

will enable the Service to respond to the

request for a public hearing on the

proposed action. The comment period

on this proposal now closes on February

19, 2001. Written comments should be

submitted to the Service office listed in

the ADDRESSES section.

Author

The primary authors of this notice

Benton Pang and Christa Russell (see

ADDRESSES section).

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: January 3, 2001.

Rowan W. Gould,

Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Fish and

Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 01–659 Filed 1–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AH05

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Designation of

Critical Habitat for Sidalcea oregana

var. calva (Wenatchee Mountains

checker-mallow)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to

designate critical habitat for Sidalcea

oregana var. calva (Wenatchee

Mountains checker-mallow), pursuant

to the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended (Act). An estimated

maximum of 2,486 hectares (6,137

acres) lies within the boundary of the

proposed critical habitat designation,

located in Chelan County, Washington.

If this proposal is made final, section 7

of the Act requires Federal agencies to

insure that any action they fund,

authorize, or carry out does not result in

the destruction or adverse modification

of critical habitat. Section 4 of the Act

requires us to consider economic and

other impacts of specifying any

particular area as critical habitat. We

solicit data and comments from the

public on all aspects of this proposal,

including data on the economic and

other impacts of the designation. We

may revise this proposal to incorporate

or address new information received

during the comment period.

DATES: We will accept comments until

March 19, 2001. Public hearing requests

must be received by March 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comment Submission: If

you wish to comment, you may submit

your comments and materials

concerning this proposal by any one of

several methods:

You may submit written comments

and information to Gerry Jackson,

Manager, Western Washington Office,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 510

Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey,

Washington, 98503–1263.

You may send comments by

electronic mail (e-mail) to:

checkermallow@fws.gov. See the Public

Comments Solicited section below for

file format and other information about

electronic filing.

You may hand-deliver comments to

our Western Washington Office at the

address given above.

Comments and materials received, as

well as supporting documentation used

in the preparation of this proposed rule,

will be available for inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted

Thomas, Ecologist, Endangered Species

Branch, Western Washington Office (see

ADDRESSES section) (telephone 360/753–

4327; facsimile 360/534–9331).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Sidalcea oregana var. calva, the

Wenatchee Mountains checker-mallow,

is known to occur at six sites

(populations). It is a plant found in midelevation wetlands and moist meadows

in central Washington. The plant

communities where the species is found

are usually associated with meadows

that have surface water or saturated

soils during the spring and early

summer. The species may also be found

in open conifer forests dominated by

Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine) and

Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir),

and on the margins of shrub and

hardwood thickets adjacent to seeps,

springs, or small drainages. Soils are

primarily composed of silt loams and

clay loams with a high percentage

content of organic material, and they are

poorly drained.

A member of the mallow family

(Malvaceae), Sidalcea oregana var. calva

is an herbaceous perennial with a stout

taproot that branches at the root-crown

giving rise to several stems. Plants range

in height from 20 to 150 centimeters

(cm) (8 to 60 inches (in.)). Plants vary

from glabrous (lacking hairs and glands)

to pubescent (hairy) or stellate (with

star-shaped hairs) below, and finely

stellate above. Flower clusters with one

to many stalked flowers are arranged

singly along a common stem. The

flowers have pink petals 1 to 2 cm (0.4

to 0.8 in.) long, and are borne on stalks

ranging from 1 to 10 millimeters (mm)

(0.04 to 0.4 in.) in length. The calyx

(outer whorl of floral parts) ranges from

uniformly finely stellate to bristly with

a mixture of longer, simple to fourrayed, spreading hairs. These hairs are

sometimes as long as 2.5 to 3 mm (0.1

to 0.12 in.) (Hitchcock and Cronquist

1961).

Flowering begins in the middle of

June and peaks in the middle to end of

July. Fruits are ripe in August. The

species reproduces only from seed.

Based on examination of seed capsules

the production of seed appears to be

high (Gamon 1987). The somewhat

clumped distribution of mature Sidalcea

oregana var. calva plants suggests that

seed dispersal is restricted to the areas

near to mature plants, unless the seeds

4784 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

are moved by animals or transported by

water.

The physical and biological habitat

features essential to the conservation of

Sidalcea oregana var. calva include

open meadows with surface water or

saturated upper soil profiles in the

spring and early summer; open conifer

forests dominated by ponderosa pine

and Douglas-fir; and the margins of

shrub and hardwood thickets. All of

these habitats have surface water or

saturated soils well into the early

summer. Elevations range from 488 to

1,000 meters (m) (1,600 to 3,300 feet

(ft)). The species is generally found on

flats or benches, but may also occur in

small ravines and occasionally on gently

sloping uplands.

Concentrations of Sidalcea oregana

var. calva are found in the wetter

portions of moist meadow habitat, in

open forests in slight topographic

depressions, on the perimeter of shrub

and hardwood thickets dominated by

quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides),

and along permanent or intermittent

streams in sparsely forested draws.

Frequently associated plant species

include quaking aspen, black hawthorn

(Crataegus douglasii), common

snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus),

serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia),

few-flowered peavine (Lathyrus

pauciflorus), northern mule’s-ear

(Wyethia amplexicaulis), sticky purple

geranium (Geranium viscosissimum),

western bistort (Polygonum

bistortoides), leafy aster (Aster

foliaceus), Watson’s willow-herb

(Epilobium watsonii), false hellebore

(Veratrum californica), and rudbeckia

(Rudbeckia occidentalis) (Washington

Department of Natural Resources

(WDNR) 2000). One-half of the Sidalcea

oregana var. calva populations are

found in association with Delphinium

viridescens (Wenatchee larkspur), a

former Federal category 1 candidate

plant species. The latter species was

removed from candidate status on

February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7610), because

it was found to be more abundant or

widespread than previously believed.

At the time the final rule for Sidalcea

oregana var. calva was published (64 FR

71680), just five sites were known to

exist. During mid-summer 1999, a sixth

population was discovered on private

property in Pendleton Canyon, an area

that was burned and opened up by the

Tyee Fire of 1994. This location is less

than 8 kilometers (km) (5 miles (mi))

from the Camas Meadow population.

The wetland and moist meadow

complex at Camas Meadows, an area

managed as a Natural Area Preserve

(NAP) by the WDNR, contains the

largest population of Sidalcea oregana

var. calva The Camas Meadow NAP

includes approximately 539 hectares

(ha) (1,333 acres (ac)) (WDNR 2000), and

is located in the rural/wildland interface

about 16 km (10 mi) south of

Leavenworth, Washington. An

estimated 3,300 Sidalcea oregana var.

calva individuals occur there. Low

density, rural residential home sites

have been developed adjacent to the

NAP. Also, the Camas Meadows Bible

Camp has occupied the southern

perimeter of the meadow since the late

1940s, and the U.S. Forest Service

(Forest Service) administers properties

surrounding the NAP.

Another population is located north

of the Camas Meadow NAP, on land

administered by WDNR, and has

approximately 30 individual plants. At

the time the final rule was published (64

FR 71680), this population occurred on

private land. The private landowners

have since traded this land to the State.

