Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Ivesia webberi, 32125-32155 [2014-12629]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 79
Tuesday,
No. 106
June 3, 2014
Part IV
Department of the Interior
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Ivesia webberi; Final Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
32126
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish
and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial
Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502;
telephone 775–861–6300; facsimile
775–861–6301. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0080;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–AZ57
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Ivesia webberi
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), designate
critical habitat for Ivesia webberi
(Webber’s ivesia) under the Endangered
Species Act (Act). In total,
approximately 2,170 acres (879
hectares) in Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra
Counties in northeastern California, and
in Washoe and Douglas Counties in
northwestern Nevada, fall within the
boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The effect of this regulation
is to conserve I. webberi’s critical habitat
under the Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 3,
2014.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available
on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and at https://
www.fws.gov/nevada/. Comments and
materials we received, as well as some
supporting documentation we used in
preparing this rule, are available for
public inspection at https://
www.regulations.gov. All of the
comments, materials, and
documentation that we considered in
this rulemaking are available by
appointment, during normal business
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340
Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno,
NV 89502; telephone 775–861–6300;
facsimile 775–861–6301.
The coordinates or plot points or both
from which the maps are generated are
included in the administrative record
for this critical habitat designation and
are available at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R8–ES–2013–0080, and at the
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (https://
www.fws.gov/nevada) (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional
tools or supporting information that we
developed for this critical habitat
designation will also be available at the
Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and
Field Office set out above, and may also
be included in the preamble and at
https://www.regulations.gov.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), any species that is
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species requires critical
habitat to be designated, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable. Designations and
revisions of critical habitat can only be
completed by issuing a rule. Section
4(b)(2) of the Act states that the
Secretary shall designate critical habitat
on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into
consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat.
Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register,
we published a final rule to list Ivesia
webberi as a threatened species. This is
a final rule to designate critical habitat
for I. webberi. The critical habitat areas
we are designating in this rule
constitute our current best assessment of
the areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat for I. webberi. In total, we
are designating as critical habitat
approximately 2,170 acres (ac) (879
hectares (ha)) of land in 16 units for the
species.
We have prepared an economic
analysis of the designation of critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we have prepared an analysis
of the economic impacts of the critical
habitat designations and related factors.
We announced the availability of the
DEA in the Federal Register on
February 13, 2014 (79 FR 8668),
allowing the public to provide
comments on our analysis. We have
incorporated the comments and have
completed the final economic analysis
(FEA) concurrently with this final
determination.
Peer review and public comment. We
sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our
designation is based on scientifically
sound data and analyses. We requested
opinions from three knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise to
review our technical assumptions and
analysis, and whether or not we had
used the best available information. We
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
received no comments or information
from these peer reviewers. We also
considered all comments and
information we received from the public
during the comment period.
Previous Federal Actions
The proposed listing rule for Ivesia
webberi (78 FR 46889; August 2, 2013)
contains a detailed description of
previous Federal actions concerning this
species.
On August 2, 2013, we published in
the Federal Register a proposed critical
habitat designation for I. webberi (78 FR
46862). On February 13, 2014, we
revised the proposed critical habitat
designation and announced the
availability of our draft economic
analysis (DEA) (79 FR 8668). Elsewhere
in today’s Federal Register, we
published a final rule to list Ivesia
webberi as a threatened species under
the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Summary of Changes From August 2,
2013, Proposed Rule
In this final critical habitat
designation, we make final the minor
changes that we proposed in the
document that published in the Federal
Register on February 13, 2014 (79 FR
8668). At that time, we increased the
designation (from that proposed on
August 2, 2013 (78 FR 46862)) by
approximately 159 ac (65 ha), to a total
of approximately 2,170 ac (879 ha). This
increase occurred in four units as a
result of the following: (1) Unit 9
included newly discovered, occupied
Ivesia webberi habitat (C.
Schnurrenberger, unpubl. survey 2013);
and (2) the boundaries of Units 12, 13,
and 14 were simplified to reduce the
number of irregularly shaped lobes and
align the boundaries with discernible
features such as ridgelines, roads,
topographic contours, and vegetation
communities. Overall, this increase in
proposed critical habitat (as announced
on February 13, 2014 (79 FR 8668)) was
based on new information received from
the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service)
that better defined the physical or
biological features along the boundaries
of five proposed units, resulting in
changes to the acreages for those units.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species, and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited
to, all activities associated with
scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement,
habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
requirement that Federal agencies
ensure, in consultation with the Service,
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation
does not allow the government or public
to access private lands. Such
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or
authorization for an action that may
affect a listed species or critical habitat,
the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even
in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the obligation of
the Federal action agency and the
landowner is not to restore or recover
the species, but to implement
reasonable and prudent alternatives to
avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
are included in a critical habitat
designation if they contain physical or
biological features (1) which are
essential to the conservation of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
species and (2) which may require
special management considerations or
protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the
extent known using the best scientific
and commercial data available, those
physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species (such as space, food, cover, and
protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features within an
area, we focus on the principal
biological or physical constituent
elements (primary constituent elements
such as roost sites, nesting grounds,
seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide,
soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary
constituent elements are those specific
elements of the physical or biological
features that provide for a species’ lifehistory processes and are essential to
the conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently
occupied by the species but that was not
occupied at the time of listing may be
essential to the conservation of the
species and may be included in the
critical habitat designation. We
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area presently
occupied by a species only when a
designation limited to its present range
would be inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data
available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the
Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act
(section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to
the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas
should be designated as critical habitat,
our primary source of information is
generally the information developed
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
32127
during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources
may include articles in peer-reviewed
journals, conservation plans developed
by States and counties, scientific status
surveys and studies, biological
assessments, other unpublished
materials, or experts’ opinions or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. We recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time
may not include all of the habitat areas
that we may later determine are
necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, a critical
habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are
important to the conservation of the
species, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, will
continue to be subject to: (1)
Conservation actions implemented
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2)
regulatory protections afforded by the
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species, and (3) section 9
of the Act’s prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including
taking caused by actions that affect
habitat. Federally funded or permitted
projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas
may still result in jeopardy findings in
some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species.
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 (HCPs), or
other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls
for a different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations
at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which
areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing to designate as critical habitat,
we consider the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require
special management considerations or
protection. These include, but are not
limited to:
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
32128
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(1) Space for individual and
population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological
requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring;
and
(5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or
biological features essential for Ivesia
webberi from studies of this species’
habitat, ecology, and life history as
described in the Critical Habitat section
of the proposed rule to designate critical
habitat published in the Federal
Register on August 2, 2013 (78 FR
46862), and in the information
presented below. Additional
information can be found in the final
listing rule published elsewhere in
today’s Federal Register, and the
Species Report for this species (Service
2014, entire), which is available at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0080.
We have determined that I. webberi
requires the following physical or
biological features:
Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior
Plant Community and Competitive
Ability—Ivesia webberi is primarily
associated with Artemisia arbuscula
Nutt. (low sagebrush) and other
perennial, rock garden-type plants such
as: Antennaria dimorpha (low
pussytoes), Balsamorhiza hookeri
(Hooker’s balsamroot), Elymus
elymoides (squirreltail), Erigeron
bloomeri (scabland fleabane), Lewisia
rediviva (bitter root), Poa secunda
(Sandburg bluegrass), and Viola
beckwithii (Beckwith’s violet) (Witham
2000, p. 17; Morefield 2004, 2005,
unpubl. survey; Howle and Henault
2009, unpubl. survey; BLM 2011, 2012a,
unpubl. survey; Howle and Chardon
2011a, 2011b, 2011c, unpubl. survey).
Overall, this plant community is open
and sparsely vegetated and relatively
short-statured, with I. webberi often
dominating or co-dominating where it
occurs (Witham 2000, p. 17).
Because Ivesia webberi is found in an
open, sparsely vegetated plant
community, it is likely a poor
competitor. Nonnative, invasive plant
species such as Bromus tectorum L.
(cheatgrass), Taeniatherum caputmedusae (medusahead), and Poa
bulbosa (bulbous bluegrass) form dense
stands of vegetation that compete with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
native plant species, such as I. webberi,
for the physical space needed to
establish individuals and recruit new
seedlings. This competition for space is
compounded as dead or dying
nonnative vegetation accumulates,
eventually forming a dense thatch that
obscures the soil crevices used by native
species as seed accumulation and
seedling recruitment sites (Davies 2008,
pp. 110–111; Gonzalez et al. 2008,
entire; Mazzola et al. 2011, pp. 514–515;
Pierson et al. 2011, entire).
Consequently, nonnative species deter
recruitment and population expansion
of I. webberi, as well as the entire
Artemisia arbuscula (low sagebrush)–
perennial bunchgrass–forb community
with which I. webberi is associated.
Therefore, we consider open, sparsely
vegetated assemblages of A. arbuscula
and other perennial grass and forb rock
garden species to be a physical or
biological feature for I. webberi.
Elevation—Known populations of
Ivesia webberi occur between 4,475 and
6,237 feet (ft) (1,364 and 1,901 meters
(m)) in elevation (Steele and Roe 1996,
unpubl. survey; Witham 2000, p.16;
Howle and Henault 2009, unpubl.
survey). Because plants are not
currently known to occur outside of this
elevation band, we have identified this
elevation range as a physical or
biological feature for I. webberi.
Topography, Slope, and Aspect—
Ivesia webberi occurs on flats, benches,
or terraces that are generally above or
adjacent to large valleys. These sites
vary from slightly concave to slightly
convex or gently sloped (0–15°) and
occur on all aspects (Witham 2000, p.
16). Because plants have not been
identified outside these landscape
features or on slopes greater than 15°,
we have identified slightly concave,
convex, and gently sloped (0–15°)
landscapes to be physical and biological
features for I. webberi.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or
Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements
Soils—Populations of Ivesia webberi
occur on a variety of soil series types,
including, but not limited to: Reno—a
fine, smectitic, mesic Abruptic Xeric
Argidurid; Xman—a clayey, smectitic,
mesic, shallow Xeric Haplargids; Aldi—
a clayey, smectitic, frigid Lithic Ultic
Argixerolls; and Barshaad—a fine,
smectitic, mesic Aridic Palexeroll
(USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of
Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service) 2007, 2009a,
2009b, 2012a, 2012b). The majority of
soils in which I. webberi occurs have an
argillic (i.e., clay) horizon within 19.7
inches (in) (50 centimeters (cm)) of the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
soil surface (USDA NRCS 2007, 2009a,
2009b, 2012a, 2012b). An argillic
horizon is defined as a subsurface
horizon with a significantly higher
percentage of clay than the overlying
soil material (Soil Survey Staff 2010, p.
