16742 Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 59 I Tuesday, March 30, 1993 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERiOR Ash and WUdilfe Service 50 CFA Part 17 RIN 101 8—AB56 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Coastal CalifornIa Gnatcatcher AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califcrnica californica) to be a threatened species throughout its historic range in southern California and northwestern Baja California, Mexico, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Critical habitat is not being designated. This small, insectivorous songbird occurs almost exclusively in several distinctive subasso~iations of the coastal sage scrub plant community and is threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation occurring in conjunction with urban and agricultural development. This rule implements Federal protection provided by the Act for the coastal California gnatcatcher. A proposed special rule that defines the conditions associated with certain land-use activities under which the incidental take of gnatcatchers would not be a violation of section 9 of the Act is published in this same Federal Register separate part. EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on March 25, 1993. 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 92008. FOR FURThER INFORMATiON CONTACT: Mr. Jeffrey D. Opdycke, Field Supervisor, at the address listed above (telephone 619/431—9440). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) is a small, long-tailed member of the thrush family Muscicapidae. Its plumage color is dark blue-gray above and grayish-white below. The tail is mostly black above and below. The male has a distinctive black cap that is absent during the winter. Both sexes have a distinctive white eye-ring. Vocalizations of this species include a call consisting of a rising and falling series of threes kitten- like, mew notes (National Geographic Society 1983). The California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) was originally described as a distinct species by Brewster (1881) based on specimens collected by F. Stephens in 1878. However, based on the analysis of Grinnell (1926), P. californica was classified in 1926 as three subspecies of the black-tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melonura), which is widely distributed throughout the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts of the southwestern United States and Mexico (American Ornithologists’ Union 1983, Atwood 1988). Subsequent scientific publications (American Ornithologists’ Union 1931, Grinnell and Miller 1944, Friedmann 1957, American Ornithologists’ Union 1957) adhered to the species limits as defined by Grinnell (1926). Atwood (1988) concluded that P. californica was specifically distinct from P. melanura, based on differences in ecology and behavior. This finding was subsequently adopted by the American Ornithologists’ Union Committee on Classification and Nomenclature (American Ornithologists Union 1989). A comprehensive overview of the nomenclatural history of the California gnatcatcher is provided by Atwood (1988, 1990, 1991). Polioptila californica californica (hereafter referred to as the coastal California gnatcatcher) is one of three subspecies of the California gnatcatcher and is restricted to coastal southern California and northwestern Baja California, Mexico, from Los Angeles County (formerly Ventura and San Bernardino Counties) south to El Rosario at about 30° north latitude (American Ornithologists’ Union 1957, Atwood 1991, Phillips 1991, Banks and Gardner 1992). Two other subspecies of the California gnatcatcher (P. c. pontilis and P. c. margaritae) occur in the central and southern portions of the Baja peninsula, respectively (American Ornithologists’ Union 1957, Atwood 1988). Atwood (1990, 1991) concluded that the subspeciflc nomenclature of California gnatcatchers south of 30° north latitude should “~ * * properly revert to that initially proposed by Grinnell (1926), with P. c. margaritae being distributed in central Baja California from 30° N. south to 24° N., and P. c. abbreviata occurring in the Cape Region of Baja California south of 24° N. latitude.” A general analysis of the historic range of the coastal California gnatcatcher indicates that about 41 percent of its latitudinal distribution is within the United States and 59 percent within Baja California, Mexico (Atwood 1990). A more deta.iled~añalysis, based on elevational limits associated with gnatcatcher locality records, reveals that 65 to 70 percent of the coastal California gnatcatcher’s historic range was located in southern California rather than Baja California (Atwood 1992e). The coastal California gnatcatcher occurs almost exclusively in the coastal sage scrub plant community (occasionally, it is also found in chaparral). The southern limit of its range coincides with the distributional boundary of this distinctive vegetation type: Coastal sage scrub vegetation is composed of relatively low-growing, summer (dry-season) deciduous, and succulent plants. Characteristic plants of this community include coastal sagebrush (Artemisia californica), various species of sage (Salvia spp.), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatwn), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia). California encelia (Encelia californico), pr~ckly pear and cholla cactus (Opuntia spp.). and various species of Haplopoppus (Munz 1974, Kirkpatrick and Hutchinson 1977, Mooney 1988, O’Leary 1990). The coastal California gnatcetcher commonly occurs in coastal sage scrub vegetation dominated by coastal sagebrush (Atwood 1980, 1990; Mock and Jones 1990) although in some portions of its range (e.g., western Riverside County) other plant species may be more abundant. A comprehensive overview of the life history and ecology of the coastal California gnat catcher is provided by Atwood (1990) and is the basis for much of the discussion presented below. The coastal California gnatcatcher is non- migratory and defends breeding territories ranging in size from 2 to 14 acres (1 to 6 hectares (ha)). Home ranges vary in size from 13 to 39 acres (5 to 15 ha) (Mock and Jones 1990). The breeding season of the coastal California gnatcatcher extends from late February through July with the peak of nest initiations occurring from mid-March through mid-May. Nests are composed of grasses, bark strips, small leaves, spider webs, down, and other materials, and are-often placed in coastal sagebrush about 3 feet (ft) (1 meter (m)) above the ground. Nests are constructed over a 2 to 10 day period. Clutch size averages four eggs. The incubation and nestling periods encompass about 14 and 16 days, respectively. Juveniles are dependent upon, or remain closely associated with, their parents for up to several months following departure from the nest, and may disperse up to 9 mi (14 km) from their natal territory.
Transcript
16742 Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 59 I Tuesday,March 30, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERiOR
Ash and WUdilfe Service
50 CFA Part 17RIN 101 8—AB56
Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Determination ofThreatened Status for the CoastalCalifornIa GnatcatcherAGENCY: Fish andWildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Finalrule.
SUMMARY: TheFishandWildlife Service(Service)determinesthecoastalCalifornia gnatcatcher(Polioptilacalifcrnicacalifornica) to be athreatenedspeciesthroughoutitshistoric rangein southernCalifornia andnorthwesternBaja California,Mexico,pursuantto theEndangeredSpeciesActof 1973, as amended(Act). Criticalhabitatis not beingdesignated.Thissmall, insectivoroussongbirdoccursalmostexclusivelyin severaldistinctivesubasso~iationsof thecoastalsagescrubplant communityandis threatenedbyhabitatloss andfragmentationoccurringin conjunctionwith urbanandagriculturaldevelopment.ThisruleimplementsFederalprotectionprovidedby theAct for thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcher.A proposedspecialrulethat definestheconditionsassociatedwith certainland-useactivitiesunderwhich theincidentaltakeofgnatcatcherswouldnot be aviolation ofsection9 of theAct is publishedin thissameFederalRegisterseparatepart.EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effectiveonMarch25, 1993.ADDRESSES: The completefile for thisrule is availablefor inspection,byappointment,duringnormal businesshoursattheU.S. Fish andWildlifeService,CarlsbadField Office, 2730LokerAvenueWest,Carlsbad,California92008.FOR FURThER INFORMATiON CONTACT:Mr. JeffreyD. Opdycke,FieldSupervisor,attheaddresslisted above(telephone619/431—9440).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BackgroundTheCaliforniagnatcatcher(Polioptila
californica) is a small, long-tailedmemberof thethrushfamilyMuscicapidae.Its plumagecoloris darkblue-grayaboveandgrayish-whitebelow. Thetail is mostlyblackaboveandbelow.Themalehasa distinctiveblackcap thatis absentduringthewinter. Both sexeshaveadistinctivewhiteeye-ring.Vocalizationsof this
TheCalifornia gnatcatcher(Polioptilacalifornica) was originally describedasadistinctspeciesby Brewster(1881)basedon specimenscollectedby F.Stephensin 1878.However,basedontheanalysisof Grinnell (1926),P.californica wasclassifiedin 1926asthreesubspeciesof the black-tailedgnatcatcher(Polioptila melonura),which is widely distributedthroughouttheSonoranandChihuahuandesertsofthesouthwesternUnited StatesandMexico (AmericanOrnithologists’Union 1983,Atwood1988). Subsequentscientificpublications(AmericanOrnithologists’Union 1931,GrinnellandMiller 1944, Friedmann1957,AmericanOrnithologists’Union 1957)adheredto thespecieslimits asdefinedby Grinnell (1926).Atwood(1988)concludedthat P. californica wasspecificallydistinct from P. melanura,basedon differencesin ecologyandbehavior.This finding wassubsequentlyadoptedby theAmericanOrnithologists’Union CommitteeonClassificationandNomenclature(AmericanOrnithologistsUnion 1989).A comprehensiveoverviewof thenomenclaturalhistory of theCaliforniagnatcatcheris providedby Atwood(1988, 1990, 1991).
Polioptila californicacalifornica(hereafterreferredto asthecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcher)is oneofthreesubspeciesof theCalifornia gnatcatcherand is restrictedto coastalsouthernCaliforniaandnorthwesternBajaCalifornia,Mexico, from Los AngelesCounty(formerly VenturaandSanBernardinoCounties)southto ElRosarioat about30°northlatitude(AmericanOrnithologists’Union 1957,Atwood1991, Phillips 1991,BanksandGardner1992). Two othersubspeciesoftheCaliforniagnatcatcher(P. c. pontilisandP. c. margaritae)occurin thecentralandsouthernportionsof theBajapeninsula,respectively(AmericanOrnithologists’Union 1957,Atwood1988).Atwood(1990, 1991)concludedthatthesubspeciflcnomenclatureofCalifornia gnatcatcherssouthof 30°northlatitude should “~ * * properlyrevertto that initially proposedbyGrinnell (1926),with P. c. margaritaebeingdistributedin centralBajaCaliforniafrom 30°N. southto 24°N.,andP. c. abbreviataoccurringin theCapeRegionof BajaCalifornia southof24°N. latitude.”
A generalanalysisof thehistoricrangeof thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherindicatesthat about41percentof its latitudinal distributionis
within theUnited Statesand59 percentwithin Baja California,Mexico (Atwood1990).A moredeta.iled~añalysis,basedon elevationallimits associatedwithgnatcatcherlocality records,revealsthat65 to 70 percentof thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcher’shistoric rangewaslocatedin southernCaliforniaratherthanBajaCalifornia(Atwood1992e).
ThecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcheroccursalmostexclusivelyin thecoastalsagescrubplant community(occasionally,it is also foundinchaparral).Thesouthernlimit of itsrangecoincideswith thedistributionalboundaryof this distinctivevegetationtype:Coastalsagescrubvegetationiscomposedof relativelylow-growing,summer(dry-season)deciduous,andsucculentplants.Characteristicplantsofthis communityincludecoastalsagebrush(Artemisiacalifornica),variousspeciesof sage(Salviaspp.),Californiabuckwheat(Eriogonumfasciculatwn),lemonadeberry(Rhusintegrifolia). Californiaencelia(Enceliacalifornico), pr~cklypearandchollacactus(Opuntiaspp.).andvariousspeciesofHaplopoppus(Munz1974,Kirkpatrick andHutchinson1977,Mooney1988, O’Leary 1990). ThecoastalCaliforniagnatcetchercommonlyoccursin coastalsagescrubvegetationdominatedby coastalsagebrush(Atwood 1980, 1990;MockandJones1990)althoughin someportionsof its range(e.g.,westernRiversideCounty) otherplant speciesmaybemoreabundant.
A comprehensiveoverviewof thelifehistoryandecologyofthecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcheris providedbyAtwood (1990)andis thebasisfor muchof thediscussionpresentedbelow. ThecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcheris non-migratoryanddefendsbreedingterritoriesrangingin sizefrom 2 to 14acres(1 to 6 hectares(ha)). Homerangesvaryin sizefrom 13 to 39 acres(5 to 15ha) (Mock andJones1990). Thebreedingseasonof thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherextendsfrom lateFebruarythroughJuly with thepeakof nestinitiations occurringfrom mid-Marchthroughmid-May.Nestsarecomposedof grasses,barkstrips,small leaves,spiderwebs,down, andothermaterials,andare-oftenplacedin coastalsagebrushabout3 feet (ft) (1 meter(m))abovetheground.Nestsareconstructedovera 2 to 10 dayperiod.Clutch sizeaveragesfour eggs.Theincubationandnestlingperiodsencompassabout14and16 days,respectively.Juvenilesaredependentupon, orremaincloselyassociatedwith, their parentsfor up toseveralmonthsfollowing departurefrom thenest,andmaydisperseup to9 mi (14km) fromtheir natal territory.
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30.- 1993 / Rules and Regulations 16743
Both sexesparticipatein all phasesofthenestingcycle.Although thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatchermayoccasionallyproducetwo broodsin onenestingseason,the frequencyof this behaviorisnot known.
CoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherswereconsideredlocallycommonin themid-1940’s,althougha declinein theextentof its habitatwasnoted(Grinnell andMiller 1944).By the 1960’s,this specieshadapparentlyexperiencedasignificantpopulationdeclinein theUnitedStatesthat hasbeenattributedtowidespreaddestructionof its habitat.Pyle andSmall (1961)reportedthat “theCaliforniasubspeciesis veryrare, andlackof recentrecordsof this racecomparedwith olderrecordsmayindicatea drasticreductioninpopulation.”McCaskieandPugh(1964)commentedthatthecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcher“hadbeendriven from mostof its formerrangealongthecoastof theregion.” Atwood (1980)estimatedthatno morethan1,000to 1.500pairsremainin theUnited States.He alsonotedthatremnantportionsof itshabitatwerehighly fragmented,andthatmostremainingpatchesareborderedonat leastonesideby rapidly expandingurbancenters.SubsequentreviewsofcoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherstatusbyGarrettandDunn (1981)andUnitt(1984)paralleledthefindingsof Atwood(1980).
Atwood(1990, 1992b)estimatedthatapproximately1,811to 2,291pairsofcoastalCaliforniagnatcatchersremainin southernCalifornia.Of these,24 to 30pairsoccurin Los AngelesCounty,224to 294pairsin OrangeCounty,724to916pairsin RiversideCounty,and837to 1,061pairs in SanDiegoCounty.Michael BrandmanAssociates(1991)estimatedthat1,645 to 1,880pairsofCaliforniagnatcatchersoccurin theUnitedStates(20to 30 pairs in LosAngelesCounty,325to 350 pairsinOrangeCounty,300 to 400pairs inRiversideCounty,and1,000to 1,100pairsin SanDiegoCounty).
Basedon informationreceivedaftertheproposedrulewaspublished,theServiceestimatesthat about2,562pairsof coastalCaliforniagnatcatchersremainin theUnitedStates.Of these,30 pairsoccurin Los AngelesCounty,757pairsin OrangeCounty,261 pairsinRiversideCounty,and1,514 pairsinSanDiegoCounty.Approximately 2,800pairsof P. c. californica occurin theMexicanportion of its rangeU.Newman,RegionalEnvironmentalConsultants(RECON),pers.comm.,1992).
Most populationsofthecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherin theUnitedStatesoccuron privatelands. About 21
percent(81,992of 393,655acres~ofcoastalsagescrubin southernCalifornia(southofmetropolitanLosAngeles)ispublicly owned(California Departmentof FishandGame1992).Of that,about52,500acresor64 percentoccurswithinmilitary reservations.Major privatelandholdingscontainingknownorsuspectedpopulationsof the coastalCaliforniagnatcatcherincludepropertiesownedby: TheIrvineCompany,RanchoSantaMargaritaCompany,andMission Viejo Companyin OrangeCounty;Baldwin Company,TheFieldstoneCompany,HomeCapital,Los Montanas,McMillin Company,SanMiguel Partners,andSouthwestDiversified in SanDiegoCounty;andDomenigoniBrothersRanch,RanpacEngineeringCorporation,andS.I.C.Corporationin RiversideCounty.Majorpublic landownersor jurisdictionswithgnatcatcherpopulationsinclude theCaliforniaDepartmentof ParksandRecreation,CampPendletonMarineCorpsBase,El Torn MarineCorpsAirStation,FallbrookNaval Annex,MiramarNaval Air Station,thecities ofSanDiegoandLakeElsinore,theMetropolitanWaterDistrict (MWD) ofSouthernCalifornia,andthecountiesofOrange,Riverside,andSanDiego.
TheServicehasreviewedall of thewritten andoral commentsdescribedaboveincluding thosethatwerereceivedoutsideof the formalcommentperiods.Basedon this review, 20relevantissueshavebeenidentifiedandarediscussedbelow. Theseissuesarerepresentativeofthecommentsquestioningor opposingtheproposedlisting action.
Issue1: The Serviceshouldnot carryout this listing actionbecausetheCaliforniagnatcatcherandits northern,nominatesubspeciesarenot valid taxa.Many commentersquestionedthelegitimacyof therecentchangein thetaxonomyof theblack-tailedgnatcatcher(Polioptila melanura)andtheexistenceof adistinct subspeciesin southwesternCaliforniaandnorthwesternBajaCalifornia,Mexico,north of 300northlatitude.
ServiceResponse:TheServiceandtheAmericanOrnithologists’Union (AOU)haveconcludedthatPolioptilacalifornica californica is avalid taxon.Atwood (1988)re-examinedtheissueofspecieslimits within theblack-tailedgnatcatcherandconcluded,basedondifferencesin ecologyandbehavior(vocalizations),that thecoastalsouthwesternCalifornia andnorthwestern,central,andsouthernBajaCalifornia,Mexico, populationsconstituteaseparatespecieswhichhereferredto astheCaliforniagnatcatcher,Polioptila californica,returningtoBrewster’s1881 treatment.Atwood(1988)reportedthat in thosefew areaswhereCaliforniaandblack-tailedgnatcatchersco-occur,theydo notinterbreed,which is a fundamentalisolating mechanismthatseparatesspecies.
TheconclusionthatCaliforniaandblack-tailedgnatcatchersareseparatespecieswasformallyacceptedby theAOU Committeeon ClassificationandNomenclaturein 1989(AmericanOrnithologists’Union 1989).Thiscommitteeandits publication,Check-list of North AmericanBirds,arerecognizedasauthoritieson aviantaxonomyin NorthAmerica.
No additionaldataor publishedinformationon this issueweresubmittedor otherwiseavailableto theServicesincepublication of theproposedrule. Four lettersfromrepresentativesof theAOU Committeeon ClassificationandNomenclature(includingits chairman)weresubmittedduringthepublic commentperiodthatreiteratedtheAOU’s formal acceptanceof Atwood’s conchisionthattheCaliforniagnatcatcheris specificallydistinct.
Theexistenceof adistinct subspeciesof gnatcatcherin coastalsouthernCaliforniaan~north*esternBajaCalifornia,Mexico,hasbeenrecognizedby Grinnefl (1926,1928),vanRossam(1931),AmericanOrnithologists’Union(1931),Friedrnann(1957),AmericanOrnithologists’Union (1957),Paynter(1964),Atwood (1991),andPhillips(1991). AlthoughAtwood (1988)initially recommendedmergingP. c.californica andP. c. pontilis of centralBajaCaliforniainto onesubspecies,helaterretractedthis position afterre-examiningintraspecificvariationwithintheCaliforniagnatcatcherusingamoreappropriatestatisticaltreatmentassuggestedby two membersof theAOUCommitteeon ClassificationandNomenclature(Banks1989,Johnson1989).Thisrevisedanalysis(Atwood1991)hasbeenpeer-reviewedby severalrecognizedtaxonomists(includingonememberof theAOU CommitteeonClassificationandNomenclature)andpublished.It supportsthe long-accepteddistribution of Polioptila melanura(=californica) californica thatwasfirstdescribedby Grinnell (1926)over60yearsago.
In responseto commentsthatquestionedthetaxonomicvalidity of thesubspecies,Servicetaxonomistsweredirectedto independentlyevaluatethisissueandto preparea reportsummarizingtheir findings.Theirreviewconcludedthat thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcheris avalidsubspecieswhoserangeextendstoabout30°northlatitude inBajaCalifornia,Mexico (BanksandGardner1992).
Issue2: Severalcommentersquestionedthevalidity of thestatisticalanalysisusedby Atwood (1991)toevaluateintraspecificmorphologicalvariationwithin the Californiagnatcatcher.Theyconcludedthathepooleddatainto threebroadgroupsalonga latitudinalgradientprior toperformingstatisticalteststhatwereusedto definesubspecieslimits. Onecommenteralsosubmittedthatthemethodusedby Atwood (1991)ofinitially poolingdatainto 9 sampleareasmay havebiasedthe resultsofhisstatisticalanalysisandsubsequentsubspeciesdeterminations.
ServiceResponse:Atwood’s methodshavebeenpeer-reviewedandtherehasbeennoindicationthatheusedinappropriatestatisticalmethods.The31 morphologicalcharactersexaminedby Atwood(1991)wereinitiallysegregatedinto 7 groupsorclustersofcharactersthatshowedsimilarpatternsof geographicvariation.At this stageoftheanalysis.sampleareadatawere not-groupedorpooled.Next,univariate
Federal_Register / Vol. 58, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 3(},- 1993 / Rules and Regulations 16745
multiple comparisontestswere doneonthe non-pooled data from nine sampleareasto identify wheresignificantdifferencesbetweengroupsmay occur.