In addition to these two populations

of Sidalcea oregana var. calva, two

other populations of Sidalcea oregana

var. calva are known to be present on

private lands. One population, of about

200 individuals, is located at the

Mountain Home Resort. The second

population is located in Pendleton

Canyon, and consists of about 60 plants.

The last two known populations are

located on Forest Service lands,

containing less than 10 individual

plants combined. The combined number

of individual plants for all six

populations is approximately 3,600.

The primary threats to Sidalcea

oregana var. calva include habitat

fragmentation and destruction due to

alterations of hydrology, rural

residential development and associated

activities, conversion of native wetlands

to orchards and other agricultural uses,

competition from native and non-native

plants, recreation, seed and plant

collection, and fire suppression and

associated activities. To a lesser extent,

the species is threatened by livestock

grazing, road construction, and timber

harvesting and associated impacts

including changes in surface runoff in

the small watersheds in which the plant

occurs.

Previous Federal Action

Federal action on Sidalcea oregana

var. calva began when we published an

updated Notice of Review for plants,

published in the Federal Register on

December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This

notice included Sidalcea oregana var.

calva as a category 1 candidate species.

Category 1 candidates were defined as

those taxa for which we had sufficient

information on the biological

vulnerability and threats to support

preparation of listing rules. The Notice

of Review published on September 27,

1985 (50 FR 39526), included Sidalcea

oregana var. calva as a category 2

candidate species. Category 2

candidates were defined as taxa for

which available information indicated

that a proposal to list as endangered or

threatened was possibly appropriate,

but for which persuasive data on

biological vulnerability and threats were

not sufficient to support a proposed

rule.

Notices of review published on

February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), and

September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144),

identified the plant as a category 1

candidate species. Upon publication of

the February 28, 1996, Notice of Review

(61 FR 7596), we ceased using category

designations and included Sidalcea

oregana var. calva as a candidate

species. Candidate species are those for

which we have on file sufficient

information on biological vulnerability

and threats to support proposals to list

the species as threatened or endangered.

On August 1, 1997, we published the

proposed rule to list Sidalcea oregana

var. calva as an endangered species (62

FR 41328). The final determination to

list Sidalcea oregana var. calva as an

endangered species was published in

the Federal Register on December 22,

1999 (64 FR 71680). In the final rule, we

found that designation of critical habitat

for the species was prudent. Due to

insufficient funding in our listing

budget at the time, critical habitat

designation was deferred in order to

focus our limited resources on higher

priority critical habitat, including courtordered designations, and other listing

actions (64 FR 71685), while still

allowing us to put in place protections

needed for the protection of S. oregana

var. calva through the listing process.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3

of the Act as—(i) the specific areas

within the geographic area occupied by

a species, at the time it is listed in

accordance with the Act, on which are

found those physical or biological

features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) that may require

special management considerations or

protection; and (ii) specific areas

outside the geographic area occupied by

a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are

essential for the conservation of the

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use

of all methods and procedures that are

necessary to bring an endangered or a

threatened species to the point at which

listing under the Act is no longer

necessary.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 4785

Critical habitat receives protection

under section 7 of the Act through the

prohibition against destruction or

adverse modification of critical habitat

with regard to actions carried out,

funded, or authorized by a Federal

agency. Section 7 also requires

conferences on Federal actions that are

likely to result in the destruction or

adverse modification of critical habitat.

In our regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we

define destruction or adverse

modification as ‘‘* * * the direct or

indirect alteration that appreciably

diminishes the value of critical habitat

for both the survival and recovery of a

listed species. Such alterations include,

but are not limited to, alterations

adversely modifying any of those

physical or biological features that were

the basis for determining the habitat to

be critical.’’ Aside from the added

protection that may be provided under

section 7, the Act does not provide other

forms of protection to lands designated

as critical habitat. Because consultation

under section 7 of the Act does not

apply to activities on private or other

non-Federal lands that do not involve a

Federal nexus, critical habitat

designation would not afford any

additional protections under the Act

against such activities.

In order to be included in a critical

habitat designation, the habitat must

first be ‘‘essential to the conservation of

the species.’’ Critical habitat

designations identify, to the extent

known using the best scientific and

commercial data available, habitat areas

that provide essential life cycle needs of

the species (i.e., areas on which are

found the primary constituent elements,

as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).

Section 4 requires that we designate

critical habitat at the time of listing and

based on what we know at the time of

the designation. When we designate

critical habitat at the time of listing or

under short court-ordered deadlines, we

will often not have sufficient

information to identify all areas of

critical habitat. We are required,

nevertheless, to make a decision and

thus must base our designations on

what, at the time of designation, we

know to be critical habitat.

Within the geographic area occupied

by the species, we will designate only

areas currently known to be essential.

Essential areas should already have the

features and habitat characteristics that

are necessary to sustain the species. We

will not speculate about what areas

might be found to be essential if better

information became available, or what

areas may become essential over time. If

the information available at the time of

designation does not show that an area

provides essential life cycle needs of the

species, then the area should not be

included in the critical habitat

designation. Within the geographic area

occupied by the species, we will not

designate areas that do not now have the

primary constituent elements, as

defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b), that

provide essential life cycle needs of the

species.

Our regulations state that, ‘‘The

Secretary shall designate as critical

habitat areas outside the geographic area

presently occupied by the species only

when a designation limited to its

present range would be inadequate to

ensure the conservation of the species.’’

(50 CFR 424.12(e)). Accordingly, when

the best available scientific and

commercial data do not demonstrate

that the conservation needs of the

species require designation of critical

habitat outside of occupied areas, we

will not designate critical habitat in

areas outside the geographic area

occupied by the species.

The Service’s Policy on Information

Standards Under the Endangered

Species Act, published in the Federal

Register on July 1, 1994 (Vol. 59, p.

34271), provides criteria, establishes

procedures, and provides guidance to

ensure that decisions made by the

Service represent the best scientific and

commercial data available. It requires

Service biologists, to the extent

consistent with the Act and with the use

of the best scientific and commercial

data available, to use primary and

original sources of information as the

basis for recommendations to designate

critical habitat. When determining

which areas are critical habitat, a

primary source of information should be

the listing package for the species.

Additional information may be obtained

from a recovery plan, articles in peerreviewed journals, conservation plans

developed by states and counties,

scientific status surveys and studies,

and biological assessments or other

unpublished materials (i.e. gray

literature).

Habitat is often dynamic, and species

may move from one area to another over

time. Furthermore, we recognize that

designation of critical habitat may not

include all of the habitat areas that may

eventually be determined to be

necessary for the recovery of the

species. For these reasons, all should

understand that critical habitat

designations do not signal that habitat

outside the designation is unimportant

or may not be required for recovery.