30). The clay content (percent by
weight) of an argillic horizon must be
1.2 times the clay content of an
overlying horizon (Soil Survey Staff
1999, p. 31). Agrillic horizons are
illuvial, meaning they form below the
soil surface, but may be exposed at the
surface later due to erosion. Typically
there is little or no evidence of illuvial
clay movement in soils on young
landscapes; therefore, soil scientists
have concluded that the formation of an
argillic horizon requires at least a few
thousand years (Soil Survey Staff 1999,
p. 29). This argillic horizon represents a
time-landscape relationship that can be
locally and regionally important
because its presence indicates that the
geomorphic surface has been relatively
stable for a long period of time (Soil
Survey Staff 1999, p. 31).
The shallow, clay soils that Ivesia
webberi inhabits are very rocky on the
surface and tend to be wet in the spring,
but dry out as the season progresses
(Zamudio 1999, p. 1). The high clay
content in the soils creates a shrinkswell behavior as the soils wet and dry,
which helps to ‘‘heave’’ rocks in the soil
profile to the surface and creates the
rocky surface ‘‘pavement’’ (Zamudio
1999, p. 1). The unique soils and
hydrology of I. webberi sites may
exclude competition from other species,
including Bromus tectorum (Zamudio
1999, p. 1; Witham 2000, p. 16). The
shrink-swell of the clay zone, which
extends into the subsoil, favors
perennials with deep taproots or
annuals with shallow roots that can
complete their life cycle before the
surface soil dries out (Zamudio 1999, p.
1; Witham 2000, pp. 16, 20). The root
systems of tap-rooted perennial forbs are
suited to soil with clay subsoils because
the roots branch profusely under the
crown, spread laterally, and penetrate
the clay B horizon along vertical cracks
(within the horizon) (Hugie et al. 1964,
p. 200). The roots are flattened, but
unbroken by shrink-swell activity
(Hugie et al. 1964, p. 200). Early
maturing plants, such as I. webberi,
presumably prefer soils with these
heavy clay horizons because of the
abundant spring moisture, which
essentially saturates the surface
horizons with water. Based on the
information above, we consider soil
with an argillic horizon characterized by
shrink-swell behavior to represent a
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
physical or biological feature for I.
webberi.
Water—Ivesia webberi is restricted to
sites with soils that are vernally moist
(Zamudio 1999a, p. 1; Witham 2000, p.
16). From this finding, we infer that
sufficient winter and spring moisture
not only contributes to the physical
properties of the substrate in which I.
webberi occurs (i.e., the shrink-swell
pattern that contributes to the formation
of soil crevices), but also triggers
biological responses in I. webberi, in the
form of stimulating germination,
growth, flowering, and seed production.
Moisture retention is influenced by site
topography as well as soil properties.
Therefore, we consider soils that are
vernally moist as a physical or
biological feature for I. webberi.
Light—Although little is known
regarding the light requirements of
Ivesia webberi, inferences are possible
from the plant species and the plant
community from which I. webberi is
associated (described under the ‘‘Plant
Community and Competitive Ability’’
section of the ‘‘Space for Individual and
Population Growth and for Normal
Behavior’’ discussion, above, and the
‘‘Habitat’’ section of the Species Report
(Service 2014, pp. 6–7). Generally
speaking, co-occurring plant species are
short-statured; when assembled into an
low sagebrush-perennial bunchgrassforb community, plants tend to occur
widely spaced with intervening patches
of rocky, open ground. These factors
suggest that I. webberi is not shadetolerant. Therefore, we assume that I.
webberi is able to persist, at least in part,
due to a lack of light competition with
taller plants.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or
Rearing (or Development) of Offspring
Reproduction—Ivesia webberi is a
perennial plant species that is not
rhizomatous or otherwise clonal.
Therefore, like other Ivesia species,
reproduction in I. webberi is presumed
to occur primarily via sexual means
(i.e., seed production and seedling
recruitment). As with most plant
species, I. webberi does not require
separate sites for breeding, rearing, and
reproduction other than the locations in
which parent plants occur and any area
necessary for pollinators and seed
dispersal. Seeds of I. webberi are
relatively large and unlikely to be
dispersed by wind or animal vectors;
upon maturation of the inflorescence
and fruit, seeds are likely to fall to the
ground in the immediate vicinity of
parent plants (Witham 2000, p. 20).
Depressions and crevices in soil
frequently serve as seed accumulation
or seedling establishment sites in arid
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
ecosystems because they trap seeds and
often have higher soil water due to
trapped snow and accumulated
precipitation (Reichman 1984, pp. 9–10;
Eckert et al. 1986, pp. 417–420). The
cracks of the shrink-swell clay soils that
typify I. webberi habitat are thought to
trap seeds and retain them on-site, and
may serve to protect seeds from
desiccation from sunlight or wind.
Although the long-term viability of
these seeds is unknown, I. webberi seeds
held within these crevices may
accumulate and function as a seedbank
for I. webberi reproduction. Thus, the
physical and biological feature of soil
with an argillic horizon and shrinkswell behavior identified above under
the ‘‘Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals,
or Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements’’ section also has an
important reproduction function for I.
webberi.
Pollination—Pollinators specific to
Ivesia webberi have not been identified.
However, most Ivesia species reproduce
from seed with insect-mediated
pollination occurring between flowers
of the same or different plants (Witham
2000, p. 20). Floral visitors have been
observed frequenting the flowers of I.
aperta var. canina, which co-occurs
with I. webberi at one population
(USFWS 5; J. Johnson, unpubl. photos
2007). Although these floral visitors can
only represent presumed pollinators
because they were not observed to be
carrying pollen, they represent the best
available information regarding possible
pollinators of I. webberi. Since no single
pollinator or group of pollinators is
known for I. webberi, we are not able to
define habitat requirements for I.
webberi in terms of the distances that
particular orders, genera, or species of
insect pollinators are known to travel.
Successful transfer of pollen among
Ivesia webberi populations, therefore,
may be inhibited if populations are
separated by distances greater than
pollinators can travel, or if a pollinator’s
nesting habitat or behavior is negatively
affected (BLM 2012b, p. 2). Some bees
such as bumblebees and other social
species are able to fly extremely long
distances. However, evidence suggests
that their habitat does not need to
remain contiguous, but it is more
important that the protected habitat is
large enough to maintain floral diversity
to attract these pollinators (BLM 2012b,
p. 18). By contrast, most solitary bees
remain close to their nest; thus foraging
distance tends to be 1,640 ft (500 m) or
less (BLM 2012b, p. 19). Conservation
strategies that strive to maintain not just
I. webberi, but the range of associated
native plant species (many of which are
also insect-pollinated) would therefore
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
32129
serve to attract a wide array of insect
pollinators, both social and solitary, that
may also serve as pollinators of I.
webberi (BLM 2012b, pp. 5–6, 19).
Because annual, nonnative, invasive
grasses (such as Bromus tectorum) are
wind-pollinated, they offer no reward
for pollinators; as such nonnative
species become established, pollinators
are likely to become deterred from
visiting areas occupied by I. webberi.
Therefore, we consider an area of
sufficient size with an intact assemblage
of native plant species to provide for
pollinator foraging and nesting habitat
to be a physical or biological feature for
I. webberi.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or
Representative of the Historical,
Geographical, and Ecological
Distributions of the Species
The long-term conservation of Ivesia
webberi is dependent on several factors,
including, but not limited to:
Maintenance of areas necessary to
sustain natural ecosystem components,
functions, and processes (such as light
and intact soil hydrology); and
sufficient adjacent suitable habitat for
vegetative reproduction, population
expansion, and pollination.
Disturbance—Soils with a high
content of shrink-swell clays, such as
those where Ivesia webberi is found,
often create an unstable soil
environment to which this species is
presumably adapted (Belnap 2001, p.
183). These micro-scale disturbances are
of light to moderate intensity; we are
unaware of information to indicate that
I. webberi has evolved with or is tolerant
of moderate to heavy, landscape-scale
disturbances. Moderate to heavy soil
disturbances such as off-highway
vehicle (OHV) use, road corridors,
residential or commercial development,
and livestock grazing can impact the
species and its seedbank through habitat
loss, fragmentation, and degradation
due to soil compaction and altered soil
hydrology (Witham 2000, Appendix 1,
p. 1; Bergstrom 2009, pp. 25–26).
Climate change projections in the
Great Basin, where Ivesia webberi
occurs, include increasing temperatures
(Chambers and Pellant 2008, p. 29;
Finch 2012, p. 4), earlier spring snow
runoff (Stewart et al. 2005, p. 1152),
declines in snowpack (Knowles et al.
2006, p. 4557; Mote et al. 2005, entire),
and increased frequencies of drought
and fire (Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1181–
1184; Littell et al. 2009, pp. 1014–1019;
Abatzoglou and Kolden 2011, pp. 474–
475). Nonnative, invasive plant species
and modified fire regimes are already
impacting the quality and composition
of the low sagebrush–perennial
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
32130
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
bunchgrass–forb plant community
where I. webberi occurs (BLM 2012c).
We anticipate that climate-related
changes expected across the Great
Basin, such as altered precipitation and
temperature patterns, will accelerate the
pace and spatial extent of nonnative
plant infestations and altered fire
regimes. These patterns of climate
change may also decrease survivorship
of I. webberi by causing physiological
stress, altering phenology, and reducing
recruitment events and seedling
establishment.
Managing for appropriate disturbance
regimes (in terms of the type or intensity
of disturbance) is difficult, because
sources of disturbance are numerous
and our ability to predict the effects of
multiple, interacting disturbance
regimes upon species and their habitats
is limited. For the reasons discussed
above, we identify areas not subject to
moderate to heavy, landscape-scale
disturbances, such as impacts from
vehicles driven off established roads or
trails, development, livestock grazing,
and frequent wildfire, to be a physical
or biological feature for I. webberi.