Ser,’iceResponse:Whetheror not theabruptchangesin morphological~- - -
variationreportedby Atwood (1991)fortheCaliforniagnatcatcberaregenetically-basedis notknownat thistime. Thetraditionalscientificapproachto defining aviansubspecieshas beenbasedalmost exclusivelyon theidentificationof morphologicaldifferencesin body measurementsandplumagecharactersbetweengeographicallydistinctpopulationsof aspeciesirrespectiveof whetherthesedifferenceshaveademonstratedgeneticorigin, althoughenvironmentalanddietaryfactorscanaffectplumagecolorationin birds to varyingdegrees.Thedistributional limits of subspecieshavebeentraditionally determinedlargelyby thecorrelationbetweendiagnosticmorphologicalcharacters(includingthoseassociatedwith color)andtheenvironment(May 1971).
Atwood’s conclusionsarestrengthenedby congruentpatternsingeographicvariationamongseveralspeciesat 30°north latitude,whichrepresentsthesouthernrangelimit ofthe coastalsagescrub community andan important transitionzonefor variousbirds, plants,terrestrialinsects,landmammals,reptiles,andscorpions(Atwood 1991andreferencescitedtherein).
Issue4: Manycommentersexpressedtheposition thatthereportentitled“ARangewideAssessmentof theCaliforniaGnatcatcher(Polioptila californica)” byMichaelBrandmanAssociates(MBA),datedJuly 23, 1991,rebutstheService’sfinding that listing of thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcheris warranted.
ServiceResponse:TheServicehasconsideredthefindings of theMBAreportin determiningto list thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcher.MBA (1991)reportedthat fewerthan2,000 pairsofcoastalCaliforniagnatcatchersoccurintheUnited States,two-thirdsof coastalsagescrubvegetationin Californiahasbeendestroyed,a140-km(87mi) gapexistsbetweentheUnitedStatesandMexican populations due to urban andagriculturaldevelopment,andonly 1percentof the Mexican population ofPolioptila californicaoccursnorth of30°northlatitude, whichrepresentsthesouthernrangelimit of P. c. californica.Thesefindings areconsistentwithpublishedandunpublishedreportsoncoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherstatusthatwere usedby the Servicein determiningto proposeandlist this subspecies.
MBA (1991)also reported that “atleast100squ&~emilesof coastalsagescrubhabitat,muchof which is suitablefor theCaliforniagnatcatcher,is
protectedor currentlycommitted to bepreservedin public andprivate openspacein OrangeaiId’SanDiegoCountiesalone.”However, theMBA reportdoesnot containadiscussionof themethodsusedto derivethe 100squaremilevalue,andinsufficient or incorrectdataarepresentedto supportthisconclusion.No dataarepresentedwithrespectto gnatcatcherdistributionwithin “protectedopenspaceareas.”Nodistinction is madebetween“dedicated” and“designated”openspace.Thelatter is subjectto zoningchangesfor urbandevelopment,whichis oneof thereasonswhy theServicefoundthatexistingregulatorymechanismsdo not adequatelyprotectthegnatcatcheror its habitat.In somecases,evendedicatedopenspacedoesnot confersufficientprotection;twoexamplesarediscussedunderfactor“D” in the“Summaryof FactorsAffecting theSpecies”sectionof thisrule.
Atwood (1992a)reportedthat 94percentof all gnatcatcherlocalityrecords(n=306) for OrangeandSanDiegoCountiesoccurbelow250 m (820ft) in elevation(Atwood 1992a),Basedon a muchlargersamplesize(n=781)for thesamegeographicarea,MBA(1991)reportedthat 91 percentof allgnatcatcherrecordsoccurat or below250m (820 ft) and99 percentoccuratorbelow300 m (98ft) in elevation.Thesedatahaveimportantimplicationsfor gnatcatcherconservation.Althoughprotectionof coastalsagescrubabove250 m to 300 m (800to 1000ft) inOrangeandSanDiegoCountiesisimportantfor otherbiological reasons,itmaycontributelittle to the long-termmaintenanceof viablegnatcatcherpopulations(Atwood1992a).Ofapproximately19,000acresof coastalsagescrubin OrangeCounty foundbelow 300 m in elevation,36 percent(6,800acres)is preserved,21 percent(4,000acres)is approvedor proposedfor development,and43 percent(8,300acres)is of uncertainstatus(Roberts1992).
Only 9 of 148pairsof gnatcatchers,or6 percent,presentlyoccurin “openspacededicationareas”in theRanchoMission Viejo areaof OrangeCountybasedon a map submittedto theServiceby theCoalition for HabitatConservation (1992). Ofthe 7,000 acres“preservedin theLomasRidge/Limestone/WhitingRanchgreenbelt”(MBA 1991), only 1,400acresarecurrently protected;thebalanceof theset-asideis contingentuponconstructionof housing andtransportationfacilities. Only 6 pairs ofcoastalCaliforniagnatcatchersoccurin2,800acresof coastalsagescrubfound
16746 Federal Register I VoL 58. No. 59 / Tuesday,March 30, 1993 I Rules and Regulations
within theWhiting RanchandLimestoneCanyonareasof Orange
- -. County(unpublisheddataon file at theCarlsbadField Office of theFishandWildlife Service).Thesedatado not
support thefinding ofMBA (2991)forOrangeCountythat “in all, coastalsagescrubin existingor committedopenspaceencompassesmostexistingpopulationsof CaliforniagnatcatcherintheCounty.”
Additional supportingdocumentationis providedby WieslanderandJensen(1946).Theyreportedthat in 1945 therewere95,000acresof “coastalsagebrush”in OrangeCounty,279,000acresin RiversideCounty,and381,000acresin SanDiegoCounty.As of 1990,theServiceestimatestherewereabout48,000acresof“coastalsagebrush”inOrangeCounty(Roberts1990),114,000acresin RiversideCounty(basedonmapsby Minnich 1990andRECON1990a),and135,000to 152,000acresinSanDiegoCounT3r(OberbauerandVanderwier1991, SanDiegoAssociationof Governments1992).Thesedatarepresentcoastalsagescrublossesof 50,59,and60 to 65 percentforOrange,Riverside,andSanDiegoCounties,respectively,since1945.Overall, 58 to 61 percentof thecoastalsagescrubpresentwithin thisgeographicareain 1945hadbeenlostby1990.
Issue6: A listing actionisunnecessarybecausetheCoastalSageScrubNaturalCommunityConservationPlanningProgram(NCCP),establishedby theCaliforniaResourcesAgencyundertheNaturalCommunityConservationPlanningAct of 1991,adequatelyprotectsandprovidesfor theconservationof thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcher.
ServiceResponse:TheCoastalSageScrubNCCPis a voluntary,collaborativeeffort betweenlandowners,local jurisdictions,and theStateof California.TheServiceiscooperatingwith the CaliforniaDepartmentof FishandGame(Department)in thedevelopmentof thisprogramandhasenteredintoaMemorandumof UnderstandingwiththeDepartmentthatformalizesthiscommitment.
Basedon thefindings presentedbelowunderFactorD in the sectionentitled,“Summaryof FactorsAffectingthe Species,”theServiceconcludesthattheNCCPProgramdoesnotcurrentlyprovideadequateconservationof thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherto thedegreethata listing actionis notwarranted.However, theServicerecognizesthepotentialbenefitsto the
gnatcatcherthatmayoccur from thisprogram,andfinds that theoverallparticipationin theprogramhascontributedtoreducingsomeof theshort-termthreatsto thisspeciesinportionsof its rangein theUnitedStates.
Issue7: Listing of thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherasendangeredisnotwarrantedbecausethereare1.5million pairsof this speciesin BajaCalifornia, Mexico.
ServiceResponse:Manycommentersraisedthisissue,which is basedentirelyon anunpublished,draftreportentitled,“Distribution andPopulationEstimatesof theCaliforniagnatcatcher(Polioptilacalifornica) in BajaCalifornia,Mexico”preparedfor the Building IndustryAssociationof SouthernCaliforniabyRECON(199Ia). Thisdraftreport,datedJune26, 1991,wasnotformallysubmittedto theServiceuntil October20, 1992,by theCoalition for HabitatConservationduring the secondpubliccommentperiodon theproposedrule.
A totalof 396 Californiaguatcatchersweredetectedin theRECONstudy;99percentof whichwerefoundsouthof30°north latitude,which representsthesouthernrangelimit ofPoiioptilacalifornica californica.Nognatcatcherswereobservednorth of SantoTomas,which is about140 km (87mi) southofthe internationalborder,and87 percentof all gnatcatcherdetectionsoccurredbelow300 m (984 ft) in elevation.Atotal of 26 gnatcatchersweredetectednorthof 30°north latitude (J. Newman,pers.comm.,1992). Californiagnatcatchersoccurredin coastalsagescrubhabitatwhich “ * * closelyresemblesthat found in theUnitedStatesin termsof structureandspeciescomposition* * ~“ northof 30°northlatitude(RECON 1991a).Southof 300northlatitude,RECONreportedthatCaliforniagnatcatchersoccurin open
* * widely distributedwithinsuitablehabitat,not beingrestrictedtothevegetationfound in drainages.”Thelow numberof Californiagnatcatchersfoundnorth of 30°north latitude isattributedby RECON to habitatloss.degradation,andfragmentation.RECONalsoreportedthatthehabitatconnectionbetweentheUnitedStatesandMexicopopulationsof theCaliforniagnatcalcheris “tenuous.”
Theac~ur1cyof thevariable-striptransectmethodis dependenton thedegreeto which avarietyofassumptionsaresatisfied(Franzreb1981). Theseassumptionsinclude:(1)Birds areuniformly andrandomlydistributed; (2) birds do not moveinresponseto theobserver’spresenceprior to beingdetected;and(3) thereareno measurementerrors.Thecompetenceof theobserveris alsoa majorfactorinfluencingtheaccuracyof transectcensusingmethods(Franzreb1981).
in the RECON study,assumption1wasviolatedby the finding that: (1)Gnatcatcherpresence“a a a is stronglycorrelatedwith largeshrubcover,treecover,andshrubheight” and(2) southof 30°northlatitude,Californiagnatcatchersoccurredin opendeserthabitatsbut “a a a weremoreoftendetectedin therelativelydenselyvegetatedareasalongwashesanddrainagesa a a”, Extrapolationofgnatcatcherdensityvaluesbasedonthesefindingsto all potentialgnatcatcherhabitaton thepeninsulawould resultin highly inflatedpopulationestimates.Otherfieldbiologistswho havesurveyedsitesrepeatedlyfor Californiagnatcatchers,usingtapedvocalizationsto increasetheir detectability,havefound theirdistribution within coastalsagescrubhabitatsin northwesternBaja California,Mexico, to be patchy(D. Grout,Fish andWildlife Service,pers.comm.).Similarresultshavebeenreportedfor thegnatcatcherin theUnitedStates(Atwood 1980, 1990),
RECON hasemphasizedindiscussionswith theServicethatthepopulationestimatespresentedin thedraftreportweremeantto beinterpretedin arelativemanner,e.g., 99percentof all California gnatcatchersinBajaCalifornia,Mexico,aresouthof 300north latitude,.a,ndnot asexactnumbers(P. FromerandJ. Newman,pers.comm.).This interpretationis consistent
with thatof Vemer(1985),whoconcludedthatbird.c~nsustechniquessuchas the~variable-striptransectmethod,canprovideusefulinformationon therelativeabundanceof birdspeciesbut that densityestimatesbasedon suchmethodsarenot as reliableasthosederivedfrom othertechniques.