Areas outside the critical habitat

designation will continue to be subject

to conservation actions that may be

implemented under Section 7(a)(1) and

to the regulatory protections afforded by

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard

and the Section 9 take prohibition, as

determined on the basis of the best

available information at the time of the

action. We specifically anticipate that

federally funded or assisted projects

affecting listed species outside their

designated critical habitat areas may

still result in jeopardy findings in some

cases. Similarly, critical habitat

designations made on the basis of the

best available information at the time of

designation will not control the

direction and substance of future

recovery plans, habitat conservation

plans, or other species conservation

planning efforts if new information

available to these planning efforts calls

for a different outcome.

Methods

In determining areas that are essential

to conserve Sidalcea oregana var. calva,

we used the best scientific information

available to us. This information

included habitat suitability and sitespecific species information, as well as

discussions with Wenatchee National

Forest and WDNR scientists about the

management and conservation of this

species. We have emphasized areas of

current and historical Sidalcea oregana

var. calva occurrences; maintenance of

the genetic interchange necessary for the

viability of a regional metapopulation;

and maintenance of the integrity of the

watershed hydrologic processes on

which the wetlands and moist meadows

that support the species depend. A

metapopulation is a group of spatially

separated populations that can

occasionally exchange genes. The

populations in a metapopulation are

usually thought of as undergoing

interdependent extinction and

colonization, where individual

populations may go extinct, but later

recolonize from another population.

Linking the known populations

provides pathways for gene flow as well

as opportunities for colonization by the

species of areas where it may be

extirpated. We believe that the

maintenance of a viable regional

metapopulation as well as the integrity

of the hydrologic processes that control

the wetland and moist meadow habitat

are essential to the conservation of

Sidalcea oregana var. calva.

We used data on known and historic

locations and soil maps to identify areas

important to the species. We mapped

critical habitat based on orthoquads and

aerial photos available from WDNR, and

ground-checked these areas. We

included areas with wetland vegetation

communities dominated by native

grasses and forbs and generally free of

4786 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

woody shrubs, hardwood trees, or

conifers that would produce shade and/

or compete with Sidalcea oregana var.

calva. Seeps, springs and riparian

corridors that have clay loam and silt

loam soils were included because of

their importance to maintaining the

hydrologic processes that are essential

to the conservation of the species.

Inclusion of these areas also allows for

the natural expansion of Sidalcea

oregana var. calva populations that is

essential for the conservation of the

species.

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR

424.12, in determining which areas to

propose as critical habitat, we must

consider those physical and biological

features (primary constituent elements)

that are essential to the conservation of

the species. These include, but are not

limited to, the following: space for

individual and population growth, and

for normal behavior; food, water, air,

light, minerals or nutrients, or

physiological requirements; cover or

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction,

or rearing of offspring, germination, or

seed dispersal; and habitats that are

protected from disturbance or are

representative of the historic

geographical and ecological distribution

of a species.

The primary constituent elements of

critical habitat for Sidalcea oregana var.

calva are those that are essential for the

primary biological needs of the species.

The area we propose to designate as

critical habitat provides the primary

constituent elements for the species,

which include: surface water or

saturated upper soil profiles; a wetland

plant community dominated by native

grasses and forbs, and generally free of

woody shrubs and conifers that would

produce shade and competition for

Sidalcea oregana var. calva; seeps and

springs on fine textured soils (clay

loams and silt loams), which contribute

to the maintenance of hydrologic

processes necessary to support

meadows which remain moist into the

early summer; and elevations of 488 m–

1,000 m (1,600–3,300 ft).

Criteria Used To Identify Critical

Habitat

In an effort to map areas that have the

features essential to the conservation of

the species, we used data on known

Sidalcea oregana var. calva locations.

We also considered the existing status of

lands in designating areas as critical

habitat. Sidalcea oregana var. calva is

known to occur on Federal, State, and

private lands. We are not aware of any

Tribal lands essential to the

conservation of Sidalcea oregana var.

calva, or any in or near the proposed

critical habitat designation. However,

should we learn of any Tribal lands in

the vicinity of the critical habitat

designation subsequent to this proposal,

we will coordinate with the Tribes

before making a final determination as

to whether any Tribal lands should be

included as critical habitat for Sidalcea

oregana var. calva.

In defining critical habitat boundaries,

we made an effort to avoid developed

areas, such as towns and other similar

lands, that are unlikely to contribute to

Sidalcea oregana var. calva

conservation. However, limitations in

our ability to map critical habitat for

Sidalcea oregana var. calva did not

allow us to exclude all developed areas,

such as towns, or housing

developments, or other lands unlikely to

contain the primary constituent

elements essential for conservation of

Sidalcea oregana var. calva. Existing

features and structures within the

boundaries of the mapped unit, such as

buildings, roads, aqueducts, railroads,

airports, other paved areas, lawns, and

other rural residential landscaped areas

will not contain one or more of the

primary constituent elements and are,

therefore, not critical habitat. Federal

actions limited to those areas would not

trigger a section 7 consultation, unless

they affect the species and/or primary

constituent elements in adjacent critical

habitat.

Proposed Critical Habitat

We are proposing critical habitat in

one unit, comprised of 2,484 ha (6,135

ac). The approximate area, by land

ownership, of this unit is shown in

Table 1; lands proposed are under

private, State, and Federal ownership.

All of the proposed critical habitat for

Sidalcea oregana var. calva is in Chelan

County, Washington, and includes

Camas Creek and the adjacent Pendleton

Canyon sub-basin. The area proposed

for critical habitat includes all of the

lands that have the primary constituent

elements below 1,000 m (3,300 ft)

within the Camas Creek watershed and

in the small tributary within Pendleton

Canyon before its confluence with

Peshastin Creek, and includes: (1) The

entire area encompassed by the Camas

Meadow Natural Area Preserve, which

is administered by the WDNR; (2) two

populations located on Forest Service

land; (3) the small drainage north of the

Camas Land, administered by the

WDNR; and (4) the population on

private property located in Pendleton

Canyon.

Portions of the designated critical

habitat are presumably unoccupied by

Sidalcea oregana var. calva at present,

although the entire area has not been

recently surveyed. Soil maps indicate

that the entire area provides suitable

habitat for the species, and there may be

additional, but currently unknown,

populations present here. Because

protection of the hydrological processes

is necessary to ensure the viability of

the wetland habitat of the species, we

consider the entire area essential to the

survival, eventual recovery, and

delisting of Sidalcea oregana var. calva.

Wetlands and moist meadow habitat

(native grassland and forb-dominated

vegetation) suitable for Sidalcea oregana

var. calva is generally surrounded by

upland conditions, which are

dominated by ponderosa pine and

Douglas-fir forests. These upland

conditions are less suitable as habitat for

the species and are not essential to the

conservation of the species. Moist

meadow openings within sparse

ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests,

however, are suitable habitat and are

included in this proposed critical

habitat designation.