Primary Constituent Elements for Ivesia
webberi
Under the Act and its implementing
regulations, we are required to identify
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Ivesia
webberi in areas occupied at the time of
listing, focusing on the features’ primary
constituent elements. Primary
constituent elements are those specific
elements of the physical or biological
features that provide for a species’ lifehistory processes and are essential to
the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of
the physical or biological features and
habitat characteristics required to
sustain the species’ life-history
processes, we determine that the
primary constituent elements specific to
Ivesia webberi are:
(i) Plant community.
(A) Open to sparsely vegetated areas
composed of generally short-statured
associated plant species.
(B) Presence of appropriate associated
species that can include (but are not
limited to): Antennaria dimorpha,
Artemisia arbuscula, Balsamorhiza
hookeri, Elymus elymoides, Erigeron
bloomeri, Lewisia rediviva, Poa
secunda, and Viola beckwithii.
(C) An intact assemblage of
appropriate associated species to attract
the floral visitors that may be acting as
pollinators of Ivesia webberi.
(ii) Topography. Flats, benches, or
terraces that are generally above or
adjacent to large valleys. Occupied sites
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
vary from slightly concave to slightly
convex or gently sloped (0–15°) and
occur on all aspects.
(iii) Elevation. Elevations between
4,475 and 6,237 ft (1,364 and 1,901 m).
(iv) Suitable soils and hydrology.
(A) Vernally moist soils with an
argillic horizon that shrink and swell
upon drying and wetting; these soil
conditions are characteristic of known
Ivesia webberi populations and are
likely important in the maintenance of
the seedbank and population
recruitment.
(B) Suitable soils that can include (but
are not limited to): Reno—a fine,
smectitic, mesic Abruptic Xeric
Argidurid; Xman—a clayey, smectitic,
mesic, shallow Xeric Haplargids; Aldi—
a clayey, smectitic, frigid Lithic Ultic
Argixerolls; and Barshaad—a fine,
smectitic, mesic Aridic Palexeroll.
Special Management Considerations or
Protections
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. All areas
designated as critical habitat contain
features that will require some level of
management to address the current and
future threats. In all units, special
management will be required to ensure
that the habitat is able to provide for the
growth and reproduction of the species.
A detailed discussion of threats to
Ivesia webberi and its habitat can be
found in the Ivesia webberi Species
Report (Service 2014, pp. 22–32). The
features essential to the conservation of
I. webberi (plant community and
competitive ability, and suitable
topography, elevation, soils, and
hydrology required for the persistence
of adults as well as successful
reproduction of such individuals and
the formation of a seedbank) may
require special management
considerations or protection to reduce
threats. The current range of I. webberi
is subject to human-caused
modifications from the introduction and
spread of nonnative invasive species
including Bromus tectorum, Poa
bulbosa, and Taeniatherum caputmedusae; modified wildfire regime;
increased access and fragmentation of
habitat by new roads and OHVs;
agricultural, residential, and
commercial development; and soil and
seedbank disturbance by livestock
(Service 2014, pp. 22–32).
Special management considerations
or protection are required within critical
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
habitat areas to address these threats.
Management activities that could
ameliorate these threats include (but are
not limited to): Treatment of nonnative,
invasive plant species; minimization of
OHV access and placement of new roads
away from the species and its habitat;
regulations or agreements to minimize
the effects of development in areas
where the species resides; minimization
of livestock use or other disturbances
that disturb the soil or seeds; and
minimization of habitat fragmentation.
Where the species occurs on private
lands, protection and management
could be enhanced by various forms of
land acquisition from willing sellers,
ranging from the purchase of
conservation easements to fee title
acquisition. These activities would
protect the primary constituent
elements for the species by preventing
the loss of habitats and individuals,
protecting the habitat and soils from
undesirable patterns or levels of
disturbance, and facilitating the
management for desirable conditions,
including disturbance regimes.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we use the best scientific data
available to designate critical habitat. In
accordance with the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(b) we review available
information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of the species and identify
specific areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
of listing that contain the features
essential to the conservation of the
species. If, after identifying these
specific areas, we determine the areas
are inadequate to ensure conservation of
the species, in accordance with the Act
and our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424.12(e), we then consider
whether designating additional areas
outside of the geographic area occupied
by the species are essential for the
conservation of the species. We are not
designating any areas outside the
geographical area presently occupied by
the species because its present range is
sufficient to ensure the conservation of
Ivesia webberi.
We delineated the critical habitat unit
boundaries for Ivesia webberi using the
following steps:
(1) In determining what areas were
occupied by Ivesia webberi, we used
polygon data collected by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) (BLM 2011,
2012a, unpubl. survey), California
Natural Diversity Database (Schoolcraft
1992, 1998, unpubl. survey; Krumm and
Clifton 1996, unpubl. survey; Steele and
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Roe 1996, unpubl. survey), California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
(Sustain Environmental Inc. 2009, p. III–
19), Nevada Natural Heritage Program
(Witham 1991, entire; Witham 2000,
entire; Morefield 2004, 2005, 2010a,
2010b, unpubl. survey; Picciani 2006,
unpubl. survey), Forest Service (Duron
1990, entire; Howle and Henault 2009,
unpubl. survey; Howle and Chardon
2011a, 2011b, 2011c, unpubl. survey),
and consulting firms (Wood Rogers
2007, Tables 2 and 3, pp. 5–6) to map
specific locations of I. webberi using
ArcMap 10.1. These locations were
classified into discrete populations
based on mapping standards devised by
NatureServe and its network of Natural
Heritage Programs (NatureServe 2004,
entire).
(2) We extended the boundaries of the
polygon defining each population or
subpopulation by 1,640 ft (500 m) to
provide for sufficient pollinator habitat.
This creates an area that is large enough
to maintain flora diversity that would
protect nesting areas of solitary
pollinator species, while creating a large
enough patch of flora diversity to attract
social, wide-ranging pollinator species
(as described above under the ‘‘Sites for
Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or
Development) of Offspring’’ section;
BLM 2012b, p. 19).
(3) We then removed areas not
containing the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
I. webberi within the 1,640-ft-wide (500m-wide) area surrounding each
population. We used a habitat model to
identify areas lacking physical or
biological features. The habitat model
was developed by comparing occupied
areas and the known environmental
variables of these areas, such as
elevation, slope, and soil type that we
determined to be physical and
biological features for this species. The
environmental variables with the
highest predictive ability influenced the
habitat the model identified. Finally, we
used ESRI ArcGIS (Geographic
Information Systems) Imagery Basemap
satellite imagery to exclude forested
areas within the areas the model
selected because this is not the
vegetation type that is a physical and
biological feature for I. webberi.
When determining critical habitat
boundaries within this final rule, we
made every effort to avoid including
developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other
structures because such lands lack
physical or biological features for Ivesia
webberi. The scale of the maps we
prepared under the parameters for
publication within the Code of Federal
Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any
such lands inadvertently left inside
critical habitat boundaries shown on the
maps of this final rule have been
excluded by text in the final rule and
are not designated as critical habitat.
Therefore, a Federal action involving
these lands will not trigger section 7
consultation with respect to critical
habitat and the requirement of no
adverse modification unless the specific
action would affect the physical or
biological features in the adjacent
critical habitat.
The critical habitat designation is
defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the Regulation
Promulgation section. We include more
detailed information on the boundaries
of the critical habitat designation in the
preamble of this document. We will
make the coordinates or plot points or
both on which each map is based
available to the public on https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
32131
FWS–R8–ES–2013–0080, on our
Internet site at https://www.fws.gov/
nevada/, and at the field office
responsible for the designation (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
We are designating lands that we have
determined are the specific areas within
the geographical area presently
occupied by the species, that contain
the physical or biological features to
support life-history processes essential
for the conservation of Ivesia webberi as
critical habitat.
Sixteen units (two of which contain
subunits) are designated based on the
physical or biological features being
present to support Ivesia webberi’s life
processes. Some units contain all of the
physical or biological features and
support multiple life processes. Some
segments contain only some of the
physical or biological features necessary
to support Ivesia webberi’s particular
use of that habitat.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 16 units as critical
habitat for Ivesia webberi, all of which
are occupied. The critical habitat areas
described below constitute our best
assessment at this time of areas that
meet the definition of critical habitat.
Those 16 units are: (1) Sierra Valley, (2)
Constantia, (3) East of Hallelujah
Junction Wildlife Area (HJWA), Evans
Canyon, (4) Hallelujah Junction Wildife
Area (WA), (5) subunit 5a–Dog Valley
Meadow and subunit 5b–Upper Dog
Valley, (6) White Lake Overlook, (7)
subunit 7a–Mules Ear Flat and subunit
7b–Three Pine Flat and Jeffrey Pine
Saddle, (8) Ivesia Flat, (9) Stateline Road
1, (10) Stateline Road 2, (11) Hungry
Valley, (12) Black Springs, (13) Raleigh
Heights, (14) Dutch Louie Flat, (15) The
Pines Powerline, and (16) Dante Mine
Road. Table 1 lists the critical habitat
units and subunits and the area of each.
TABLE 1—DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR Ivesia webberi.
[Area estimates reflect all land within the critical habitat boundary]
CH unit and subunit
Population
(USFWS)
Unit or subunit name
1 .................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
State or
local
government
owned land
acres
(hectares)
Privately
owned land
acres
(hectares)
51
(21)
155
(63)
22
(9)
........................
44
(18)
........................
179
(73)
........................
100
(41)
69
(28)
........................
386
(156)
........................
........................
Federally
owned land
acres
(hectares)
1
Sierra Valley ................................
2 .................................
2
Constantia ...................................
3 .................................
3
East of HJWA, Evans Canyon ....
4 .................................
4
Hallelujah Junction WA ...............
5
Dog Valley Meadow ....................
........................
Total area
acres
(hectares)
274
(111)
155
(63)
122
(49)
69
(28)
5:
5a ........................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
386
(156)
32132
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR Ivesia webberi.—Continued
[Area estimates reflect all land within the critical habitat boundary]
CH unit and subunit
Population
(USFWS)
Federally
owned land
acres
(hectares)
Unit or subunit name
State or
local
government
owned land
acres
(hectares)
5b ...............................
5
Upper Dog Valley ........................
12
(5)
98
(40)
........................
6 .................................
6
White Lake Overlook ...................
7a ........................
7
Mules Ear Flat .............................