In summary,no scientificbasisexistsfor concludingthat 1.5 million pairsofCaliforniagnatcatchersoccurin BajaCalifornia,Mexico.Furthermore,theService’sconclusionthata listing actionis warrantedis supported,in part,bythefindingsof RECONthat: (1) 99percentof CaliforniagnatcatchersinMexico occursouthof 30°northlatitude; (2) the low numberofPolioptila californica californico inMexico is attributableto habitatloss,degradation,andfragmentation;and(3)thehabitatconnectionbetweenUnitedStatesandMexico gnatcattherpopulationsis tenuous.Thegovernmentof Mexico also formally supportsalisting action(Garcia1992).
Therewere 381,000acresof “coastalsagebrush”in SanDiegoCounty in 1945(WieslariderandJensen1946).Approximately135,000to 152,000acresof coastalsagescrubcurrentlyexist inSanDiegoCounty(OberhauerandVandewier1991,SanDiegoAssociationof Governments1992). Thisrepresentsa60 to 65 percentloss of coastalsagescrubin SanDiegoCountysince1945alone.TheServiceconsidersthismagnitudeof lossto besignificantandconsistentwith its finding thathabitatlossis asignificantthreatto thecontinuedexistenceof thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcher.
Issue10-. TheService’sfinding thattheCaliforniagnatcatcheroncehadanextensiverangein Los AngelesCountyis speculative.
ServiceResponse:Relativelylittleinformation is availableto reconstructthedistribution of theCaliforniaguatcatcherin Los AngelesCounty priorto theurbanizationof this area.However,Atwood (1990)reportedhistoric locality recordsfor this species“~ * * from theSanFernandoValleyeastalongthebaseoftheSanGabrielMountainsto Clairemont,andatthelower elevationsof theSanJose,LosCoyotes,andPalosVerdesHills.” Theextremelyisolatednatureof thePalosVerdesHills populationandthelowdispersalcapabilityof gnatcatchers(todate,themaximumknown dispersaldistanceis about9 miles)stronglysuggestthat this populationwashistorically contiguouswith, or in closeproximity to, othergnatcatcherpopulationsin southernLos AngelesCounty.In addition,Atwood (1990)reportedthat“over96 percentof thetotal low elevation(lessthan 250m)acreagein Los AngelesCountythatmight historicallyhavesupportedP. c.californica hasbeenlargelyor entirelydeveloped.”Therefore,theServiceconcludesthatthecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcheroncehadanextensiverangein Los AngelesCounty.
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30r 1993 / Rules and Regulations 1674~
Basedon newinformation ongnatcatcherpopulationsizethatwasnotavailableatthetime theproposedrulewaspublished (e.g., Coalition forHabitat Conservation1992)the Serviceestimatesthat about 2,562pairsofCalifornia gnatcatchersremain in theUnited States.Assumingthesepairsoccupy, on average,homerangesof 34.6acres(thelargestmeanhomerangereportedto date) then as muchas 89,000acresof coastalsagescrubmay beoccupiedby the coastalCaliforniagnatcatcherwithin the United States,
Theintent in calculatingthis estimateis to demonstratethatalthoughthecoastal California gnatcatcher isendemicto coastalsagescrub,it doesnot occurthroughoutthis floristicallyandstructurallyvariablecommunity.
Additional supporting documentationfor this finding is provided by OgdenEnvironmentalandEnergyServices(1992), whichhaspreparedapreliminaryestimateof the Californiagnatcatcherpopulation within the cityofSanDiego’sMultiple SpeciesConservationPlan(MSCP) study area.Basedon Ogden’s analysis,about 21,500acres(18percent)of coastalsagescruboccurringwithin the MSCP study areaisknown to be occupiedby theCaliforniagnatcatcher. Recentsurveyshave alsoconfirmedthenon-uniformdistributionofthis species.Only threeCaliforniagnatcatchers(onepair andoneindividual) werefound in a2,400-acrepatch of coastalsagescrubin theMarronValley areaof SanDiegoCountybasedon multiple visits to this siteduring 1992(P. Mock, OgdenEnvironmentalandEnergyServices,Pers.Comm.).No gnatcatchersweredetectedduring multiple visits In 1992to a 1,000-acrepatchof coastal sagescrubnearDehesa,north of theSw.eetwaterRiver in SanDiego County(P. Mock,pore. comm.).
Issue12: The Serviceshouldnot listthegnatcatcherbecausethe results ofrecentcensusesshowasignificantincreasein the population of Californiagnatcatcherswithin OrangeandSanDiegoCountiesrelative to estimatesbyAtwood (1990).
ServiceResponse:The Servicehasmadeaconcertedeffortto obtain thebestavailablescientificinformation onwhich to basea listingdecision,especiallywith respectto data ongnatcatcherdistribution andabundance.Basedon recentcensusinformation, theServicehasrevisedtheestimatefor theUnitedStatesgnatcatcherpopulationfrom 2,262pairsin the proposedrule to2,562 pairs in thefinal rule. About 2,800pairsof coastalCaliforniagnatcatchersareestimatedto occurin BajaCalifornia,
Mexico (J. Newman,RECON,pars.comm., 1992). -
Although it is reasonableto assumethat gnatcatcherpopulationsmay havebeendepressedduring the recentdroughtconditionsandarenowincreasingin responseto normal orabove normal rainfallthat may haveimproved habitat conditions, thereis noscientific basis for concluding that thepopulation,asawhole, is increasingbasedon acomparison betweentheresults of recentcensusesand theestimateby Atwood(1990).Thepopulationestimateby Atwood (1990)is anextrapolationbasedon gnatcatcherdensitiesat two locationsand theamount of undevelopedland below 500m (1,640It), whichwascalculatedfrombasemapspreparedin 1983(Atwood1990).The recentcensusesrepresentactual counts,although the results werenot obtained usingthe samecensusmethods.
Scientifically credible data on whichto baseananalysisof populationtrendsmustbecollectedin astandardizedmannerover the entire rangeof thepopulationunderconsiderationand,ideally,overa long period of time. Todate,arangewidecensusof theCaliforniagnatcatcherusingastandardizedmethodologyhas notoccurred.Recentcensusesof theCaliforniagnatcatcherin portionsofOrange,Riverside,andSanDiegoCounties haveuseddifferent methodsespeciallywith respectto samplingeffort. An adequatepopulation baselineestablishedusing a standardized censusmethodologyis lackingfor thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcher’srange.TheServicedoesnot concurthat asignificantincreasehas occurred in thepopulationof Californiagnatcatcherswithin OrangeandSanDiegoCounties.It should alsoberecognizedthat theService’sdecisionto proposethegnatcatcherfor listingwasbasedonsignificantthreatsassociatedwithhabitat lossandfragmentationratherthanlow population size.This issueisdiscussedin the “Summaryof FactorsAffecting theSpecies”sectionof thisrule.
ServiceResponse:The estimatecitedaboveis basedon two sourcesofinformation. Barbour and Major (1977)estimatethatabout 2.5 million acresofcoastalsagescruboccurredhistoricallyin California.Westman(1981a,b)estimatesthat 85 to 90 percenthasbeen
lostasaresultof urbanandagriculturaldevelopment.Th~esttmateof 250,000to375,000acres-represents10 to 15percentof 2.5 million acres.
Basedon new information, theServiceestimatesthat about 48,000acresof coastalsagescrubexist inOrangeCounty (Roberts 1990), 75,000to114,000acresin RiversideCounty (seediscussionunderIssue9 above),and135,000to 152,000acresin SanDiegoCounty(OberbauerandVanderwier1991,SanDiegoAssociationofGovernments1992).The Santa MonicaMountains Conservancy(1992)estimatesthat 85,000to 130,000acresofcoastalsagescruboccurin northwesternLos AngelesCounty.TheCaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Came(1992)estimatesthat 393,655acresof coastalsagescruboccurwithin the NaturalCommunityConservationPlanningProgramstudyarea,which encompassesthesamegeographicareadiscussedabove as well as southwesternSanBernardinoCounty. The Serviceis notaware of anyother recentestimatesfortheextentof coastalsagescrubelsewherewithin the historic rangeofthis plant communityIn Californiaasdefinedby BarbourandMajor (1977).
AssumingtheestimatefornorthwesternLosAngelesCounty citedaboveis accurate, then about 343,000to444,000acresof coastalsagescrubremainin California within an areaencompassingthe majority of thehistoric rangeof this plant community.This revisedestimaterepresents14 to18 percent of theestimatedoriginalextent of coastalsagescrub in Californiaas reportedby BarbourandMajor(1977).
- Issue14:Coastalsagescrubisplentiful in Baja California,Mexico. Onecommonterestimatedthat 1.3millionacres(520,000ha) ofcoastalsagescrubandcoastalsucculentscrubexist in BajaCalifornia, basedon satelliteimageryanalysis.TheServiceshouldtakethisfactorinto considerationin thelistingdecision-makingprocess.
ServiceResponse:The Servicedidconsidertheavailability of coastalsagescrubandthe statusof the coastalCaliforniagnatcatcherin Baja California,Mexico, in determining to list thegnatcatcher.Substantiallymorepotentialhabitatfor the coastalCalifornia gnatcatchermay remaininBajaCaliforniathanin the UnitedStates.Using 1:20,000and 1:40,000scaleaerialphotographs,Minnich(unpublishedmanuscript1993)estimatesthatabout 1.4 million acresofcoastal sagescruband765,250acresofmaritimedesertscrubremainbetweentheinternationalborderand300 ~latitude.
16750 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
In addition, theacreageestimatescitedabovedo not quantify thedegreeto whichtheareasmappedascoastalsagescrubarethreatenedby urbanandagriculturaldevelopmentor thedegreeto whichtheyhavebeendegradedbygrazingandfire. Widespreadhabitatdegradationhasoccurredin BajaCalifornia (RECON1991a,J. Newman,perscomm.).The habitatconnectionattheinternationalborderconsistsof verydegradedcoastalsagescrubthat is beingencroacheduponby urbandevelopment.In theUnited States,theStateof Californiahaspartially fundedanapprovedoff-road vehicleparkdevelopmentat theborderthat woulddirectlyaffect about21 pairsofgnatcatchersand500acresof coastalsagescrub.Leasenegotiationsbetweenthe landownerandtheCaliforniaDepartmentof ParksandRecreationhaverecentlybeensuspendedfor thisparkbecauseof potential conflictswiththeNaturalCommunityConservationPlanningAct of 1991 andwith theconservationof thegnatcatcher.