Pursuant to the definition of critical

habitat in section 3 of the Act, any area

so designated must also require ‘‘special

managment considerations or

protections.’’ Some areas essential to the

conservation of the species may not be

designated critical habitat if they

already have adequate special

management. Adequate special

management or protection is provided

by a legally operative plan that

addresses the maintenance and

improvement of the essential elements

and provides for the long-term

conservation of the species. The Service

considers a plan adequate when it meets

all of the following three criteria: (1)

The plan provides a conservation

benefit to the species (i.e., the plan must

maintain or provide for an increase in

the species’ population or the

enhancement or restoration of its habitat

within the area covered by the plan); (2)

the plan provides assurances that the

management plan will be implemented

(i.e., those responsible for implementing

the plan are capable of accomplishing

the objectives, have an implementation

schedule and/or have adequate funding

to implement the management plan);

and, (3) the plan provides assurances

the conservation plan will be effective

(i.e., it identifies biological goals, has

provisions for reporting progress, and is

of a duration sufficient to implement the

plan and achieve the plan’s goals and

objectives). If an area is covered by a

plan that meets these criteria, it does not

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 4787

constitute critical habitat as defined by

the Act.

The Camas Land NAP is managed by

the WDNR, and a final Management

Plan (Plan) for the area was approved in

June, 2000. The NAP was established in

1989 to protect the large populations of

Sidalcea oregana var. calva and

Delphinium viridescens (Wenatchee

larkspur) that occur at Camas Meadow.

The general management policy

described in the Plan applies to all

NAPs managed by the WDNR. These

include: (1) Protection of outstanding

examples of rare or vanishing terrestrial

or aquatic ecosystems, rare plant and

animal species and unique geologic

features; (2) the role of NAPs as a

baseline to compare with similar

ecosystems that are under the influence

of human activities; and (3) areas that

are important to preserving natural

features of scientific or educational

value. However, the Plan does not

provide a specific management plan or

prescription designed to conserve

Sidalcea oregana var. calva, beyond

permitting natural ecological and

physical processes to continue (WDNR

2000). The Plan does call for

management actions to enhance wet

meadow habitat, which will benefit

Sidalcea oregana var. calva by removing

competing vegetation, including

controlling noxious weeds; thinning

ponderosa pine in the uplands; and

improving and replacing culverts.

However, these actions have not yet

been implemented, and it is too early to

assess their effectiveness.

Although the species is listed as

endangered by the WDNR’s Natural

Heritage Program (1994), there is no

State Endangered Species Act in the

State of Washington. The WDNR

designation provides no legal protection

for Sidalcea oregana var. calva, and

there are no State laws that specifically

protect plants on State lands. Therefore,

we believe that this management plan

alone does not provide sufficient

protection for Sidalcea oregana var.

calva, and have included the Camas

Land NAP within the proposed critical

habitat designation.

Private residential properties on the

periphery of the Camas Land NAP and

the Camas Meadow Bible Camp located

on the south side of the Camas Land,

within the area designated as critical

habitat, are not included in the

designation. Private residential

properties in the vicinity of the Camas

Land NAP have been altered by the

planting of lawns, installation of septic

systems, and horse pastures. These

properties are generally located in

upland conditions that do not provide

the primary constituent elements of

critical habitat necessary for the longterm protection and conservation of

Sidalcea oregana var. calva.

TABLE 1.—APPROXIMATE AREA OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT IN HECTARES (HA) AND ACRES (AC) 1 IN CHELAN

COUNTY, WASHINGTON, BY LAND OWNERSHIP

[Area estimates reflect the proposed critical habitat unit boundaries; however, existing features and structures, such as buildings, roads, aqueducts, railroads, airports, other paved areas, lawns, and other rural residential landscaped areas not containing one or more of the primary

constituent elements are not designated as critical habitat for Sidalcea oregana var. calva]

Federal Local/state Private Total

Areas Known to be Currently Occupied ............................................... 0.5 ha (1 ac) 38 ha (94 ac) 0.5 ha (1 ac) 39 ha (96 ac)

Areas of Suitable Habitat of Unknown Occupancy ........................ 830 ha (2,050 ac) 540 ha (1,334 ac) 1,075 ha (2,655 ac) 2,445 ha (6,039 ac)

Total ...................................... 2,484 ha (6,135 ac)

1Approximate acres have been converted to hectares (1 ha = 2.47 ac). Hectares and acres greater than 1 have been rounded to the nearest

5, except for totals which are sums of rows or columns.

We have determined that the habitat

supporting the population found at the

Mountain Home Resort (Resort) is not

essential to the conservation of the

species. This population is disjunct

from the remaining populations, and

located in an area entirely surrounded

with private residences, private

timberlands, and a road administered by

Chelan County. The habitat on this

property that contains Sidalcea oregana

var. calva, and the former candidate

species Delphinium viridescens, is

confined to a small linear area

associated with a drainage ditch

adjacent to the Mountain Home road

and is bordered on the north and south

by gravel access roads leading to

residences. It is likely that the habitat

resulted from the construction of the

road and the creation of the drainage

ditch. The habitat is now dominated by

non-native, sod-forming grasses and

forbs mixed with native vegetation

(Dottie Knecht, Forest Service, pers.

comm. 2000). The class-B Washington

State noxious weed, Potentilla recta

(sulfur cinquefoil) (Washington

Administrative Code 16–750–011) is

frequently encountered in monitoring

plots at this site, although at low cover

(D. Knecht, pers. comm. 2000). Moving

out of the occupied habitat and up the

hill towards the Resort, the vegetation is

also dominated by sod-forming pasture

and lawn grasses, including Agrostis

alba (creeping bentgrass), Alopecuris

pratensis (meadow foxtail), Phleum

pratense (timothy grass), and Bromus

inermis (smooth brome). These species

are not consistent with the primary

constituent elements.

Through observation of the adjacent

properties along the Mountain Home

road, it is evident that, if the Resort

were not present and the land had not

been cleared to create a vista, the

marginal habitat where the small

population is found at this site would be

forested with conifers mixed with

hardwood trees and shrubs. Such

habitat does not contain the vegetative

requirements and open conditions of the

primary constituent elements.

The population at the Resort is also

disjunct from the other populations of

the species, which are more than 16 km

(10 mi) distant. Because of

fragmentation and the patchy

distribution of habitat between this

population and other populations of the

species, the persistence of this

population cannot be assured. We

believe that the most appropriate

conservation strategy for Sidalcea

oregana var. calva is one that focuses on

the protection and expansion of the core

habitat of the species rather than the

protection of isolated populations of

doubtful viability. Except through

artificial means, there is no opportunity

for gene exchange between this

population and the other populations.

Although no genetic testing has been

conducted for this species, a small

population, such as that found at the

Resort, is likely to have reduced genetic

diversity, which can result in decreased

4788 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

population viability due to inbreeding

(Schemske et al. 1994).

Although the ability to predict

random environmental events

(stochastic events) is low, events such as

forest fires (e.g., the 1994 Rat Creek and

Hatchery Creek Fires) and rain-on-snow

flooding do occur. The effects of these

stochastic events are most acute in small

populations (Schemske et al. 1994). As

a result of an increased importance of

stochastic processes and changes in

ecological interactions in declining

populations, the probability of a

population extirpation is expected to be

negatively correlated with its size

(Schemske et al. 1994).