31
(13)
3
(1)
62
(25)
186
(75)
66
(27)
56
(23)
133
(54)
229
(93)
13
(5)
........................
........................
7b ...............................
7
8 .................................
8
Three Pine Flat; Jeffrey Pine
Saddle.
Ivesia Flat ....................................
9 .................................
9
Stateline Road 1 .........................
10 ...............................
10
Stateline Road 2 .........................
11 ...............................
11
Hungry Valley ..............................
12 ...............................
12
Black Springs ..............................
13 ...............................
13
Raleigh Heights ...........................
14 ...............................
14
Dutch Louie Flat ..........................
15 ...............................
15
The Pines Powerline ...................
16 ...............................
16
Dante Mine Road ........................
10
(4)
........................
Total ....................
........................
......................................................
1,513
(612)
214
(86)
........................
Privately
owned land
acres
(hectares)
Total area
acres
(hectares)
17
(7)
11
(4)
29
(12)
109
(44)
34
(14)
65
(26)
........................
7:
........................
7
(3)
........................
........................
........................
........................
30
(12)
24
(10)
41
(17)
32
(13)
4
(2)
65
(27)
68
(27)
62
(25)
193
(78)
66
(27)
56
(23)
163
(66)
253
(103)
54
(22)
32
(13)
14
(6)
444
(180)
2,170
(879)
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of all
units, and reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for Ivesia
webberi, below.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Unit 1: Sierra Valley
Unit 1 consists of 274 ac (111 ha) of
Federal, State, and private lands. This
unit is located near the junction of State
Highway 49 and County Highway A24
in Plumas County, California. Nineteen
percent of this unit is on Federal lands
managed by the BLM, 16 percent is on
California State land, and 65 percent is
on private lands. This unit is currently
occupied and is the most western
occupied unit within the range of Ivesia
webberi. The Sierra Valley Unit is
important to the recovery of I. webberi
because it supports 44.8 ac (18.1 ha), or
nearly one-third (27.2 percent), of all
habitat (165 ac (66.8 ha)) that is
occupied by I. webberi across the
species’ range. Threats to I. webberi in
this unit include nonnative, invasive
species; wildfire; OHV use; roads;
livestock grazing; and any other forms of
vegetation or ground-disturbing
activities. While these lands currently
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special
management will be required to
maintain these features in this unit.
These threats should be addressed as
detailed above in the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
Unit 2: Constantia
Unit 2 consists of 155 ac (63 ha) of
Federal land. This unit is located east of
U.S. Highway 395, southeast of the
historic town of Constantia, in Lassen
County, California. One hundred
percent of this unit is on Federal lands
managed by the BLM. This unit is
currently occupied and is the most
northern occupied unit within the range
of Ivesia webberi. The Constantia Unit is
important to the recovery of I. webberi
primarily because it represents one of
relatively few locations within the Great
Basin where the species is known to
exist. Given the increasing prevalence of
both site-specific and landscape-scale
threats operating throughout this region
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and specifically within areas occupied
by I. webberi (Service 2014, entire), this
location and most others where the
species occurs confer redundancy
within the species’ distribution, thereby
buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable
stochastic events. Not a lot is known
about the current condition of I. webberi
and its habitat at this site; however,
wildfire and any other forms of
vegetation or ground-disturbing
activities are threats to I. webberi in this
unit. While these lands currently have
the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of I.
webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special
management will be required to
maintain these features in this unit.
These threats should be addressed as
detailed above in the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Unit 3: East of Hallelujah Junction
Wildlife Area (HJWA)–Evans Canyon
Unit 3 consists of 122 ac (49 ha) of
Federal and State lands. This unit is
located east of U.S. Highway 395 on the
border of HJWA in Lassen County,
California. Eighty-two percent of this
unit is on California State land managed
as the HJWA, and 18 percent is on
Federal land managed by the BLM. This
unit is currently occupied and is
approximately 1.6 mi (2.6 km) away
from Unit 4, which may allow for social
pollinator dispersal between these two
units. Additionally, this is the only
place where Ivesia webberi is found as
a co-dominant in an Artemisia
tridentata Nutt. (big sagebrush)
community instead of an Artemisia
arbuscula (low sagebrush) community.
The perennial bunchgrass and forb
components of the Artemisia tridentata
community found within this unit are
the same as those occurring in locations
where A. arbuscula is co-dominant with
I. webberi. The East of HJWA–Evans
Canyon Unit is important to the
recovery of I. webberi primarily because
it represents one of relatively few
locations within the Great Basin where
the species is known to exist. Given the
increasing prevalence of both sitespecific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I.
webberi (Service 2014, entire), this
location and most others where the
species occurs confer redundancy
within the species’ distribution, thereby
buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable
stochastic events. Wildfire and any
other forms of vegetation or grounddisturbing activities are threats to I.
webberi in this unit. While these lands
currently have the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of I. webberi, because of a
lack of cohesive management and
protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in
this unit. These threats should be
addressed as detailed above in the
‘‘Special Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
Unit 4: Hallelujah Junction Wildlife
Area (HJWA)
Unit 4 consists of 69 ac (28 ha) of
State lands. This unit is located west of
U.S. Highway 395 within HJWA in
Sierra County, California. One hundred
percent of this unit is on California State
land managed as the HJWA. It is
currently occupied and is
approximately 1.6 mi (2.6 km) away
from Unit 3, which may allow for social
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
pollinator dispersal between these two
units. The HJWA Unit is important to
the recovery of I. webberi primarily
because it represents one of relatively
few locations within the Great Basin
where the species is known to exist.
Given the increasing prevalence of both
site-specific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I.
webberi (Service 2014, entire), this
location and most others where the
species occurs confer redundancy
within the species’ distribution, thereby
buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable
stochastic events. Wildfire and any
other forms of vegetation or grounddisturbing activities are threats to I.
webberi in this unit. While these lands
currently have the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of I. webberi, because of a
lack of cohesive management and
protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in
this unit. These threats should be
addressed as detailed above in the
‘‘Special Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
Unit 5: Subunit 5a–Dog Valley Meadow
and Subunit 5b–Upper Dog Valley
Subunit 5a–Dog Valley Meadow
Subunit 5a consists of 386 ac (156 ha)
of Federal lands. This subunit is located
east of Long Valley Road in Dog Valley
in Sierra County, California. One
hundred percent of this subunit is on
Federal lands managed by the Forest
Service. It is currently occupied and is
0.5 mi (0.8 km) away from Subunit 5b,
which may allow for social pollinator
dispersal between these two subunits.
The Dog Valley Meadow Subunit is
important to the recovery of Ivesia
webberi because it supports 71.58 ac
(28.97 ha), or nearly half (43.5 percent),
of all habitat (165 ac (66.8 ha)) that is
occupied by I. webberi across the
species’ range and 100,000 plants, or
approximately 2 to 10 percent (i.e.,
dependent on which population
estimate range is used for the
calculation) of individuals known to
exist across the species’ range (Service
2014, pp. 15–16). Threats to I. webberi
in this subunit include nonnative,
invasive plant species; wildfire; OHV
and other recreational use; and any
other forms of vegetation or grounddisturbing activities. Additionally, this
subunit historically was grazed, but the
grazing allotment currently is vacant
(Service 2014, p. 16). While these lands
currently have the physical and
biological features essential to the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
32133
conservation of I. webberi, because of a
lack of cohesive management and
protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in
this subunit. These threats should be
addressed as detailed above in the
‘‘Special Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
Subunit 5b—Upper Dog Valley
Subunit 5b consists of 29 ac (12 ha)
of Federal and private lands. This
subunit is located west of Long Valley
Road and south of the Dog Valley
campground in Dog Valley in Sierra
County, California. Forty-one percent of
this subunit is on Federal lands
managed by the Forest Service, and 59
percent is on private lands. It is
currently occupied and is 0.5 mi (0.8
km) away from Subunit 5a, which may
allow for social pollinator dispersal
between these two subunits. The Upper
Dog Valley Subunit is important to the
recovery of I. webberi primarily because
it represents one of relatively few
locations within the Great Basin where
the species is known to exist. Given the
increasing prevalence of both sitespecific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I.
webberi (Service 2014, entire), this
location and most others where the
species occurs confer redundancy
within the species’ distribution, thereby
buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable
stochastic events. Threats to I. webberi
in this subunit include nonnative,
invasive plant species; wildfire; OHV
use; and any other forms of vegetation
or ground-disturbing activities.
Additionally, this subunit historically
was grazed, but the grazing allotment is
currently vacant (Service 2014, p. 16).
While these lands currently have the
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of I.
webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special
management will be required to
maintain these features in this subunit.
These threats should be addressed as
detailed above in the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
Unit 6: White Lake Overlook
Unit 6 consists of 109 ac (44 ha) of
Federal and private lands. This unit is
located north of Long Valley Road in
Sierra County, California. Ninety
percent of this unit is on Federal lands
managed by the Forest Service and 10
percent is on private lands. This unit is
currently occupied and is 1 mi (1.6 km)
or less away from Units 7 and 9, which
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
32134
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
may allow for social pollinator dispersal
between these units. The White Lake
Overlook Unit is important to the
recovery of Ivesia webberi because it
supports 13.56 ac (5.49 ha), or 8.2
percent, of all habitat (165 ac (66.8 ha))
that is occupied by I. webberi across the
species’ range. Threats to I. webberi in
this unit include wildfire and any other
forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing
activities. While these lands currently
have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special
management will be required to
maintain these features in this unit.
These threats should be addressed as
detailed above in the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Unit 7: Subunit 7a—Mules Ear Flat and
Subunit 7b—Three Pine Flat and Jeffrey
Pine Saddle
Subunit 7a—Mules Ear Flat
Subunit 7a consists of 65 ac (27 ha)
of Federal and private lands. This
subunit is located west of the CaliforniaNevada border and southeast of Long
Valley Road in Sierra County,
California. Forty-eight percent of this
subunit is on Federal land managed by
the Forest Service, and 52 percent is on
private lands. This subunit is currently
occupied and is 1 mi (1.6 km) or less
away from Units 6 and 9, which may
allow for social pollinator dispersal
between these units. The Mules Ear Flat
Subunit is important to the recovery of
I. webberi primarily because it
represents one of relatively few
locations within the Great Basin where
the species is known to exist. Given the
increasing prevalence of both sitespecific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I.
webberi (Service 2014, entire), this
location and most others where the
species occurs confer redundancy
within the species’ distribution, thereby
buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable
stochastic events. Threats to I. webberi
in this subunit include nonnative,
invasive plant species; wildfire; OHV
use; roads; and any other forms of
vegetation or ground-disturbing
activities. Additionally, this subunit
historically was grazed, but the grazing
allotment currently is vacant (Service
2014, p. 17). While these lands currently
have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
management will be required to
maintain these features in this subunit.