Sufficient threatsto thecontinuedexistenceof thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherexist in Mexico to warrantthe listing of this subspeciesthroughoutits rangein BajaCalifornia. Thegovernmentof Mexico hasformallyendorsedthis conclusionandsupportsthis listing action(Garcia1992).
Issue15:Periodicfires in gnatcatcherhabitatwill benefitthespecies.Onecommenterquestionedtheconclusionby theServicein theproposedrulethathigh fire frequenciesandthelagperiodassociatedwith recoveryof thevegetationmaysignificantly reducetheviability of affectedgnatcatcherpopulationsandmaycontributeto theloss, degradation,andfragmentationofcoastalsagescrub.Thecommentercitedseveralinstanceswheregnatcatcherpopulationsincreasedfollowing fires.
althoughno dataweresubmittedwhichwould allow independentcorroborationof this conclusion.
ServiceResponse:Fireis anaturalcomponentof someshrublandecosystems.althoughthefire ecologyofcoastalsagescrubis not wellunderstood.Thetiming, frequency,intensity, andmagnitudeof fire events,aswell assurroundingland usesandweatherpatterns,influencetheeffectsoffire on thegnatcatcher.In somecases,theoutcomemaybenefitthegnatcatcherby ultimatelycausingmoresuitablehabitatto developand,in others,it maycauselocal extirpationsand/orhabitatdegradationthat reducesthe number ofgnatcatchersthat can besupportedontheaffectedsite. Increasedfirefrequencyis probablydetrimentaltocoastalsagescrubandCaliforniagnatcatcherpopulations.For example,increasedfire frequenciesat CampPendletonMarine CorpsBasein SanDiegoCountyarecontributingto thetype conversionof shrublandvegetationtypes,including coastalsagescrub,tograssiands(D. Lawson,U.S. MarineCorps,pers.comm.).Fire frequenciesincreasein wildlar.d areasborderedbyurbanandagriculturaldevelopment(Radtke1983).
Issue16:The Servicemisrepresentedthemagnitudeof threatto thegnatcatcherfrom urbandevelopment.Severalcommentersquestionedthevalidity of theService’sanalysisof thethreatto thegnatcatcherposedby urbandevelopmentandsubmittedthat it wasoverstated.
ServiceResponse.TheService’sassessmentof this issueis basedon: (1)A review of environmentalimpactreportsfor proposedandapproveddevelopmentswithin thegnatcatcher’scurrentrangein theUnited States; (2)theresultsof aerialreconnaissancewithin Orange,Riverside,andSanDiegoCounties;(3) thefinding that 91 to 94percentof gnatcatcherlocality recordsfor OrangeandSanDiegoCountiesoccurbelow 250m (820 ft) in elevationand99 percentoccurbelow 300m (984ft) in elevation(MBA 1991, Atwood1992a);and(4) otheravailableinformationsuchasanestimated58 to61 percentloss of coastalsagescrubinOrange.Riverside,andSanDiegoCountiessince1945 (seediscussionunderIssue5 above)andanestimated66 to 90 percentreductionin theoriginalextentof coastalsagescrubinCalifornia,both reductionsdueprimarily to urbanization(Westman1981a,b;MBA 1991). A more detailedanalysisof theloss of coastalsagescrubhabitatdueto urbanizationis presentedunderFactorA in thesectionentitled,Summaryof FactorsAffecting the
ServiceResponse:The Servicehasmadea concertedeffort to obtainthebestavailablescientificinformationregardingthecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcher.Basedon numerouscommentsregardinggnatcatchertaxonomy,theServicesolicitedtheAOU Committeeon ClassificationandNomenclature,arecognizedauthorityon the taxonomyof NorthAmericanbirds, for its position on this issue.TheServicesolicitedcommentsorsuggestionsfrom thepublic, otherconcernedgovernmentalagencies,thescientificcommunity,industry,andanyotherinterestedpartyon all aspectsoftheproposedrule. TheService’srequestfor commentsfrom theAOU isconsistentwith its legal obligationsundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct toobtainthebestavailablescientificinformation,anddoesnot constituteaviolation of theFederalAdvisoryCommitteeAct.
ServiceResponse:The Service’sefforts to notify thepublicabouttheproposalto list thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherwereextensive,andaredescribedat thebeginningof thissectionentitled, “SummaryofCommentsandRecommendations.”
In addingtheword “solely” to thestatutorycriteria for listing a species,Congressspecificallyaddressedthisissuein 1982amendmentsto theAct.The legislativehistory of the1982amendmentsstates:“The addition of theword “solely” is intendedto removefrom theprocessof the listing ordelisting of speciesany factornotrelatedto thebiological statusof thespecies.TheCommitteestronglybelievesthateconomicconsiderationshaveno relevanceto determinationsregardingthestatusof speciesandintendsthat the economicanalysisrequirementsof ExecutiveOrder12291,andsuchstatutesas theRegulatoryFlexibility Act andthePaperworkReductionAct, not apply * *
Issue20:TheServiceshouldpreparean EnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS) in accordancewith theNationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) forthis proposedaction.
ServiceResponse:For thereasonscited in theNEPA sectionof this rule,theServicehasdeterminedthat rulesissuedpursuantto section4(a) of theEndangeredSpeciesAct do not requirethepreparationof anEIS.
Summaryof FactorsAffectingtheSpecies
After athoroughreviewandconsiderationof all availableinformation, theServicehasdeterminedthat thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatchershouldbeclassifiedas athreatenedspecies.Proceduresfound at section4 oftheEndangeredSpeciesAct (16U.S.C.1533)andregulations(50CFR part 424)promulgatedto implementthelistingprovisionsof theActwere followed. Aspeciesmaybe determinedto beendangeredor threateneddueto oneormore of the five factorsdescribedinsection4(a)(1). Thesefactorsandtheirapplicationto thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcher(Polioptila californicacalifornica) areasfollows:
A. Thepresentor threateneddestruction,modification,or
curtailmentof its habitator range.Thehabitatandrangeof thecoaikalCaliforniagnatcatcherhave beensignificantly reduced.This coastalsagescrub endemicspecieshistoricallyoccurred in six countiesin southernCalifornia. It has beenextirpated fromtwo counties(Ventura and SanBernardino) and is on thebrink ofextirpationfrom a third (Los Angeles).Atwood (1990, 1992b)reportedthatCalifornia gnatcatchershavebeenextirpatedfrom at least42 sitesthatwereoccupiedprior to 1960.He alsoreportedthat of 56 sitesthat supportedcoastalsagescruband Californiagnatcatchersin 1980, 18 (32percent)hadbeendestroyedand15 (27percent)werepartially impactedby developmentin 1990. About 99 percentof thepopulationin theUnited Statespresentlyoccurswithin Orange.Riverside,andSanDiegoCounties.
MBA (1991)andWestman(1981a,b)haverepoiledanestimated66 and85 to90 percentreduction,respectively,inthe original extentof coastalsagescrubin California. In 1945, 95,000acresof“coastalsagebrush”remainedin OrangeCounty,279,000acreswerein RiversideCounty,and381.000acresexistedinSanDiegoCounty (WieslanderandJensen1946). As of 1990, about48,000acresof “coastalsagebrush”remainedin OrangeCounty(Roberts1990),114,000acresin RiversideCounty(basedon Minnich 1990 andRECON1990a),and135,000to 152,000acresii~SanDiegoCounty (OberbauerandVanderwjer1991, SanDiegoAssociationof Governments1992).Thesedatarepresentcoastalsagescrublossesof 50, 59, and60 to 65 percentforOrange,Riverside,andSanDiegoCounties,respectively,since1945.Overall, 58 to 61 percentof thecoastalsagescrubwithin thesethreecountiesin 1945hadbeenlost by1990.All of thepublishedliteratureon thestatusofcoastalsagescrubvegetationinCaliforniasupportstheconclusionthatthis plant community is oneof themostdepletedhabitattypesin theUnitedStates(Kirkpatrick andHutchinson1977; Axelrod 1978; Klopateketa!.1979; Westman1981a,b,1987;Mooney1988; O’Leary 1990).
ThecoastalCalifornia gnatcatcherisnot uniformly distributedwithin thestructurallyandfioristically variablecoastalsagescrubcommunity(Kirkpatrick andHutchinson1977,Westman 1981b,Desimoneand Burk1902)whichextendsup to 600m (1969ft) in elevation(O’Leary 1990). It tendsto occurmost frequentlywithinArtemisia ca/iJ~nica-dominatedstandsof coastalsagescrubon mesasandlower slopesof thecoastrangesthat
havebeenextensivelyconvertedtourbanandagricultural-habitatsthroughoutLos Angeles,Orange,westernRiverside, and westernSanDiegoCounties.
Atwood (1992a)reportedthat94percentof all gnatcatcherlocalityrecords(n=306)for OrangeandSanDiegoCountiesoccurbelow250 m (820ft) in elevation.Basedon amuchlargersamplesize(n=781)for thesamegeographicarea,MBA (1991)reportedthat91 percentof all gnatcatcherrecordsoccurat or below 250m and99percentoccurat orbelow 300 m (984 ft)in elevation.
Of about19,000acresof coastalsagescrubfoundbelow300m in elevationin OrangeCounty,36 percent(6,800acres)is preserved,21 percent(4,000acres)is approvedor proposedfordevelopment,and43 percent(8,300acres)is of uncertainstatus(Roberts1992). Since1989, over 3,600acresofcoastalsagescrub,locatedmostlybelow300 m in elevationin OrangeCounty,havebeendestroyedby urbanandagriculturaldevelopment.
Between1980and1990, thehumanpopulationin SanDiegoCountyincreasedby morethan 600,000.Most ofthis increaseoccurredon ornearthecoastat sites historicallyoccupied,inpart,by coastalsagescrubvegetation.InsouthwesternSanDiegoCounty,8,461acresof coastalsagescrubwere lostbetween1984and 1991 (Keeler-Wolf1991); overall,one-thirdof thecoastalsagescrubpresentin 1984 within thestudyareawasdestroyedby urbandevelopmentoverthe7-yearperiod.Almost 9.000acresof coastalsagescrub(mostlybelow300 m in elevation)inSanDiegoCountyhavebeenpermanentlydestroyedby development(about2,400acres)or temporarilydestroyedanddegradedby fire (over6,500 acres)sinceSeptemberof 1990.Approvedandproposedprojectscoulddestroyan additional 8,000acresofcoastalsagescrubwithin areasoccupiedby gnatcatchersprimarily below 300 min elevation.Severalof theseprojectsarelocatedwithin core populationsoftheCaliforniagnatcatcher.