The population found at Pendleton

Canyon is on privately-owned land that

has been included as critical habitat

because it has the primary constituent

elements required by Sidalcea oregana

var. calva. It is located in a wildland

setting with none of the modifications

typically associated with a residence,

unlike the private residences near

Camas Meadow or the population of

Sidalcea oregana var. calva at the Resort

which lack the primary constituent

elements and have been excluded from

critical habitat designation.

The Recovery Team for Sidalcea

oregana var. calva will be providing

guidance on recovery planning for this

species. The Recovery Team may

provide additional guidance regarding

the areas proposed for critical habitat

designation. We will evaluate any of the

Recovery Team’s recommendations and

re-examine our critical habitat

designation, if necessary, to provide for

the conservation of the species.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a) of the Act requires that

Federal agencies, including the Service,

must ensure that actions they fund,

authorize, or carry out do not destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat to the

extent that the action appreciably

diminishes the value of the critical

habitat for the survival and recovery of

the species. Individuals, organizations,

States, local governments, and other

non-Federal entities are affected by the

designation of critical habitat only if

their actions occur on Federal lands,

require a Federal permit, license, or

other authorization, or involve Federal

funding.

Under section 7(a) of the Act, Federal

agencies, including the Service, evaluate

their actions with respect to any species

that is proposed or listed as endangered

or threatened and with respect to its

critical habitat, if any is designated or

proposed. Regulations implementing

this interagency cooperation provision

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part

402. Section 7(a)(4) and regulations at

50 CFR 402.10 requires Federal agencies

to confer with us on any action that is

likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a proposed species or result

in destruction or adverse modification

of proposed critical habitat. Conference

reports provide conservation

recommendations to assist the agency in

eliminating conflicts that may be caused

by the proposed action. The

conservation recommendations in a

conference report are advisory.

We may issue a formal conference

report if requested by a Federal agency.

Formal conference reports on proposed

critical habitat contain a biological

opinion that is prepared according to 50

CFR 402.14, as if critical habitat were

designated. If such designation occurs,

we may adopt the formal conference

report as a biological opinion, if no

significant new information or changes

in the action alter the content of the

opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).

When a species is listed or critical

habitat is designated, section 7(a)(2)

requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry

out are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of the species or to

destroy or adversely modify its critical

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must enter

into consultation with us. Through this

consultation, we would advise the

agencies whether the permitted actions

would likely jeopardize the continued

existence of the species or destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat.

When we issue a biological opinion

concluding that a project is likely to

result in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat, we also

provide reasonable and prudent

alternatives to the project, if any are

identifiable. Reasonable and prudent

alternatives are defined at 50 CFR

402.02 as alternative actions identified

during consultation that can be

implemented in a manner consistent

with the intended purpose of the action,

that are consistent with the scope of the

Federal agency’s legal authority and

jurisdiction, that are economically and

technologically feasible, and that the

Director believes would avoid the

likelihood of jeopardizing the continued

existence of listed species or resulting in

the destruction or adverse modification

of critical habitat. Reasonable and

prudent alternatives can vary from

slight project modifications to extensive

redesign or relocation of the project.

Costs associated with implementing a

reasonable and prudent alternative are

similarly variable.

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require

Federal agencies to reinitiate

consultation on previously reviewed

actions in instances where critical

habitat is subsequently designated and

the Federal agency has retained

discretionary involvement or control

over the action or such discretionary

involvement or control is authorized by

law. Consequently, some Federal

agencies may request reinitiation of

consultation or conferencing with us on

actions for which formal consultation

has been completed, if those actions

may affect designated critical habitat or

adversely modify or destroy proposed

critical habitat.

Activities on private or State lands

requiring a permit from a Federal

agency, such as a permit from the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under

section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or

a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the

Service, or some other Federal action,

including funding (e.g., from the Federal

Highway Administration or Federal

Emergency Management Agency will

also be subject to the section 7

consultation process. Federal actions

not affecting listed species or critical

habitat, and actions on non-Federal

lands that are not federally funded,

authorized, or permitted do not require

section 7 consultation. Not all of the

areas within the unit is capable of

supporting Sidalcea oregana var. calva

or its primary constituent elements, and

such areas would not be subject to

section 7 consultation. However, in the

interests of having a clear boundary that

is readily located on the ground, or

because of mapping uncertainties, we

have included some areas that may not

be critical habitat as described below.

To properly portray the effects of

critical habitat designation, we must

first compare the section 7 requirements

for actions that may affect critical

habitat with the requirements for

actions that may affect a listed species.

Section 7 prohibits actions funded,

authorized, or carried out by Federal

agencies from jeopardizing the

continued existence of a listed species

or destroying or adversely modifying the

listed species’ critical habitat. Actions

likely to ‘‘jeopardize the continued

existence’’ of a species are those that

would appreciably reduce the

likelihood of the species’ survival and

recovery. Actions likely to ‘‘destroy or

adversely modify’’ critical habitat are

those that would appreciably reduce the

value of critical habitat for the survival

and recovery of the listed species.

Common to both definitions is an

appreciable detrimental effect on both

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 4789

survival and recovery of a listed species.

Given the similarity of these definitions,

actions likely to destroy or adversely

modify critical habitat would almost

always result in jeopardy to the species

concerned, particularly when the area of

the proposed action is occupied by the

species concerned. Designation of

critical habitat in areas known to be

occupied by Sidalcea oregana var.

calva, and areas where the species is

detected in surveys at the time of the

action, is not likely to result in a

significant regulatory burden above that

already in place due to the presence of

the listed species. For some previously

reviewed actions, in instances where

critical habitat is subsequently

designated, and in those cases where

activities occur on designated critical

habitat where Sidalcea oregana var.

calva is not found at the time of the

action, an additional section 7

consultation with the Service not

previously required may be necessary

for actions funded, authorized, or

carried out by Federal agencies.

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us

to briefly describe and evaluate in any

proposed or final regulation that

designates critical habitat those

activities involving a Federal action that

may adversely modify such habitat or

that may be affected by such

designation. When determining whether

any of these activities may adversely

modify critical habitat, we base our

analysis on the effects of the action on

the entire critical habitat area and not

just on the portion where the activity

will occur. Adverse effects on

constituent elements or segments of

critical habitat generally do not result in

an adverse modification determination

unless that loss, when added to the

environmental baseline, is likely to

appreciably diminish the capability of

the critical habitat to satisfy essential

requirements of the species. In other

words, activities that may destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat include

those that alter the primary constituent

elements (defined above) to an extent

that the value of critical habitat for both

the survival and recovery of the

Sidalcea oregana var. calva is

appreciably diminished.