These threats should be addressed as
detailed above in the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
Subunit 7b—Three Pine Flat and Jeffrey
Pine Saddle
Subunit 7b consists of 68 ac (27 ha)
of Federal and private lands. This
subunit is located east of the CaliforniaNevada border in Washoe County,
Nevada. Four percent of this subunit is
on Federal lands managed by the Forest
Service, and 96 percent is on private
lands. It is currently occupied and is 1
mi (1.6 km) or less away from Units 6,
8, and 9, which may allow for social
pollinator dispersal between these units.
The Three Pine Flat and Jeffery Pine
Saddle Subunit is important to the
recovery of I. webberi primarily because
it represents one of relatively few
locations within the Great Basin where
the species is known to exist. Given the
increasing prevalence of both sitespecific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I.
webberi (Service 2014, entire), this
location and most others where the
species occurs confer redundancy
within the species’ distribution, thereby
buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable
stochastic events. Threats to I. webberi
in this subunit include nonnative,
invasive plant species; wildfire; OHV
use; roads; and any other forms of
vegetation or ground-disturbing
activities. Additionally, this subunit
historically was grazed, but the grazing
allotment currently is vacant (Service
2014, p. 17). While these lands currently
have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special
management will be required to
maintain these features in this subunit.
These threats should be addressed as
detailed above in the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
Unit 8: Ivesia Flat
Unit 8 consists of 62 ac (25 ha) of
Federal land. This unit is located south
of U.S. Highway 395 in Washoe County,
NV. One hundred percent of this unit is
on Federal land managed by the Forest
Service. It is currently occupied and is
1 mi (1.6 km) away from Subunit 7b,
which may allow for social pollinator
dispersal between these two units. The
Ivesia Flat Unit is important to the
recovery of Ivesia webberi because it
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
supports 100,000 plants (Service 2014,
p. 17), or approximately between 2 and
10 percent (i.e., dependent on which
population estimate range is used for
the calculation) of individuals known to
exist across the species’ range. Threats
to I. webberi in this unit include
nonnative, invasive plant species;
wildfire; OHV use; roads; and any other
forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing
activities. Additionally, this unit
historically was grazed, but the grazing
allotment currently is vacant (Service
2014, pp. 17–18). While these lands
currently have the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of I. webberi, because of a
lack of cohesive management and
protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in
this unit. These threats should be
addressed as detailed above in the
‘‘Special Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
Unit 9: Stateline Road 1
Unit 9 consists of 193 ac (78 ha) of
Federal and private lands. This unit is
located along the California-Nevada
border in Sierra County, California, and
Washoe County, Nevada. Ninety-six
percent of this unit is on Federal land
managed by the Forest Service, and 4
percent is on private lands. It is
currently occupied and is 1 mi (1.6 km)
or less away from Units 6, 7, and 10,
which may allow for social pollinator
dispersal between these units. The
Stateline Road 1 Unit is important to the
recovery of I. webberi primarily because
it represents one of relatively few
locations within the Great Basin where
the species is known to exist. Given the
increasing prevalence of both sitespecific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I.
webberi (Service 2014, entire), this
location and most others where the
species occurs confer redundancy
within the species’ distribution, thereby
buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable
stochastic events. Threats to I. webberi
in this unit include nonnative, invasive
plant species; wildfire; development;
and any other forms of vegetation or
ground-disturbing activities.
Additionally, this unit historically was
grazed, but the grazing allotment
currently is vacant (Service 2014, p. 18).
While these lands currently have the
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of I.
webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special
management will be required to
maintain these features in this unit.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
These threats should be addressed as
detailed above in the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Unit 10: Stateline Road 2
Unit 10 consists of 66 ac (27 ha) of
Federal land. This unit is located along
the California–Nevada border in Sierra
County, California, and Washoe County,
Nevada. One hundred percent of this
unit is on Federal land managed by the
Forest Service. It is currently occupied
and is less than 1 mi (1.6 km) away from
Unit 9, which may allow for social
pollinator dispersal between these units.
The Stateline Road 2 Unit is important
to the recovery of I. webberi primarily
because it represents one of relatively
few locations within the Great Basin
where the species is known to exist.
Given the increasing prevalence of both
site-specific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I.
webberi (Service 2014, entire), this
location and most others where the
species occurs confer redundancy
within the species’ distribution, thereby
buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable
stochastic events. Threats to I. webberi
in this unit include nonnative, invasive
plant species; wildfire; development;
and any other forms of vegetation or
ground-disturbing activities.
Additionally, this unit historically was
grazed, but the grazing allotment
currently is vacant (Service 2014, p. 18).
While these lands currently have the
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of I.
webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special
management will be required to
maintain these features in this unit.
These threats should be addressed as
detailed above in the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
Unit 11: Hungry Valley
Unit 11 consists of 56 ac (23 ha) of
Federal land. This unit is located west
of Eagle Canyon Drive in Washoe
County, Nevada. One hundred percent
of this unit is on Federal land managed
by the BLM. It is currently occupied and
is the eastern most occupied unit within
the range of Ivesia webberi. The Hungry
Valley Unit is important to the recovery
of I. webberi primarily because it
represents one of relatively few
locations within the Great Basin where
the species is known to exist. Given the
increasing prevalence of both sitespecific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
specifically within areas occupied by I.
webberi (Service 2014, entire), this
location and most others where the
species occurs confer redundancy
within the species’ distribution, thereby
buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable
stochastic events. Threats to I. webberi
in this unit include nonnative, invasive
plant species; wildfire; OHV use and
other recreational use; roads; livestock
grazing; and any other forms of
vegetation or ground-disturbing
activities. While these lands currently
have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special
management will be required to
maintain these features in this unit.
These threats should be addressed as
detailed above in the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
Unit 12: Black Springs
Unit 12 consists of 163 ac (66 ha) of
Federal and private lands. This unit is
located northwest of North Virginia
Street and south of U.S. Highway 395 in
Washoe County, Nevada. Eighty-two
percent of this unit is on Federal land
managed by the Forest Service, and 18
percent is on private lands. It is
currently occupied and is
approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) away from
Unit 13, which may allow for social
pollinator dispersal between these units.
The Black Springs Unit is important to
the recovery of I. webberi primarily
because it represents one of relatively
few locations within the Great Basin
where the species is known to exist.
Given the increasing prevalence of both
site-specific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I.
webberi (Service 2014, entire), this
location and most others where the
species occurs confer redundancy
within the species’ distribution, thereby
buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable
stochastic events. Threats to I. webberi
in this unit include nonnative, invasive
plant species; wildfire; OHV use; roads;
and any other forms of vegetation or
ground-disturbing activities.
Additionally, this unit historically was
grazed, but the grazing allotment
currently is vacant (Service 2014, p. 19).
While these lands currently have the
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of I.
webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special
management will be required to
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
32135
maintain these features in this unit.
These threats should be addressed as
detailed above in the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
Unit 13: Raleigh Heights
Unit 13 consists of 253 ac (103 ha) of
Federal and private lands. This unit is
located northwest of North Virginia
Street and south of U.S. Highway 395 in
Washoe County, Nevada. Ninety-one
percent of this unit is on Federal land
managed by the Forest Service, and 9
percent is on private lands. It is
currently occupied and is
approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) away from
Unit 12, which may allow for social
pollinator dispersal between these units.
The Raleigh Heights Unit is important to
the recovery of Ivesia webberi because it
supports between 100,000 to 4,000,000
plants (Service 2014, p. 19), or
approximately 10 to 79.5 percent (i.e.,
dependent on which population
estimate range is used for the
calculation) of individuals known to
exist across the species’ range. Threats
to I. webberi in this unit include
nonnative, invasive plant species;
wildfire; OHV use; roads; and any other
forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing
activities. While these lands currently
have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special
management will be required to
maintain these features in this unit.
These threats should be addressed as
detailed above in the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
Unit 14: Dutch Louie Flat
Unit 14 consists of 54 ac (22 ha) of
Federal and private lands. This unit is
located southwest of South McCarran
Boulevard in Washoe County, Nevada.
Twenty-four percent of this unit is on
Federal lands managed by the Forest
Service, and 76 percent is on private
lands. It is currently occupied and is
approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) away
from Unit 15, which may allow for
social pollinator dispersal between
these units. The Dutch Louie Flat Unit
is important to the recovery of Ivesia
webberi because it supports between
600,000 to 693,795 plants (Service 2014,
pp. 19–20), or approximately 14 to 61
percent (i.e., dependent on which
population estimate range is used for
the calculation) of individuals known to
exist across the species’ range. Threats
to I. webberi in this unit include
nonnative, invasive plant species;
wildfire; OHV and other recreational
use; roads; development; and any other
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
32136
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing
activities. While these lands currently
have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special
management will be required to
maintain these features in this unit.
These threats should be addressed as
detailed above in the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Unit 15: The Pines Powerline
Unit 15 consists of 32 ac (13 ha) of
private lands. This unit is located
southwest of South McCarran Boulevard
in Washoe County, Nevada. One
hundred percent of this unit is on
private lands. It is currently occupied
and is approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km)
away from Unit 14, which may allow for
social pollinator dispersal between
these two units. The Pines Powerline
Unit is important to the recovery of I.
webberi primarily because it represents
one of relatively few locations within
the Great Basin where the species is
known to exist. Given the increasing
prevalence of both site-specific and
landscape-scale threats operating
throughout this region and specifically
within areas occupied by I. webberi
(Service 2014, entire), this location and
most others where the species occurs
confer redundancy within the species’
distribution, thereby buffering the
species against the risk of extirpation
likely to result from these threats or
other less-predicable stochastic events.
Threats to I. webberi in this unit include
nonnative, invasive plant species;
wildfire; OHV and other recreational
use; roads; development; and any other
forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing
activities. While these lands currently
have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special
management will be required to
maintain these features in this unit.