In RiversideCounty,over3,900acresof coastalsagescrubhavebeendestroyedby urbandevelopmentandfire since1989.Of 13 multiple speciesreservesproposedfor acquisitionwithinRiversideCounty, five containthemajority of Californiagriatcatchersknown to occurin RiversideCounty.Four of thesefive proposedreservesareconsideredto besubjectto an imminentdevelopmentthreatandaregivenatoppriority for acquisition(DangermondandAssociatesandRECON 1991).Moreover,thehumanpopulationin all
16752 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 59 I Tuesday,March 30, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
RECON(1991a)reportedthatrelatively few coastalCaliforniagnatcatchersoccurin northernBaja.California,Mexico,andattributeditsstatusthereto habitatloss, degradation,andfragmentation.Thehabitatconnectionbetweenthe United StatesandMexican gnatcatcherpopulationsis~tenuous”(RECON 1991a).
TheServiceis currently participatingin a studyof gnatcatcherecology inwesternRiversideCounty that wasinitiated in thespringof 1992.Thisstudyinvolvesintensivemonitoringofthreecolor-bandedgnatcatchersubpopulationsoccupyingthreedifferentlandscapesettings:(1) arelativelysmall, fragmentedcoastalsagescrubpatchadjacentto urbanandagriculturaldevelopment;(2)arelatively largecoastalsagescrubpatchgrazedby cattle;and(3) arelatively
largecoastalsagescrubpatchcontiguouswith othernativeplantcommunitiesin an areadistantfrom - -
urbanandagriculturaldevelopment.Preliminaryresultsof nest monitoringactivitiesin 1992indicatethatgnatcatthersoccupyingthesmall,fragmentedpatchexperiencedhighlevelsof nestparasitismby cowbirds(7of 15 nestsor 47 percent)andonly I of15 nests(7 percent) fledgedatotal of 2young.Gnatcatchernestson thegrazedpatchwerealsoheavilyparasitized(15of 25 nestsor 60 percent),andonly 2of 25 nests(8 percent)fledgeda total of4 young.Thegnatcatchersoccupyingthecoastalsagescrubpatchin a“natural” settinghadonly onecaseofcowbird parasitism (1 of 26 nestsor 4percent)andgoodreproductivesuccess(11 of 26 nestsor 42 percentfledgedatotal of 40 young) (Braden1992).Thesefindingsstronglysuggestthat theadverseedgeeffectsnotedin fragmentedforesthabitatsoccurin shrublandcommunitiesaswell.
Although thehistoricdistributionofcoastalsagescrubwasundoubtedlypatchyto somedegree,this conditionhasbeengreatlyexacerbatedby urbanandagricultural development.Basedonmapspresentedby MBA (1991),theServicehascalculatedthemagnitudeofchangein thedegreeof fragmentationofcoastalsagescrubbetween1931 and1990 for Orange,Riverside,endSanDiegoCounties.In 1931, therewere27dl~tinctcoastalsagescrubpatchesinOrangeCounty.By 1990,therewere 145patches.Similar increasesinfragmentationhavealsooccurredinRiversideCounty,from 87 to 374patches;aridSanDiegoCounty,from 72to 217 patches.Usingdifferentscalemaps.Keeler-Wolf (1991)analyzedrecentchangesin theextentof coastalsagescrubin southwesternSanDiegoCounty.Thenumberof coastalsagescrubpatcheswithin his studyareaincreasedfrom 286in 1984 to 510in1991.Themeansizeofthesepatchesdecreasedfrom 99 acresin 1984 to 53acresin 1991.
This patternof increasinghabitatfragmentationhasisolatedmanypopulationsof thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherfrom eachother,includingthoseon thePalosVerdesPeninsula(LosAngelesCounty),in theSanJoaquinHills (OrangeCounty), in fourgeneralareasof westernSanDiegoCounty(CampPendletonMarineCorpsBase-FallbrookNaval WeaponsStation;Carlsbad-SanMarcos-RanchoPonasquitos;Poway-Tierrasanta-Santee;SweetwaterRiver-OtayMesa).andthreegeneralareasof wèsternRiversideCounty(LakeMathews-GavilanPlateau;DomenigoniValley-Vail Lake; the
B. Overutiiizationfor commercial,recreational,scientific,or educationalpurposes.Not knownto be applicable.
C. Diseaseor predation.Diseaseis notknown to beafactoraffectingthisspeciesatthis time. However,severalspecieshavebeenreported as potentialpredatorsof coastalCaliforniagriatcatchereggsor nestlings(Atwood1990).Thoseinclude thescrubjay(Aphelocornacoerulescens),commoncrow (Corvusbrachyrhynchos),commonraven(Corvuscorax), opossum(Dideiphismarsupialis),raccoon(ProcyonIota,’), gray fox (Urocyoncinereoargenteus),coachwhip(Masticophisflagellum),stripedracer(Masticophislateralis),gopher snake(Pituophismelanoleucus),rosyboa(Lichanuratrivirgata), commonkingsnake(Lanipropeltisgetulus),southernalligatorlizard (Gerrhonotusmulticarinatus),domesticor feral cat(Fellsdomestica),woodrat (Neotomaspp.),deermouse(Peromysci.zsmaniculatus),housemouse(Musniusculus),and black rat (Rottusrattus).
D. Theinadequacyof existingregulatoiymechanisms.No regulatorymechanismsarecurrently in effect thatadequatelyprotectthecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcheranditshabitat. The coastal
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30,-1993 I Rules and Regulations 16753
Californiagnatcatcheris not listedundertheCaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct andmostpopulationsoccuron privatelands.Local andcountyzoningdesignationsaresubjecttochangeanddo not incorporatetheprinciplesof conservationbiology in theestablishmentandconfigurationof openspaceareas.What few resourceprotectionordinancesexist aresubject.to differentinterpretations,andin caseswherefindings of overridingsocialandeconomicconsiderationsaremade,complianceis not required.In manycases,land-useplanningdecisionsaremadeon thebasisof environmentalreview documents,preparedinaccordancewith theCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality Act or theNationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act, thatdo not adequatelyaddresspotentialimpactsto thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherandits habitat,if consideredat all.
Anotherindication of thelackofexistingregulatorymechanismstoprotectthegnatcatcherandits habitat isprovidedby a recentstudyin SanDiegoCounty.The city of SanDiego(1990)evaluatedthemagnitudeof impactassociatedwith developmentto nativeplant communitieswithin itsjurisdiction for theperiod1985 to 1990.This study revealeda 97 percentloss ofcoastalsagescrub(384 of 395 acres)inconjunctionwith 15 projects.This studyalsoevaluatedeight caseswherenodistinction wasmadebetweenchaparralandcoastalsagescrubvegetation.A 95percentloss of chaparral/coastalsage
scrub(1.308 of 1,371 acres)was -
documentedfor theseprojects.Keeler-Wolf (1991)reporteda netlossof 8,461acresof coastalsagescrubwithin the -
city of SanDiegobetween1984 and1991.
SinceAugust1991, over 4,600acresof coastalsagescrubhavebeendestroyedwithin the gnatcatcher’srangein Orange,Riverside,andSanDiegoCounties.No mitigation to offsetimpactsto thegnatcatcherwasassociatedwith 33 of39 projectsknownto affectthis species.ApprovedIbut notyetconstructed)andproposeddevelopmentswithin thesethreecountiescoulddestroyover10,000acresof coastalsagescrub.Severalof theseprojectswill directly affectandfurtherfragmentregionally significantcorepopulationsof thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherandmayseverthetenuoushabitatconnectionbetweentheUnitedStatesandMexico.
Another indication of theineffectivenessof existingregulatorymechanismsto protectthecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcheris providedby 11casesinvolving thedestructionof about1,050acresof coastalsagescrubvegetationoccupied,in part, bygnatcatchersin Orange,Riverside,andSanDiegoCounties.Theseactionsoccurredprior to regulatoryagencyreview or issuanceof gradingpermits.In two of thesecases,gnatcatcherhabitatwasdestroyedshortly aftertheServicecontactedor submitteda letterto a local regulatoryagencyadvisingtheagencythata draft environmentalreviewdocumentfor a proposedhousingdevelopmentfailed to disclosethepresenceof gnatcatchersonsite.Overall,about1,900acresof landwasclearedin conjunctionwith agricultural,weedabatement,andfire protectionactivitiesor to precludenestingactivitiesby migratory birds.
Although existinggradingordinancesregulatesomeor all of theseactivities,theyhavenot provento be effectivedeterrentsto destructionof gnatcatcherhabitat.In arelatedmatter,about450acresof high quality coastalsagescrubvegetationoccupiedby thecoastalCalifornia gnatcatcherweredestroyedinFebruary1991nearLakeElsinoreinRiversideCounty(L. Hays,FishandWildlife Service,andS. Myers,TierraMadreConsultants,pers.comm.).Thisactivity wasauthorizedunderagradingpermit issuedby the city of LakeElsinore in conjunctionwith anapprovedreclamationplan for apreviouslymined siteborderingthestandof coastalsagescrub.The entirearealieswithin-an approvedbut not yetconstructedgolf course-residentialcommunity.Somejurisdictions(e.g.,the
In adoptingan ordinanceimposinginterim regulationsfor gradingandclearing,theCounty of SanDiegoBoardof Supervisors(1988)notedseveralcharacteristicsassociatedwith thesetypesof activitiesthatappearto applythroughouttherangeof thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherin theUnitedStates:
* * * Clearingandillegal gradinghavebeenusedto destroyenvironmentalresourcesprior to applicationfor a landdevelopmentpermit,duringthepermitprocess,afterprojectapprovalbutprior tothe applicationof protectingopenspaceeasements,andafterdedicationofopenspace* * * Gradingviolations,whenreported,resultin relativelyminimal finesand, becauseof thedifficulty in obtainingconvictions,arenot aseriousdeterrenttoillegal grading.A fine often will not preventaviolation of this ordinancebecauseatinemay beconsideredsimplyas anadditionaldevelopmentcost * * Clearingforlegitimatereasons(geotechnicalexplorationandaccessfor percolationtestsandwells,andclearingfor fire protection)is frequentlydonewell in excessof the minimumnecessaryto accomplishthepurpose.
In somerecentcases,habitatrestorationrequirementshavebeenimposedasapenaltyfor violation ofgradingordinances.However, that maynot resolvetheproblemin abiologically-meaningfulway. Thefeasibility of artificially creatingaviablecoastalsagescrubplant communitysuitablefor thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherhasyet to be demonstrated,especiallyon alargescale.Although theresultsofa recenteffort by theCaliforniaDepartmentof ParksandRecreationto restorea smallareaofcoastalsagescrubin Crystal CoveStatePark (OrangeCounty)areencouraging,theyarenot conclusive.
The Serviceis not aware of anyexistingregulatorymechanismsin Baja,California, Mexico, thatprotectthegnatcatcherandits habitat.Thegovernmentof Mexico hasformallyacknowledgedtherapid lossof habitatin northwesternBaja, Californiaandsupportsthis listing action(Garcia1992).