Activities that, when carried out,

funded, or authorized by a Federal

agency, may affect critical habitat and

require that a section 7 consultation be

conducted include, but are not limited

to:

(1) Damming, water diversion,

channelization, excess groundwater

pumping, repair and replacement of

culverts, or other actions that

appreciably reduce the hydrologic

function and surface area of rivers,

streams, seeps or springs;

(2) Timber harvesting and road

construction that directly or indirectly

effects the hydrology of sites harboring

the species;

(3) Rural residential construction that

include concrete pads for foundations

and the installation of septic systems

where a permit under section 404 of the

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.)

would be required from the Corps;

(4) Activities that alter watershed

characteristics in ways that would

appreciably reduce groundwater

recharge or alter natural flooding

regimes to alter natural, dynamic

wetland communities. Such activities

may include manipulation of vegetation

such as timber harvesting, road

construction, maintaining an unnatural

fire regime either through fire

suppression, or too frequent or poorlytimed prescribed fires, residential and

commercial development, and grazing

of livestock or horses that reduces fire

frequency or otherwise degrades

watershed values;

(5) Activities that appreciably degrade

or destroy native wetland communities,

such as livestock or horse grazing, land

clearing, harvesting of trees or other

forest products, introducing or

encouraging the spread of non-native

plant species; and

(6) Activities that appreciably alter

stream channel morphology such as

sand and gravel mining, road

construction, channelization,

impoundment, watershed disturbances,

off-road vehicle use, heavy or poorly

planned recreational uses, and possibly

other uses.

Any of the above activities that

appreciably diminish the value of

critical habitat to the degree that they

affect the survival and recovery of

Sidalcea oregana var. calva may be

considered an adverse modification or

destruction of critical habitat. We note

that such activities may also jeopardize

the continued existence of the species.

If you have questions regarding

whether specific activities will

constitute destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat resulting

from a Federal action, contact Gerry

Jackson, Manager, Western Washington

Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests

for copies of the regulations on listed

wildlife, and inquiries about

prohibitions and permits may be

addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Branch of Endangered Species,

911 N.E. 11th Ave, Portland, Oregon

97232 (telephone 503/231–2063;

facsimile 503/231–6243).

Available Conservation Measures

Activities by the landowners of the

Mountain Home Resort have resulted in

positive conservation measures for the

species. The landowners have

cooperated and supported the

monitoring of this population by the

Forest Service since 1994 when, during

the Rat Creek and Hatchery Creek fires,

approximately one-half of the area

occupied by Sidalcea oregana var. calva

and Delphinium viridescens was

bulldozed and leveled to create a fire

safety zone. After the fires, the

landowners permitted the Forest Service

and volunteers to restore and plant grass

seed on their land to reduce erosion in

the small drainage area where these two

species occur. Within about 2 years, the

hydrologic processes had returned to

normal and Delphinium viridescens

resprouted from rhizomes. Sidalcea

oregana var. calva recolonized by seed

from neighboring parent plants and the

soil seed bank stored in soils not

disturbed by bulldozers.

Economic Analysis

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us

to designate critical habitat on the basis

of the best scientific and commercial

information available and to consider

the economic and other relevant

impacts of designating a particular area

as critical habitat. We may exclude areas

from critical habitat upon a

determination that the benefits of the

exclusions outweigh the benefits of

specifying the areas as critical habitat.

We cannot exclude the areas from

critical habitat when the exclusion will

result in the extinction of the species.

We will conduct an analysis of the

economic impacts of designating these

areas as critical habitat prior to making

a final determination. When completed,

we will announce the availability of this

economic analysis with a notice in the

Federal Register; if necessary, we will

reopen the comment period at that time.

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action

resulting from this proposal be as

accurate and as effective as possible.

Therefore, we solicit comments or

suggestions from the public, other

concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any

other interested party concerning this

proposed rule. We particularly seek

comments concerning:

(1) The reasons why any habitat

should or should not be determined to

be critical habitat as provided by section

4 of the Act, including whether the

benefits of designation will outweigh

any benefits of exclusion;

4790 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

(2) Specific information on the

amount and distribution of Sidalcea

oregana var. calva and its habitat, and

what habitat is essential to the

conservation of the species and why;

(3) Land use practices and current or

planned activities in the subject areas

and their possible impacts on proposed

critical habitat;

(4) Any foreseeable economic or other

impacts resulting from the proposed

designation of critical habitat, in

particular, any impacts on small entities

or families; and

(5) Economic and other values

associated with designating critical

habitat for Sidalcea oregana var. calva

such as those derived from

nonconsumptive uses (e.g., hiking,

camping, birdwatching, enhanced

watershed protection, improved air

quality, increased soil retention, and

‘‘existence values.’’).

If you submit comments by e-mail,

please submit them as an ASCII file and

avoid the use of special characters and

any form of encryption. Please also

include ‘‘Attn: [RIN number]’’ and your

name and return address in your e-mail

message. If you do not receive a

confirmation from the system that we

have received your e-mail message,

contact us directly by calling our

Western Washington Office at telephone

number 360/753–9440.

Our practice is to make comments

available for public review during

regular business hours, including names

and home addresses of respondents.

Individual respondents may request that

we withhold their home address from

the rulemaking record, which we will

honor to the extent allowable by law. In

some circumstances, we would

withhold from the rulemaking record a

respondent’s identity, as allowable by

law. If you wish for us to withhold your

name and/or address, you must state

this prominently at the beginning of

your comment. However, we will not

consider anonymous comments. We

will make all submissions from

organizations or businesses, and from

individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

Peer Review

In accordance with our policy

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

34270), we will seek the expert opinions

of at least three appropriate and

independent specialists regarding this

proposed rule. The purpose of this

review is to ensure listing decisions are

based on scientifically sound data,

assumptions, and analyses. We will

send these peer reviewers copies of this

proposed rule immediately following

publication in the Federal Register. We

will invite these peer reviewers to

comment, during the public comment

period, on the specific assumptions and

conclusions regarding the proposed

designation of critical habitat.

We will consider all comments and

information received during the 60-day

comment period on this proposed rule

during preparation of a final

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final

decision may differ from this proposal.

Clarity of the Rule

Executive Order 12866 requires each

agency to write regulations/notices that

are easy to understand. We invite your

comments on how to make this

proposed rule easier to understand

including answers to questions such as

the following: (1) Are the requirements

in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2)

Does the proposed rule contain

technical language or jargon that

interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the

format of the proposed rule (grouping

and order of sections, use of headings,

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its

clarity? (4) Is the description of the

proposed rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble

helpful in understanding the proposed

rule? What else could we do to make the

proposed rule easier to understand?

Send any comments that concern how

we could make this proposed rule easier

to understand to the Gerry Jackson,

Manager, Western Washington Office

(see ADDRESSES section of this rule).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with Executive Order

12866, this document is a significant

rule and was reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). We are

preparing a draft analysis of this

proposed action, which will be available

for public comment, to determine the

economic consequences of designating

the specific areas as critical habitat. The

availability of the draft economic

analysis will be announced in the

Federal Register and in local

newspapers so that it is available for

public review and comments.