These threats should be addressed as
detailed above in the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
Unit 16: Dante Mine Road
Unit 16 consists of 14 ac (6 ha) of
Federal and private lands. This unit is
located east of U.S. Highway 395 in
Douglas County, Nevada. Seventy-three
percent of this unit is on Federal land
managed by the BLM, and 27 percent is
on private lands. It is currently
occupied and is the southernmost unit
within the range of Ivesia webberi. The
Dante Mine Road Unit is important to
the recovery of I. webberi primarily
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
because it represents one of relatively
few locations within the Great Basin
where the species is known to exist.
Given the increasing prevalence of both
site-specific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I.
webberi (Service 2014, entire), this
location and most others where the
species occurs confer redundancy
within the species’ distribution, thereby
buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable
stochastic events. Threats to I. webberi
in this unit include nonnative, invasive
plant species; wildfire; roads;
development; and any other forms of
vegetation or ground-disturbing
activities. While these lands currently
have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special
management will be required to
maintain these features in this unit.
These threats should be addressed as
detailed above in the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that any action they fund,
authorize, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any agency action which
is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any species proposed to be
listed under the Act or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit
Courts of Appeals have invalidated our
regulatory definition of ‘‘destruction or
adverse modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02)
(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d
1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245
F.3d 434, 434 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we
do not rely on this regulatory definition
when analyzing whether an action is
likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the provisions of
the Act, we determine destruction or
adverse modification on the basis of
whether, with implementation of the
proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
its intended conservation role for the
species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with us. Examples of actions that are
subject to the section 7 consultation
process are actions on State, tribal,
local, or private lands that require a
Federal permit (such as a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the
Service under section 10 of the Act) or
that involve some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded or
authorized, do not require section 7
consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation,
we document compliance with the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect and are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species and/or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we
provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable, that would avoid the
likelihood of jeopardy and/or
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable
and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR
402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and
technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion,
avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species
and/or avoid the likelihood of
destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
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 we have
listed a new species or subsequently
designated critical habitat that may be
affected and the Federal agency has
retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action (or the agency’s
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law). Consequently,
Federal agencies sometimes may need to
request reinitiation of consultation with
us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary
involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat.
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard
The key factor related to the adverse
modification determination is whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation
value of critical habitat for Ivesia
webberi. As discussed above, the role of
critical habitat is to support life-history
needs of the species and provide for the
conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, activities
involving a Federal action that may
destroy or adversely modify such
habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical
habitat, when carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency, should
result in consultation for Ivesia webberi.
These activities include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions that would lead to the
destruction or alteration of plants, their
seedbank, or their habitat; or actions
that destroy or result in continual or
excessive disturbance of the clay soils
where Ivesia webberi is found. Such
activities could include, but are not
limited to: Activities associated with
road construction and maintenance;
excessive OHV use; activities associated
with commercial and residential
development, including roads and
associated infrastructure; utility
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
corridors or infrastructure; and
excessive livestock grazing. These
activities could lead to the loss of
individuals; reduce plant numbers by
prohibiting recruitment; remove the
seedbank; fragment the habitat;
introduce nonnative, invasive species;
and alter the soil such that important
shrink and swell processes no longer
occur.
(2) Actions that would result in the
loss of pollinators or their habitat, such
that reproduction could be diminished.
Such activities could include, but are
not limited to: Destroying ground
nesting habitat; habitat fragmentation
that prohibits pollinator movement from
one area to the next; spraying pesticides
that would kill pollinators; and
eliminating other plant species on
which pollinators are reliant for floral
resources (this could include the
replacement of native forb species with
nonnative, invasive annual grasses,
which do not provide floral resources
for pollinators). These activities could
result in reduced reproduction, fruit
production, and recruitment in Ivesia
webberi.
(3) Actions that would result in
excessive plant competition at Ivesia
webberi populations. These activities
could include, but are not limited to,
using highly competitive species in
restoration efforts or creating
disturbances that allow establishment of
nonnative, invasive species such as
Bromus tectorum, Poa bulbosa, and
Taeniatherum caput-medusae. These
activities could cause I. webberi to be
outcompeted and subsequently either
lost or reduced in numbers of
individuals.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that:
‘‘The Secretary shall not designate as
critical habitat any lands or other
geographic areas owned or controlled by
the Department of Defense, or
designated for its use, that are subject to
an integrated natural resources
management plan [INRMP] prepared
under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines
in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation.’’
There are no Department of Defense
lands with a completed INRMP within
this final critical habitat designation.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate and make
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
32137
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and
any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if she determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination,
the statute on its face, as well as the
legislative history, are clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding
which factor(s) to use and how much
weight to give to any factor.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider the economic impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we prepared a draft economic
analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical
habitat designation and related factors
(composed of three documents, i.e.,
Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) 2013;
IEc 2014; and Service 2013). The DEA
was made available for public review
from February 13, 2014, through March
17, 2014 (79 FR 8668); no new
information was received during that
comment period. Following the close of
the comment period, we reviewed and
evaluated all information submitted
during the comment period that may
pertain to our consideration of the
probable incremental economic impacts
of this critical habitat designation. We
took into consideration one public
comment we received and the revision
to the proposed critical habitat
designation as outlined in the February
13, 2014, publication (79 FR 8668).
Although we conducted a review of the
revisions to the Ivesia webberi proposed
critical habitat (as announced on
February 13, 2014, at 79 FR 8668), we
do not anticipate that those revisions to
proposed critical habitat changed the
findings as outlined in our DEA (Lee
2014, pers. comm.). A summary of our
complete evaluation is presented below.
Our economic analysis quantifies
economic impacts of Ivesia webberi
conservation efforts associated with the
following categories of activity: (1)
Federal lands management (Forest
Service and BLM); (2) commercial or
residential development; (3) livestock
grazing; (4) OHV and other recreational
activities; (5) wildfire; (6) vegetation
management, including fuels reduction
activities and management for invasive
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
32138
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
species; and (7) vegetation or grounddisturbing activities associated with
construction, maintenance or use of
roads, trails, transmission lines, or other
infrastructure corridors (Service 2013,
pp. 3–10). We considered each industry
or category individually. Additionally,
we considered whether their activities
have any Federal involvement.
We determined that the section 7related costs of designating critical
habitat for Ivesia webberi are likely to be
limited to the additional administrative
effort required to consider adverse
modification in a small number of
consultations. This finding is based on:
(1) All units are considered occupied,
providing baseline protection resulting
from the listing of the species as
threatened under the Act.
(2) Activities occurring within
designated critical habitat with a
potential to affect the species’ habitat
are also likely to adversely affect the
species, either directly or indirectly.
(3) Project modifications requested to
avoid adverse modification are likely to
be the same as those needed to avoid
jeopardy in occupied habitat.
(4) Federal agencies operating in
critical habitat areas are already aware
of the presence of Ivesia webberi and
also are experienced with consulting
with us under section 7 of the Act on
other federally listed species.
Thus, in the baseline, they are likely
to consult even in buffer areas
surrounding the species included in the
designation to ensure protection of
pollinator habitat.
The incremental administrative
burden resulting from the designation is
unlikely to reach $100 million in a
given year based on the small number
of anticipated consultations (i.e., less
than two consultations per year) and
per-consultation costs. Furthermore, it
is unlikely that the designation of
critical habitat will trigger additional
requirements under State or local
regulations. Costs resulting from public
perception of the effect of critical
habitat, if they occur, are unlikely to
reach $100 million in a given year,
based on the small number of acres
possibly affected and average land
values in the vicinity of those acres.
Also as announced in our February
13, 2014, publication (79 FR 8668), we
added 16 ac (6 ha) of private lands to
the proposed critical habitat designation
within Unit 12 (Black Springs) and Unit
13 (Raleigh Heights). In our DEA, we
considered the potential for public
perception effects that may result from
the designation on four units located
close to the Reno/Sparks metropolitan
area, which included Units 12 and 13.
Assuming that the additional private
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
lands are also potentially developable,
this increased the total number of acres
that may be subject to development
pressure in the foreseeable future to 125
ac (51 ha), as compared to the 114 ac (46
ha) presented in our DEA. We do not
anticipate this revised amount of
private, potentially developable land
changes the conclusions presented in
IEc (2014) (pp. 8–11).
As a result of this reevaluation (Lee
2014, pers. comm.) of the information
analyzed in our DEA (IEc 2013; IEc
2014; Service 2013), we reaffirm that we
did not identify any disproportionate
costs that are likely to result from the
designation. Consequently, the
Secretary is not exercising her
discretion to exclude any areas from this
designation of critical habitat for Ivesia
webberi based on economic impacts.
Exclusions Based on National Security
Impacts or Homeland Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider whether there are lands owned
or managed by the Department of
Defense where a national security
impact might exist. In preparing this
final rule, we have determined that no
lands within the designation of critical
habitat for Ivesia webberi are owned or
managed by the Department of Defense
or Department of Homeland Security,
and, therefore, we anticipate no impact
on national security or homeland
security. Consequently, the Secretary is
not exercising her discretion to exclude
any areas from this final designation
based on impacts on national security or
homeland security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
also consider any other relevant impacts
resulting from the designation of critical
habitat. We consider a number of
factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs
or other management plans for the area,
or whether there are conservation
partnerships that would be encouraged
by designation of, or exclusion from,
critical habitat. In addition, we look at
any tribal issues and consider the
government-to-government relationship
of the United States with tribal entities.
We also consider any social impacts that
might occur because of the designation.
In preparing this final rule, we have
determined that there are currently no
permitted HCPs or other management
plans for Ivesia webberi, and the final
designation does not include any tribal
lands or tribal trust resources. We
anticipate no impact on tribal lands,
partnerships, or HCPs from this critical
habitat designation. Accordingly, the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Secretary is not exercising her
discretion to exclude any areas from this
final designation based on other
relevant impacts.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
We requested written comments from
the public on the proposed designation
of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi
during two comment periods. The first
comment period associated with the
publication of the proposed rule (78 FR
46862) opened on August 2, 2013, and
closed on October 1, 2013. We also
requested comments on the proposed
critical habitat designation and
associated draft economic analysis
during a comment period that opened
February 13, 2014, and closed on March
17, 2014 (79 FR 8668). We did not
receive any requests for a public
hearing. We also contacted appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies;
scientific organizations; and other
interested parties and invited them to
comment on the proposed rule and draft
economic analysis during these
comment periods.