Severalland-useplanningeffortshavebeeninitiated that areattemptingtoaddresstheissueof conservingthecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherandthecoastalsagescrubecosystemuponwhich it depends.Foremostamongtheseefforts is theNaturalCommunity
~754 Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
The Servicehasprovidedfundsandtechnicalassistancefor thedevelopmentof theCoastalSageScrubNCCP.TheCoastalSageScrubNCCPmayresult inthedevelopmentandimplementationofspecificplansandmanagementprogramsfor thelong-termprotectionofthecoastalsagescrubcommunityinportionsof five southernCaliforniacountiesby addressingtheconser~’ationneedsof three“target” speciesincluding thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcher.Theplanningareafor theCoastalSageScrubNCCPencompassesthecurrentrangeof thegnatcatcherintheUnited States.
Participationin this planningeffortinvolvesa formalenrollmentprocesswherebyvoluntaryagreementsareestablishedbetwaentheDepartmentandtwo categoriesof participants:Landownersor land managementagencies,andcities or counties.Byccrolling, thelandownersor landmanagementagenciesagreeto notdisturbtL~coastalsagescrubcommunityduringtheplanningperiod(May 1, 1992-~oOctober31, 1993).Thecitiesor counts agreeto monitorimpactsto theco~stalsagescrubcommunity,iniposeaddftionalinformation disclosurerequirementsduringtheenvironmentalreviewprocess,stronglyconsiderthemitigationrecommendationsof theServiceand theDepartmentfor projectsaffectingthecoastalsagescrubcommunity,andbesensitiveto thepotentialimpactsofproposedactivitieson thecoastalsagescrub’communiyduring theplanningprocess.As of October22, 1992,a totalof 15 cities, 1 county,35 landowners,and3 land managementagencieswithinthe currentrangeof thegnatcatcherintheUnited Stateshadenrolledin theNCCPProgrambasedon informationprovidedby theDepartment.
TheCaliforniaStateSenatedefeateda$1.1million fundingbill for theNccPprogramon August 17, 1992. Alsoduring August, the Riverside CountyBoardof Supervisorsvotedagainstenrollingcountylandswithin theNccPProgram.
The Servicefully supportsthegoalsofthe NCCPProgram.However,nosubstantiveprotection of the coastalCalifornia gnatcatcher is currentlyprovidedby city/countyenrollmentsbecausehabitatlossandfragmentationcanoccurprior to the developmentandimplementationof adequateconservationplans.Therefore,thedegreeto which theNCCPProgramremovesthreatsto this speciesis basedprimarily on ananalysisof landowner!land managementagencyenrollments.However,jurisdictionalenrollmentscontribute to recognition of the need forconservingthe gnatcatcherandthecoastalsagescrubecosystemuponwhich it depends.At suchtime thatcity/countyenrollmentsprovideat leastinterim habitatprotectionor haveresultedin theimplementationofapprovedconservationplansfor thegnatcatcher,theServicewill reconsidertheeffectsof theseenrollmentson thestatusof this species.
Landowner and land managementagencyenrollmentsencompassabout22,577 of 48,000acres(47 percent)ofcoastal sagescrubvegetation in OrangeCounty; about 15,176of 135,000to152.000acres(10to 11 percent)ofcoastalsagescrubvegetationin SanDiegoCounty; and about 7,191 of114,000acres(6 percent)of coastalsagescrub vegetationin RiversideCounty.Overall,about44,944of 297,000to314,000acres(14 to 15 percent)ofcoastalsagescrubvegetationwithinthese3 countiesaresubjectto interimprotectionundertheNCCPProgram.The degreeto which theselandswill bepermanentlyprotectedis not known atthis time.
Fromtheperspectiveof thegnatcatcher,landowner/landmanagementagencyenrollmentsencompassabout 447of 757 pairs(59percent)of Califor~tiagnatcatchersinOrangeCounty; 264 of 1,514pairs(17percent)in SanDiegoCounty; and61 of
261 pairs(23 percent)in RiversideCounty. Overall,772 of 2,562pairs(30percent)of Californi~~nat~atchersknownto occurin the UnitedStatesaresubject to interim protection under theNCCPProgram.The degreeto whichthesepairswill be permanentlyprotected is notknownat this time.
The Countyof Riverside hasfundedthepreparationof adraft multi-specieshabitat conservationplanthatincludesconsiderationof the gnatcatcher(DangermondandAssociatesandRECON1991).About 60 pairsofgnatcatchersareknown to occur within8 studyareasunderconsiderationforpermanentpreservestatus for theStephens’kangaroorat (Dipodomysstephensi).a speciesfederallylistedasendangered.
OrangeCounty,SanDiegoCounty,andtheSanDiegoAssociationofGovernments(SANDAG) areusinggeographicinformation systemcomputertechnology to define, in part,the status of sensitiveresources(includingcoastalsagescrubandthecoastalCalifornia gnatcatcher)withintheir respectiveareasof jurisdiction inthecontextof regional openspaceplanning. SANDAGhas also establisheda technicaladvisory committee to guidethe developmentof a regional (SanDiegoCounty) openspaceplan. In arelatedmatter,thecity of SanDiegoisfundingthe preparation of amulti-speciesconservationplan(MSCP) inconjunctionwith the Clean WaterProgram. The study areafor this planincludesabout120,000acresof coastalsagescrubandthemajority of coastalCaliforniagnatcatchersknown to occurin SanDiegoCounty.A draftof the planis scheduledto becompletedinDecember1993.The progressiveandinnovative efforts of theMSCPprogramhaveidentifiedtheknown and potentialhabitatof the gnatcatcherwithin theentire study area. This program hasmadesignificantprogresstowarddefining regional conservationprioritiesthat mayultimately leadto habitatprotectionfor thegnatcatcherandavariety of other sensitivespecieswithinthestudy-area.
The city of Carlsbad(SanDiegoCounty) is fundingthepreparationof ahabitatmanagementplan.Thestudyareafor this planningeffort includesabout3,700acresof coastalsagescrubandabout85 to 90 pairsof gnatcatchers.Thebiological resourcesandhabitatanalysiscomponentsof this planwerepreparedin August 1992(MBA 1992).
In September1991,a “FocusedCalifornia GnatcatcherResourceStudyfor theCity of Poway” in SanDiegoCounty wascompletedby ERCE(1991).The objectivesofthis studywere to (1)
FederalRegiater I Vol. 58, No. 59 / Tuesday.March 30, 1993 1 Rules and Regulations 16755
TheMetropolitanWaterDistrict ofSouthernCalifornia is fundingthepreparationof a multi-specieshabitatconservationplan for southwesternRiversideCounty in cooperationwiththeRiversideCountyHabitatConservationAgency.A reviseddraftofthis plan. which includesthepreservationof about5.600acresofcoastal sagescrubandan estimated150pairsof gnatcatchersin the DomenigoniValley-LakeSkinnerarea,wascompletedin October1992 (Monroeeta!. 1992). Almost $14million in fundingwill beprovidedunderthis plan forinitial researchandmanagementofpreserveareas.
A coalition of nine cities,the Countyof SanDiego,theSanDiegoCountyWaterAuthority, SANDAG, theCaliforniaDopartmentof FishandGame,theU.S.MannaCorps(CampPendleton),andtheServicearecoordinatinghabitatconservationplanningactivitiesin northernSanDiegoCounty.A MemorandumofAgreementformalizingthis voluntary,cooperativeeffortwasdraftedinNovember 1991.
A Memorandumof Understanding(MOU) wasexecutedon April 16,1992,betweentheServiceandTheIrvineCompany.ThisMOU establishestheguidelinesandproceduresthatwill befollowedbybothpartiesin thepreparationof anAdvanceHabitatConservationPlan for the Californiagnatcatchararidothercoastalsagescrub-associatedspeciesthat arecandidatesfor Federallisting.
On August7, 1992,The IrvineCompanyandTheNatureConservancyannouncedan agreementfor TheNature-Conservancymanagementof 17,000acresof undevelopedpropertyownedby TheIrvine Companythat includeslargetractsof coastalsagescruboccupied,inpert,by thecoastalCalifornia gnatcatcher.TheIrvineCompanyintendstodedicatetheselands to the public overthenext 20to25 yearsin conjunctionwith futuredevelopmentof commercialandresidentialprojectselsewhereon theIrvine Ranch.
Although planning agenciesaregivinggreaterconsiderationto thegnatcatcherand its habitat,noneof theseeffortsarecurrentlyprovidinganadequatelevel ofprotection to thegnatcatcher.
E. Othernatumlor man-madefactorsaffectingits continuedexistence.Grazingandair pollutionarealsoadverselyaffectingthecoastalsagescrubplant communityuponwhich thegnatcatcherdepends(Westinan1987,O’Leary andWestman1988).
Oneof theeffectsof urbanizationthatis contributingtotheloss, degradation,and fragmentation of coastalsagescrubvegetationis an increasein wildfiresduetoanthropogenicignitions. Forexample,oneof the largestareasofcoastalsagescrubvegetationremainingwithin SanDiegoCountyoccursonCampPendletonMarineCorpsBase.During thelast3 years,over15,000acresof nativevegetation,muchof itcoastalsagescrub,haveburnedin firesstartedincidental to military trainingactivities.Two of thesefiresconsumedover6,500acresof coastalsagescrubvegetationoccupied.in part,by thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcher(D.Lawson,pers.comm.).High firefrequenciesandthelagperiodassociatedwith recoveryof thevegetation maysignificantly reducetheviability of affectedpopulations.
gnatcatcherwarrantsprotectionunderthe Act on thebasisof pasthabitatlossandfragmentationalone.Although thepreferredactionin theproposedrulewasto list thisspeciesasendangered,theServiceconcludes(basedoninformationreceivedor developedaftertheproposedrulewaspublished)thatthe imminentthreatof extinction Is notasgreataspreviouslyconsideredfor thereasonsoutlinedbelow.Therefore,thepreferredactionis to list thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherasthreatened,which is definedundertheAct asaspecieslikely tobecomein dangerofextinction within theforeseeablefuturethroughoutall or a significantportion ofits range.