(a) This rule will not have an annual

economic effect of $100 million or more

or adversely affect an economic sector,

productivity, jobs, the environment, or

other units of government. Sidalcea

oregana var. calva was listed as an

endangered species in 1999. In fiscal

years 1999 through 2000, we conducted

1 formal section 7 consultation with a

Federal agency to ensure that their

actions would not jeopardize the

continued existence of the species.

Under the Act, critical habitat may

not be adversely modified by a Federal

agency action; critical habitat does not

impose any restrictions on non-Federal

persons unless they are conducting

activities funded or otherwise

sponsored, authorized, or permitted by

a Federal agency (see Table 2 below).

Section 7 requires Federal agencies to

ensure that they do not jeopardize the

continued existence of the species.

Based upon our experience with the

species and its needs, we conclude that

any Federal action or authorized action

that could potentially cause an adverse

modification of the proposed critical

habitat would currently be considered

as ‘‘jeopardy’’ under the Act in areas

occupied by Sidalcea oregana var.

calva. Accordingly, the designation of

currently occupied areas as critical

habitat does not have any incremental

impacts on what actions may or may not

be conducted by Federal agencies or

non-Federal persons that receive

Federal authorization or funding.

Designation of unoccupied areas as

critical habitat may have impacts on

what actions may or may not be

conducted by Federal agencies or nonFederal persons who receive Federal

authorization or funding. We will

evaluate any impact through our

economic analysis (under section 4 of

the Act; see Economic Analysis section

of this rule). Non-Federal persons that

do not have a Federal ‘‘sponsorship’’ of

their actions are not restricted by the

designation of critical habitat (however,

they continue to be bound by the

provisions of the Act concerning ‘‘take’’

of the species).

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 4791

TABLE 2. IMPACTS OF Sidalcea Oregana VAR. Calva LISTING AND CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION

Categories of activities Activities potentially affected by species listing only

Additional activities potentially affected by critical habitat designation 1

Federal activities potentially affected 2.Activities conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Forest

Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration.

Activities by these Federal Agencies in any unoccupied critical

habitat areas.

Private or other non-Federal activities potentially affected 3.Activities that require a Federal action (permit, authorization, or funding) and may remove or destroy Sidalcea oregana var. calva habitat by mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g., grading,

discing, ripping, and tilling, water diversion, impounding, groundwater pumping, irrigation, construction, road building, herbicide application, recreational use, etc.) or appreciably decrease habitat

value or quality through indirect effects (e.g., edge effects, invasion of exotic plants or animals, fragmentation of habitat).

Funding, authorization, or permitting such actions by Federal

Agencies in any unoccupied

critical habitat areas.

1This column represents activities potentially affected by the critical habitat designation in addition to those activities potentially affected by listing the species. 2Activities initiated by a Federal agency.

3Activities initiated by a private or other non-Federal entity that may need Federal authorization or funding.

(b) This rule will not create

inconsistencies with other agencies’

actions. As discussed above, Federal

agencies have been required to ensure

that their actions do not jeopardize the

continued existence of Sidalcea oregana

var. calva since the listing in 1999. The

prohibition against adverse modification

of critical habitat is not expected to

impose any additional restrictions to

those that currently exist in areas of

occupied habitat. We will evaluate any

impact of designating unoccupied

habitat areas through our economic

analysis. Because of the potential for

impacts on other Federal agency

activities, we will continue to review

this proposed action for any

inconsistencies with other Federal

agency actions.

(c) This proposed rule, if made final,

will not materially affect entitlements,

grants, user fees, loan programs, or the

rights and obligations of their recipients.

Federal agencies are currently required

to ensure that their activities do not

jeopardize the continued existence of

the species, and, as discussed above, we

do not anticipate that the adverse

modification prohibition (resulting from

critical habitat designation) will have

any incremental effects in areas of

occupied habitat.

(d) This rule will not raise novel legal

or policy issues. The proposed rule

follows the requirements for

determining critical habitat contained in

the Act.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.)

In the economic analysis (required

under section 4 of the Act), we will

determine whether designation of

critical habitat will have a significant

effect on a substantial number of small

entities. Many of these activities

sponsored by Federal agencies within

the proposed critical habitat areas are

carried out by small entities (as defined

by the Regulatory Flexibility Act)

through contract, grant, permit, or other

Federal authorization. As discussed

under Regulatory Planning and Review

above, this rule is not expected to result

in any restrictions in addition to those

currently in existence for areas of

occupied critical habitat. We will also

evaluate whether critical habitat

designation of unoccupied areas will

significantly affect a substantial number

of small entities. As indicated on Table

1 (see Proposed Critical Habitat

Designation section), we designated

property owned by State and Federal

governments, and private property.

Within these areas, the types of

Federal actions or authorized activities

that we have identified as potential

concerns are:

(1) Activities such as damming, water

diversion, channelization, excess

groundwater pumping, repair and

replacement of culverts, or other actions

that appreciably reduce the hydrologic

function and surface area of rivers,

streams, seeps or springs;

(2) Activities such as timber

harvesting and road construction that

directly or indirectly effects the

hydrology of sites harboring the species;

and

(3) Activities such as rural residential

construction that include concrete pads

for foundations and the installation of

septic systems where a permit under

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33

U.S.C. 1344 et seq.) would be required

from the Corps.

(4) Activities that alter watershed

characteristics in ways that would

appreciably reduce groundwater

recharge or alter natural flooding

regimes to alter natural, dynamic

wetland communities. Such activities

may include manipulation of vegetation

such as timber harvesting, road

construction, maintaining an unnatural

fire regime either through fire

suppression, or too frequent or poorlytimed prescribed fires, residential and

commercial development, and grazing

of livestock or horses that reduces fire

frequency or otherwise degrades

watershed values;

(5) Activities that appreciably degrade

or destroy native wetland communities,

such as livestock or horse grazing, land

clearing, harvesting of trees or other

forest products, introducing or

encouraging the spread of non-native

plant species; and

(6) Activities that appreciably alter

stream channel morphology such as

sand and gravel mining, road

construction, channelization,

impoundment, watershed disturbances,

off-road vehicle use, heavy or poorly

planned recreational uses, and possibly

other uses.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

In the economic analysis, we will

determine whether designation of

critical habitat will cause (a) any effect

on the economy of $100 million or

more, (b) any increases in costs or prices

for consumers, individual industries,

Federal, State, or local government

agencies, or geographic regions; or (c)

any significant adverse effects on

competition, employment, investment,

productivity, innovation, or the ability

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete

with foreign-based enterprises. As

discussed above, we anticipate that the

designation of critical habitat will not

have any additional effects on these

activities in areas of critical habitat

occupied by the species.

Designation of unoccupied areas as

critical habitat may have impacts on

what actions may or may not be

4792 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

conducted, or how they will be

conducted, by Federal agencies or nonFederal persons who receive Federal

authorization or funding. We will

evaluate any impact through our

economic analysis.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

In accordance with the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et

seq.):

(a) We believe this rule will not

‘‘significantly or uniquely’’ affect small

governments. A Small Government

Agency Plan is not required. Small

governments will be affected only to the

extent that any programs having Federal

funds, permits, or other authorized

activities must ensure that their actions

will not adversely affect the critical

habitat. However, as discussed above,

these actions are currently subject to

equivalent restrictions through the

listing protections of the species, and no

further restrictions are anticipated to

result from critical habitat designation

of occupied areas. In our economic

analysis, we will evaluate whether

designation of unoccupied areas has any

significant effect on small governments.