During the first comment period, we
received 10 comment letters directly
addressing the proposed critical habitat
designation. During the second
comment period, we received four
comment letters addressing the
proposed critical habitat designation or
the draft economic analysis. All
substantive information provided
during comment periods has either been
incorporated directly into this final
determination or is addressed below.
Comments we received are addressed in
the following summary and
incorporated into the final rule as
appropriate.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review
policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions
from three knowledgeable individuals
with scientific expertise that included
familiarity with the species, the
geographic region in which the species
occurs, and conservation biology
principles. We did not receive any
responses from the peer reviewers.
Comments From States
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the
Secretary shall submit to the State
agency a written justification for [her]
failure to adopt regulations consistent
with the agency’s comments or
petition.’’ We did not receive any
comments from the States of California
or Nevada.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Comments From Federal Agencies
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(1) Comment: The Forest Service
recommends simplifying the boundaries
of the critical habitat polygons to reduce
the number of irregularly shaped lobes
and aligning the boundaries with
discernible features such as ridgelines,
roads, topographic contours, and
vegetation communities. They state that
aligning the boundaries in this manner
would be consistent with species
conservation to provide more
uncomplicated management under the
Act. The Forest Service identified Units
12, 13, and 14 as highest priority for
adjustment.
Our Response: We agree with this
comment, and have simplified the
boundaries of these critical habitat units
accordingly. Additionally, per 2013
survey information provided to us from
the Forest Service, we have expanded
the boundary of Unit 9 to include newly
discovered, occupied Ivesia webberi
habitat (C. Schnurrenberger, unpubl.
survey 2013).
(2) Comment: The Forest Service
recommends that the final critical
habitat rule identify Ivesia webberi
populations that would be particularly
vulnerable to stochastic events. The
Forest Service recommends indicating
such populations occur in Units 6, 7
(Subunits 7a and 7b), 9, 10, and 12,
which occur on Forest Service lands.
Our Response: Plant species (such as
Ivesia webberi) that have a restricted
range, specialized habitat requirements,
and limited recruitment and dispersal
have a higher risk of extinction due to
demographic uncertainty and random
environmental events (Shaffer 1987, pp.
69–75; Lande 1993, pp. 911–927;
Hawkins et al. 2008, pp. 41–42). We
regard all populations of I. webberi to be
vulnerable to stochastic events because
they are generally small, relatively
isolated, and (in many cases) subject to
one or more threats (Service 2014, pp.
31–33).
(3) Comment: The Forest Service
recommends we consider the possible
relevance of historical and potential
habitats for the full recovery of Ivesia
webberi.
Our Response: We agree with this
comment; these factors will receive full
consideration during recovery planning
and implementation.
Public Comments
(4) Comment: One commenter
recognized that the law requires the
Service to designate critical habitat for
listed species, but expressed the view
that proposing critical habitat
concurrent with listing was ‘‘predecisional’’ and ‘‘counterintuitive.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
Our Response: When prudent and
determinable, the Act requires the
Service to designate any habitat
considered to be critical habitat
concurrently with making a
determination that a species is an
endangered or threatened species. The
Act’s section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) states that the
Secretary ‘‘shall, concurrently with
making a determination . . . that a
species is an endangered species or a
threatened species, designate any
habitat of such species which is then
considered to be critical habitat.’’
(5) Comment: One commenter stated
that it was a contradiction to state that
critical habitat (as discussed under the
Background section of the proposed
rule) does not affect land ownership (or
establish a similar type of refuge or
conserved area) and then indicate
(under the Special Management
Considerations or Protection section of
the proposed rule) that special
management would be required to
conserve the species’ habitat. This
commenter asked why the identification
of special management considerations
does not, in effect, create a conservation
area.
Our Response: Section 3 of the Act
defines critical habitat, in part, as those
specific areas that ‘‘may require special
management considerations or
protection.’’ The identification of
special management considerations,
however, does not affect land ownership
or establish a refuge, wilderness,
reserve, preserve, or other conservation
area. As stated in the proposed rule, the
designation of critical habitat, and
specifically the identification of
management that may be required to
maintain physical and biological
features for a given a species, does not
impose a legally binding duty on nonFederal government entities or private
parties. The designation does not
require implementation of restoration,
recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners, nor is any
conserved or preserved area created.
Under section 7 of the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. While non-Federal entities that
receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal
agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to
avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests
with the Federal agency.
(6) Comment: Multiple commenters
asked how the critical habitat
designation would affect private
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
32139
property and private property owners.
One commenter specifically asked
whether special management
considerations were required to be
implemented by private property
owners.
Our Response: As stated in the
proposed rule, the designation of critical
habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal
government entities or private parties,
or require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement
measures by non-Federal landowners.
See additional discussion above in our
response to Comment (5).
(7) Comment: One commenter asked
whether critical habitat designation
represents a taking of private property.
Our Response: We analyzed the
potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for Ivesia
webberi and concluded that this final
designation will not have significant
takings implications (see Takings—
Executive Order 12630 under the
Required Determinations section). A
person wishing to develop private land
that has been designated as critical
habitat, in accordance with State law,
and with no Federal jurisdiction
involved does not violate the Act.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through
requiring Federal agencies to consult
with us to ensure that action they carry
out, fund, or authorize does not result
in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. If there
is no Federal nexus, the critical habitat
designation of private lands itself does
not restrict any private activities. See
also response to Comment 14.
(8) Comment: One commenter asked if
property owners have been notified.
Our Response: The Act does not
require us to notify individual property
owners affected by a proposed listing or
critical habitat designation. However,
we conducted extensive outreach in
accordance with 50 CFR 424.16,
including giving notice of the proposed
regulation to the public, Federal
agencies, and State agencies; publishing
a summary of the proposed regulation in
the Reno Gazette Journal; and holding a
public informational meeting.
(9) Comment: Several comments were
received related to road closures and
anticipated impacts upon recreational
activities, particularly the use of OHVs
(including 4-wheel drive vehicles). One
commenter asked how road closures
would protect Ivesia webberi. Another
commenter stated that OHVs are used as
their primary mode of transportation,
and recommended that this be taken
into consideration when roads or trails
are considered for closure. One
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
32140
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
commenter asked how the species
would be protected or affected if hiking
is still allowed.
Our Response: Final rules designating
critical habitat do not automatically
eliminate or place restrictions on any
recreational activities, such as hiking or
OHV use, within critical habitat. A
critical habitat designation does not
establish any closures of roads or trails.
Rather, once critical habitat is
designated on Federal lands, it becomes
the responsibility of the Federal agency
with jurisdiction over those lands
included in the designation to review
the various kinds of recreational
activities allowed on its lands to
determine in consultation with the
Service if these activities may result in
the destruction or adverse modification
of designated critical habitat. The
decision to close or restrict recreational
activities (OHV, hiking, or other) to
potentially protect or reduce impacts to
a listed species or its critical habitat is
made by that Federal agency.
With regard to the question of how
road closures would protect Ivesia
webberi, we first reiterate that critical
habitat designation does not establish
road closures. However, road closures
represent a means of addressing and
reducing the patterns of disturbance to
I. webberi habitat that are associated
with road corridors subject to heavy use.
Road corridors experiencing heavy use,
and particularly those roads that serve
to provide access (via off-road travel)
into habitats occupied by I. webberi, are
likely to eliminate conditions required
by the species for persistence and
reproduction. As noted in the Physical
or Biological Features section above,
moderate to heavy soil disturbances
such as OHV use, road corridors,
residential or commercial development,
and livestock grazing can impact the
species and its seedbank through habitat
loss, fragmentation, and degradation
due to soil compaction and altered soil
hydrology (Witham 2000, Appendix 1,
p. 1; Bergstrom 2009, pp. 25–26). For
more information, please see ‘‘Food,
Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other
Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements’’ under the Physical or
Biological Features section, above).
(10) Comment: One commenter
requested that any location within the
proposed critical habitat designation
that has an adopted route travel
management system be excluded from
the final critical habitat designation,
with a 50-ft (15-m) from centerline
corridor established to allow space for
parking.
Our Response: Travel or route
planning documents, and any
accompanying evaluations of the legal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
status of existing or potential travel
routes, are planning and management
actions within the jurisdiction of land
management agencies. Critical habitat
designations do not establish any
planning documents or management
plans; rather, the designation of critical
habitat identifies those physical and
biological features that may be essential
to the conservation of a species and may
require special management
considerations and protections, and the
land area on which those features are
found. To the extent that certain areas
within our critical habitat designation
contain roads and other manmade
structures (e.g., fences, houses, paved
areas, and other structures), these
features are not included within the
critical habitat designation because they
do not contain the primary constituent
elements and because they do not meet
the definition of critical habitat under
the Act.
(11) Comment: One commenter stated
that, in 2006, a 4-wheel drive club
successfully blockaded about 1,000
linear ft (305 m) on the west edge of
Dutch Louie Flat meadow with used
utility poles to prevent vehicles and
people from going into the meadow.
This commenter then states that if
Service, Forest Service, and Nevada
Department of Wildlife employees have
been walking through the Dutch Louie
Flat meadow, they have been trampling
the plant.
Our Response: We are aware of this
action having been undertaken in
‘‘Dutch Louie Flat meadow’’; however,
this area (the meadow) is not located
within our critical habitat designation
and does not contain Ivesia webberi.
Unit 14 (Dutch Louie Flat, as described
under the Final Critical Habitat
Designation section, above) is located
approximately 1.4 mi (2.3 km)
northwest of the ‘‘Dutch Louie Flat
meadow’’ where the 4-wheel drive club
conducted their activities.
(12) Comment: Two commenters
made specific reference to the old road
between Hoge Road and North Virginia
Street (in apparent reference to Unit 13
of the critical habitat designation), and
stated that Ivesia webberi does not grow
on this road, is 40 or 50 yards (37 or 46
m) or more away from the road, and is
in very limited places, and the road is
not composed of suitable soils.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical
habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into
consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. While
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
we cannot be certain from the comment
which road is being referenced here, we
are aware that Unit 13 contains many
roads that receive varied levels of use.