The Serviceconsidersthischangeinlisting statusto bewarrantedbasedonthefollowing factors.Sincetheproposedrulewaspublished,enrollmentin theStateof California’sCoastalSageScrubNaturalCommunityConservationPlanningProgram(NCCP)now includes15cities, 1 county,35landowners,and3 land managementagencieswithin thecurrentrangeof thegnatcatcherin theUnited States,whohaveformally committedto developorto assistin thedevelopmentofconservationplansthat (basedonprocessguidelinesfinalized by theCaliforniaResourcesAgencyonSeptember1, 1992~meetthestandardsfor allowing incidentaltakeof afederally listed speciesunder section 10of theAct. Theplanningperiodfor thisprogramendsan November1, 1993.Landowner/landmanagementagencyenrollments(whichprecludeanyhabitatdestructionbeforeadequateplansarepreparedandimplementationagreementsareexecuted)encompassabout45,000acresofcoastalsagsscruboccupied,in part,by about772pairsofgnatcatchersmostly inOrangeCounty.Overall, accordingto the CaliforniaDepartmentof Fishand Game(1992),about210,000acresor 53 percentof thecoastalsagescrubknown to occurwithin theNCCPplanningarea(whichencompassesthecurrentrangeof thegnatcatcherin theUnited States)aresubject to enrollment agreements.
In two relatedmatters,The IrvineCompanyand theServiceenteredIntoa Memorandumof Understandingforpreparingan “AdvanceHabitatConservationPlan” for theCaliforniagnatcatcherin April of 1992 (about193pairsof gnatcatchersoccuron propertyownedby TheIrvine Company),andtheMetropolitanWaterDistrict of SouthernCalifornia (MWD) hascommittedtopreserveabout5,600acresof coastalsagescruboccupied,in part.by thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherinsouthwesternRiversideCounty.The
16756 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 59 / Tuesday,March 30, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
MWD hasalsocommittedto providealmost$14 million in funding forresearchandmanagementof thispreserve.
In August 1992, TheNatureConservancyandThe Irvine Companyannouncedan agreementfor TheNatureConservancymanagementof 17,000acresof undevelopedpropertyownedby TheIrvine Companyin OrangeCountythat includeslargetractsofcoastalsagescruboccupied,in part,bythe coastalCaliforniagnatcatcher.Thismanagementprogramwill focus,in part,on thegnatcatcheranditshabitat.
Takingtheseactionsintoconsideration,aswell as theotherrecentlyinitiatedconservationplanningefforts discussedunderfactor“D” in the“Summaryof FactorsAffectingtheSpecies”sectionof this rule andthepresentandfuture threatsfacedby thisspecies,theServicefinds thatthecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcheris not inimminentdangerof extinctionbut islikely to becomeso in the foreseeablefuture throughoutall or a significantportion of its rangein theabsenceofprotectionaffordedundertheAct.
Pursuantto thelatitudeaffordedthreatenedspeciesby section4(d) of theAct and50 ~FR 17.31(c),theServiceisproposingaspecialrulefor thegnatcatcherin this sameFederalRegisterpart. SpecialrulesareauthorizedundertheAct to adjustthegeneralprotectivemeasuresavailablefor threatenedspeciesandexperimentalpopulations.Theproposedspecialruledefinestheconditionsunderwhich“take” of gnatcatchersmaybeauthorizedfor certain land-useactivitiesassociatedwith theStateof California’sNCCPPro~ram.
As providedby 5 U.S.C. 553(d),theServicehasdeterminedthatgood causeexststo maketheeffectivedateof thisrule immediate.Delayinimplementationof theeffectivedatewould place thehabitat of the speciesatrisk.
Critical habitat is not being designatedat this time for thereasonsdiscussedbelow.
Critical HabitatSection4(a)(3)of theAct, as
amended,requirescritical habitatto bedesignatedto themaximumextentprudentanddeterminableatthetime aspeciesis listed as endangeredorthreatened. The Servicehas concludedthat designationof critical habitat is notprudentfor thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcheratthis time. TheService’sregulations(50CFR424.12(a)(1))statethat designationof critical habitatis notprudentwhenoneorboth of thefollowing situationsexist:
(1) Thespeciesis threatenedby takingor otherhumanactivity, and -
(2) Suchdesignationof critical habitatwould not bebeneficialto thespecies.
In thecaseof theCaliforniagnatcatcher,both criteria aremet. Asdiscussedunderfactor“D” in the“Summaryof FactorsAffecting theSpecies,”somelandownersor projectdevelopershave brushed or graded sitesoccupiedby gnatcatchersprior toregulatoryagencyreview or theissuanceof agradingpermit. In someinstances,gnatcatcherhabitatwasdestroyedshortly after the Servicenotifiedalocalregulatoryagencythat a draftenvironmentalreview documentfor apioposedhousingdevelopmentfailed todisclosethepresenceof gnatcatcherson-site. On the basisof thesekinds ofactivities,theServicefinds thatpublicationof critical habitatdescriptionsandmapswould likelymakethespeciesmorevulnerabletoactivitiesprohibitedundersection9 ofthe Act,
Most populationsof thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherin theUnitedStatesare found on private lands whereFederalinvolvementin land-useactivitiesdoesnot generallyoccur.Additional protectionresultingfromcritical habitatdesignationis achievedthroughthesection7 consultationprocess.Sincesection7 would notapply to the majority of land-useactivities occurringwithin criticalhabitat, its designationwould notappreciablybenefitthespecies.
Available ConservationMeasuresConservationmeasuresprovidedto
specieslisted as endangeredorthreatenedundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct includerecognition,recoveryactions,requirementsforFederal protection,and prohibitionsagainstcertain activities. Recognitionthrough listing encouragesand resultsin conservationactionsby Federal,State,andprivateagencies,groups,andindividuals. The EndangeredSpeciesAct providesfor possiblelandacquisition and cooperationwith theStatesandrequiresthat recoveryactionsbecarriedout for all listedspecies.Theprotection required of Federal agenciesandtheprohibitionsagainsttakingandharmarediscussed,in part,below.
Section7(a) of theAct, asamended,requiresFederalagenciesto evaluatetheir actionswith respectto any speciesthat is proposed or listed asendangeredor threatened andwith raspedto itscritical habitat,if designated.Regulationsimplementingthis
interagencycooperationprovisionof theAct arecodified at 50 CFR part 402.Section7(a)(4)of th~Acrrequires
- Federalagenciesto conferinformallywith theServiceon anyactionthat islikely to jeopardizethecontinuedexistenceof aproposedspeciesorresultin destructionor adversemodificationof proposedcritical habitat.If aspeciesis subsequentlylisted,section7(a)(2)requiresFederalagenciesto insurethatactivitiestheyauthorize,fund,or carryout arenot likely to jeopardizethecontinuedexistenceof suchaspeciesorto destroyor adverselymodify itscritical habitat,If aFederalactionmayaffect a listed speciesor its criticalhabitat,theresponsibleFederalagencymust enterinto formal consultation withtheService.Federalagenciesthatmaybeinvolvedthroughactivitiestheyauthorize, fund, or carry out that mayaffectthecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcheror itshabitat includetheFederalHighwayAdministration,FederalHousingAdministration,andDepartmentof theNavy (includingCampPendletonMarineCorpsBase,FallbrookNavalAnnex, andMiramarNavalAir Station).
Section4(d) of theAct providesthatwheneveraspeciesis listedasathreatenedspecies,suchregulationsdeemednecessaryandadvisabletoprovide for theconservationof thespeciesmaybe issued.The Secretarymay, by regulation, prohibit anyactprohibited for endangeredspeciesundersection9(a). Theseprohibitions, in part,makeit illegal for anypersonsubjecttothe jurisdiction of theUnited Statestotake(includesharass,harm,pursue,hunt, shoot,wound, kill, trap, or collect;or to attempt any of these),import orexport,ship in interstatecommerceinthecourseof commercialactivity, or selloroffer for salein Interstateor foreigncommerceany listed species.It alsoIsillegal to possess,sell, deliver,carry,transport,or ship anysuchwildlife thathasbeentakenillegally. Certainexceptionsapplyto agentsof theServiceandStateconservationagencies.Theterm“harm” asit appliesto thetakeprohibition is definedin 50 CFR17.3to include “an actwhichactuallykills or injureswildlife. Suchactmayincludesignificanthabitatmodificationor degradation whereit actually kills orinjuries wildlife bysignificantlyimpairingessentialbehavioralpatterns,includingbreeding,feedingorsheltering.”Theimplementingregulationsfor threatenedwildlife (50CFR 17.31)incorporate, for the mostpart,by referencethe prohibitions forendangeredwildlife (50CFR 17.21)exceptwhen a specialrule applies (50
FederalRegistert VoL 58, No. 59 I Tuesday,March 30, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 16757
CFR17.31(c)).TheServicefinds that theprohibitionsfor endangeredspeciesgenerallyarenecessaryandadvisablefor conservationof thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcher.However,pursuantto thelatitude for threatened speciesaffordedby section4~d)of theAct and50 CFR17.31(cLtheServiceis proposingtoissueaspecialrule(publishedin thissameFederalRegister)definingtheconditionsunderwhichincidentaltakeof thecoastalCaliforniagnatcatcherresulting from certainstateandlocalgovernment-regulatedactivitieswouldnotviolate thegeneralprohibitionagainsttakeof thespecies.
Theland-useactivities,coveredby theproposedspecialrulewould beassociatedwith an approvedNaturalCommunityConservationPlanpreparedin consultationwith the Serviceunderthe Stateof CaliforniaNaturalCommunityConservationPlanningActof 1991. The approval processfor aNCG’ planwould involve review andformal concurrenceby the Servicethatthestandardsset undersection10 of theEndangeredSpeciesAct havebeenmetFor thesereasons,theServicefinds thattheproposedspecialrulewould providefor habitatconservationandmanagementessentialto recoveryof thegnatcatcherin a mannerconsistentwiththepurposesof theAct.
Permits may be issuedto carry outotherwiseprohibitedactivitiesinvolvingendangeredandthreatenedwildlife speciesunder certain
circumstances.Regulationsgoverningpermitsarecodifiedat 50 CFR17.22.17.23,and17,32.Suchpermitsareavailablefor scientificpurposes,toenhancethepropagationorsurvivalofthe species,andlorfor incidentaltakeinconnectionwith otherwiselawfulactivities.Forthreatenedspecies,permits may alsobeavailableforzoologicalexhibition,educationalorotherspecialpurposesconsistentwiththeprovisionsand intentof theAct.Individualswishing further informationon permits for researchshould contacttheU.S.FishandWildlife Service,Office of ManagementAuthority,PermitsBranch,4401 N. FairfaxDrive,Room 432,Arlington, Virginia 22203-3507 (703—358.--2104).
NationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act
The FishandWildlife Servicehasdeterminedthat anEnvironmentalAssessment,asdefinedundertheauthority of theNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct of 1969,neednot bepreparedin connectionwith regulationsadoptedpursuantto section(411a)of theEndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973, asamended.A noticeoutlining theService’sreasonsfor this determinationwaspublishedin theFederalRegisteron October25, 1983 (48FR 49244)
ReferencesCited
A completelist of all referencescitedhereinis availableuponrequestfromtheU.S. FishandWildlife Service,
Carlsbad Field Office (seeADDRESSES
above),
Author
Theprimaryauthorof this final ruleis Larry Salata(seeADDRESSESsection).