(b) This rule will not produce a

Federal mandate of $100 million or

greater in any year; that is, it is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

The designation of critical habitat

imposes no obligations on State or local

governments.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order

12630, this rule does not have

significant takings implications. A

takings implication assessment is not

required. As discussed above, the

designation of critical habitat affects

only Federal agency actions. The rule

will not increase or decrease the current

restrictions on private property

concerning take of Sidalcea oregana var.

calva. Due to current public knowledge

of the species’ protection under the Act,

the prohibition against take of the

species both within and outside of the

designated areas, and the fact that

critical habitat provides no incremental

restrictions in areas of occupied critical

habitat, we do not anticipate that

property values will be affected by the

critical habitat designation.

Additionally, critical habitat

designation does not preclude

development of habitat conservation

plans and issuance of incidental take

permits.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order

13132, the rule does not have significant

Federalism effects. A Federalism

assessment is not required. In keeping

with Department of the Interior and

Department of Commerce policy, we

requested information from and

coordinated development of this critical

habitat proposal with appropriate State

resource agencies in Washington. The

designation of critical habitat in areas

currently occupied by Sidalcea oregana

var. calva imposes no additional

restrictions to those currently in place

and, therefore, has little incremental

impact on State and local governments

and their activities. The designation

may have some benefit to these

governments in that the areas essential

to the conservation of the species are

more clearly defined, and the primary

constituent elements of the habitat

necessary to the survival of the species

are specifically identified. While

making this definition and

identification does not alter where and

what federally sponsored activities may

occur, it may assist these local

governments in long-range planning

(rather than waiting for case-by-case

section 7 consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has

determined that this rule does not

unduly burden the judicial system and

meets the requirements of sections 3(a)

and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We propose to

designate critical habitat in accordance

with the provisions of the Act and plan

a public hearing on the proposed

designation during the comment period.

The rule uses standard property

descriptions and identifies the primary

constituent elements within the

designated areas to assist the public in

understanding the habitat needs of

Sidalcea oregana var. calva.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

This rule does not contain any

information collection requirements that

requires Office of Management and

Budget approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

We determined that we do not need

to prepare an Environmental

Assessment and/or an Environmental

Impact Statement as defined by the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 in connection with regulations

adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the

Endangered Species Act, as amended.

We published a notice outlining our

reasons for this determination in the

Federal Register on October 25, 1983

(48 FR 49244).

Government-to-Government

Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President’s

memorandum of April 29, 1994,

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations

with Native American Tribal

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512

DM 2, we understand that federally

recognized Tribes must be related to on

a Government-to-Government basis.

We are not aware of any Tribal lands

essential for the conservation of

Sidalcea oregana. var calva. therefore,

we are not proposing to designate

critical habitat for Sidalcea oregana var.

calva on Tribal lands.

References Cited

Gamon, J. G. 1987. Report on the

status of Sidalcea oregana (Nutt.) Gray

var. calva C.L. Hitchcock. Unpublished

report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Olympia Washington. 41 pp.

Schemske, D.W., B.C. Husband, M.H.

Ruckleshaus, C. Goodwillie, I.M. Parker,

and J.G. Bishop. 1994. Evaluating

approaches to the Conservation of Rare

and Endangered Plants. Ecology, 75(3).

Pp. 584–606.

Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M.

Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1961. Part

3. Vascular plants of the Pacific

Northwest. University of Washington

Press, Seattle. 614 pp.

Washington Department of Natural

Resources. 2000. Management plan for

Camas Meadows Natural Area Preserve.

Unpublished report. 52 pp +

appendices.

Washington Natural Heritage

Program. 1994. Endangered, threatened,

and sensitive vascular plants of

Washington, Department of Natural

Resources, Olympia, Washington. 52 pp.

Author

The primary author of this proposed

rule is Ted Thomas (see ADDRESSES

section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Proposed Rule Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as

set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 4793

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. In § 17.12(h) revise the entry for

Sidalcea oregana var. calva under

‘‘FLOWERING PLANTS’’ to read as

follows:

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range Family Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Scientific name Common name

FLOWERING PLANTS

*******

Sidalcea oregana

var. calva.

Wenatchee Mountains checker-mallow.U.S.A. (WA) ............ Malvaceae—(Mallow).E 673 17.96(a) N/A

*******

3. In § 17.96, as proposed to be

amended at 65 FR 66865, November 7,

2000, amend paragraph (b) by adding an

entry for Sidalcea oregana var. calva

after the entry for Kokia drynarioides

under the family Malvaceae to read as

follows:

§ 17.96 Critical habitat-plants.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

Family Malvaceae: Sidalcea oregana

var. calva (Wenatchee Mountains

checker-mallow).

Washington, Chelan County. From

USGS 7.5′ quadrangle maps Peshastin

and Tip Top, Washington. T. 23 N., R

18 E., beginning at a point on Camas

Creek in the NW1⁄4 of NW1⁄4 of section

35 at approximately 47°26′52′′N latitude

and 120°38′57′′ W longitude proceeding

downstream (northwesterly), expanding

in all directions to include the entire

wetland complex that comprises the

Camas Meadow Natural Area Preserve,

to a point approximately 0.4 km (0.25

mi) from the confluence of Pendleton

Creek and Peshastin Creek, located at

47°31′06′′ and 120°37′18′′ W longitude.

From this last point, the western

boundary of the designated critical

habitat parallels Peshastin Creek to a

point at the southwest of the designated

area located at 47°28′46′′ N latitude and

120°38′57′′ W longitude. The maximum

elevation of the designated critical

habitat is 1,000 m (3,300 ft) and the

lowest elevation is 488 m (1,600 ft).

Within this area, critical habitat

includes water courses and wetland

habitat out to the beginning of upland

habitat. Critical habitat does not include

existing features and structures, such as

buildings, roads, aqueducts, railroads,

airports, other paved areas, lawns, and

other rural residential landscaped areas

not containing one or more of the

primary constituent elements.

Known primary constituent elements

of critical habitat for Sidalcea oregana

var. calva include: surface water or

saturated upper soil profiles; a wetland

plant community dominated by native

grasses and forbs, and generally free of

woody shrubs and conifers that would

produce shade and competition for

Sidalcea oregana var. calva; seeps and

springs on fine textured soils (clay

loams and silt loams), which contribute

to the maintenance of hydrologic

processes necessary to support

meadows which remain moist into the

early summer; and elevations of 488 m1,000 m (1,600–3,300 ft).

Note: Map follows:

* * * * *

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

4794 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Dated: December 27, 2000.

Kenneth L. Smith,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks.

[FR Doc. 01–1333 Filed 1–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C