The best available information indicates
that Ivesia webberi grows sporadically
within some of the road corridors in
Unit 13, and along the shoulders of
other road corridors within this unit (S.
Kulpa, J. Johnson, E. Bergstrom, and K.
O’Conner, unpublished field notes
2013). The presence of the species
within or along these road corridors
indicates that the physical or biological
features, and thus the primary
constituent elements required by the
species are still currently present in
these areas. Along most road corridors
within this species’ range, and within
our critical habitat designation, frequent
(historical or current) OHV use most
often results in a well-established
corridor in which vegetation is absent
and soils have been compacted to a
degree that discourages or precludes the
re-establishment of vegetation
(including I. webberi).
(13) Comment: A commenter asked if
any scientific studies have been
conducted that indicate if livestock use
within the critical habitat areas has an
adverse effect on Ivesia webberi. The
commenter believes the presence of the
species within grazed areas should serve
as an indication that livestock have not
adversely affected the plant.
Our Response: We are not aware of
studies specifically examining the
effects of livestock grazing upon Ivesia
webberi. However, as noted elsewhere
in the proposed critical habitat
designation and this final rule, moderate
to heavy soil disturbances such as OHV
use, road corridors, residential or
commercial development, and livestock
grazing can impact the species and its
seedbank through habitat loss,
fragmentation, and degradation due to
soil compaction and altered soil
hydrology (Witham 2000, Appendix 1,
p. 1; Bergstrom 2009, pp. 25–26). We
have specifically identified vernally
moist soils with an argillic horizon that
shrink and swell upon wetting and
drying as a physical and biological
feature essential for the conservation of
I. webberi. Excessive or inadequately
managed livestock grazing has the
potential to eliminate these conditions
that are required by the species for
persistence and reproduction. See the
Summary of Biological Status and
Threats section of the proposed listing
rule (78 FR 46889; August 2, 2013) and
the Species Report (Service 2014, pp.
29–30) for additional discussion on the
potential effects of grazing to I. webberi
habitat.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(14) Comment: One commenter stated
that a portion of the private lands
within Unit 1 has historically been used
for livestock grazing, and asked who
would determine whether special
management considerations or
protection would be required in this
area, and how that special management
or protections would be enforced.
Our Response: The designation of
critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal
government entities or private parties.
Under section 7 of the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. While non-Federal entities that
receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal
agency for an action (i.e., a Federal
nexus exists), may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to
avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests
with the Federal agency. Therefore,
there is no requirement or enforcement
of special management considerations
or protections on the private lands
within Unit 1 or any other private lands
(without a Federal nexus) within the
critical habitat designation for Ivesia
webberi.
(15) Comment: One commenter
advocated for public education to users
of motorized recreational vehicles.
Our Response: We agree that public
education is a vital component of any
conservation program and will promote
outreach for Ivesia webberi and its
critical habitat through avenues such as
(but not limited to) our continued
coordination with partners and future
recovery planning efforts.
(16) Comment: One commenter
recommended that we consider
geothermal energy sources as a threat to
Unit 16 because it occurs near an active
exploration area that is on Forest
Service land. The commenter believe
that exploitation of geothermal energy
resources in this area could have
impacts on hydrological processes in
Unit 16.
Our Response: Per our coordination
with the Forest Service, we are not
aware of any geothermal energy projects
within the vicinity of Unit 16.
particular, the commenter suggested
that critical habitat designation may
increase the likelihood that these areas
remain in an open and undeveloped
condition. Further, this commenter
noted that a significant body of
literature suggests that proximity to
conserved, open space generates
economic benefits to surrounding
landowners and communities through
improvements in water management,
increases in revenues from recreational
activities, increases in revenues to local
municipalities, and increases in housing
prices.
Our Response: The primary goal of
critical habitat designation for Ivesia
webberi is to promote the conservation
of the species. Critical habitat
designation may also generate ancillary
benefits, which are defined as favorable
impacts of a rulemaking that are
typically unrelated, or secondary, to the
statutory purpose of the rulemaking
(Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) 2003). Critical habitat aids in the
conservation of species specifically by
protecting the physical or biological
features on which the species depends.
To this end, management actions
undertaken to conserve a species or
habitat may have coincident, positive
social welfare implications, such as
increased recreational opportunities in a
region or improved property values on
nearby parcels.
As described in our DEA (IEc 2014, p.
2), incremental changes in land
management as a result of the
designation of critical habitat are
unlikely. This finding is based primarily
on the fact that all areas designated as
critical habitat are considered occupied
by the species and therefore receive
baseline protection from the listing of
the species under the Act. Thus, in this
instance, critical habitat designation
will likely add a slight incremental
conservation benefit to that already
provided by baseline conservation
efforts (e.g., efforts resulting from the
listing of the species as threatened
under the Act). For the same reason, it
follows that the critical habitat
designation will likely add slight
incremental ancillary benefits above
those provided in the baseline.
Comments Related to the Draft
Economic Analysis (DEA)
(17) Comment: One commenter stated
that the DEA did not assess the
economic benefits that may result from
the designation of 114 ac (46 ha) of
private, vacant lands as critical habitat
in the Reno/Sparks metropolitan area. In
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
Required Determinations
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant
rules. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined that
this rule is not significant.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
32141
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of Executive Order 12866
while calling for improvements in the
nation’s regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. Executive Order 13563
emphasizes further that regulations
must be based on the best available
science and that the rulemaking process
must allow for public participation and
an open exchange of ideas. We have
developed this rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA
to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business
Administration, small entities include
small organizations such as
independent nonprofit organizations;
small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and
town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses
(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining
concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities
with fewer than 100 employees, retail
and service businesses with less than $5
million in annual sales, general and
heavy construction businesses with less
than $27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
32142
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
sales less than $750,000. To determine
if potential economic impacts to these
small entities are significant, we
considered the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of
project modifications that may result. In
general, the term ‘‘significant economic
impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm’s business
operations.
The Service’s current understanding
of the requirements under the RFA, as
amended, and following recent court
decisions, is that Federal agencies are
only required to evaluate the potential
incremental impacts of rulemaking on
those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself, and therefore, not
required to evaluate the potential
impacts to indirectly regulated entities.
The regulatory mechanism through
which critical habitat protections are
realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in
consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or
carried by the Agency is not likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only
Federal action agencies are directly
subject to the specific regulatory
requirement (avoiding destruction and
adverse modification) imposed by
critical habitat designation.
Consequently, it is our position that
only Federal action agencies will be
directly regulated by this designation.
There is no requirement under RFA to
evaluate the potential impacts to entities
not directly regulated. Moreover,
Federal agencies are not small entities.
Therefore, because no small entities are
directly regulated by this rulemaking,
the Service certifies that this final
critical habitat designation will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
During the development of this final
rule, we reviewed and evaluated all
information submitted during the
comment period that may pertain to our
consideration of the probable
incremental economic impacts of this
critical habitat designation. Based on
this information, we affirm our
certification that this final critical
habitat designation will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use—
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use) requires agencies
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
to prepare Statements of Energy Effects
when undertaking certain actions. OMB
has provided guidance for
implementing this Executive Order that
outlines nine outcomes that may
constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’
when compared to not taking the
regulatory action under consideration.
Based on information in the economic
analysis, energy-related impacts
associated with Ivesia webberi
conservation activities within critical
habitat are not expected. As such, the
designation of critical habitat is not
expected to significantly affect energy
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy
action, and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required.
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.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a
Federal mandate. In general, a Federal
mandate is a provision in legislation,
statute, or regulation that would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector,
and includes both ‘‘Federal
intergovernmental mandates’’ and
‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C.
658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or tribal governments’’
with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a
condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also
excludes ‘‘a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal
program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates
to a then-existing Federal program
under which $500,000,000 or more is
provided annually to State, local, and
tribal governments under entitlement
authority,’’ if the provision would
‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of
assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or
otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government’s responsibility to provide
funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal
governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment,
these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; Aid to Families with
Dependent Children work programs;
Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social
Services Block Grants; Vocational
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care,
Adoption Assistance, and Independent
Living; Family Support Welfare
Services; and Child Support
Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector, except (i) a
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.’’
The designation of critical habitat
does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal Government entities or
private parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are
indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate
in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply, nor would critical habitat
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule
will significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because it would 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. Our economic analysis concludes
that the economic costs of implementing
the rule through section 7 of the Act
will most likely be limited to the
additional administrative effort required
to consider adverse modification. This
finding is based on the following
factors:
(a) All units are considered occupied,
providing baseline protection;
(b) Activities occurring within
designated critical habitat with a
potential to affect critical habitat are
also likely to adversely affect the
species, either directly or indirectly;
(c) In occupied habitat, project
modifications requested to avoid
adverse modification are likely to be the
same as those needed to avoid jeopardy;
and
(d) Federal agencies operating in
designated critical habitat areas are
already aware of the presence of the
species and are also experienced
consulting with the Service under
section 7 of the Act on other federally
listed species. Thus, they are likely to
consult even in buffer areas applied to
occupied habitat, included in the
designation to ensure the protection of
pollinator habitat.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Consequently, we do not believe that
the critical habitat designation would
significantly or uniquely affect small
government entities. As such, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not
required.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Takings—Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order
12630 (‘‘Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Private Property Rights’’), we
have analyzed the potential takings
implications of designating critical
habitat for Ivesia webberi in a takings
implications assessment. As discussed
above, the designation of critical habitat
affects only Federal actions. Although
private parties that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or require approval
or authorization from a Federal agency
for an action may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Our DEA found (and
our FEA reaffirms) that no significant
economic impacts are likely to result
from the designation of critical habitat
for Ivesia webberi. Because the Act’s
critical habitat protection requirements
apply only to Federal agency actions,
few conflicts between critical habitat
and private property rights should result
from this designation. Based on
information contained in the DEA and
described within this document, it is
not likely that economic impacts to a
property owner would be of a sufficient
magnitude to support a takings action.
Therefore, the takings implications
assessment concludes that this
designation of critical habitat for I.
webberi does not pose significant
takings implications.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132
(Federalism), this rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A
federalism summary impact statement 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 designation with, appropriate
State resource agencies in California and
Nevada. We did not receive comments
from California or Nevada in response to
our request for information on the
proposed rule. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical
habitat directly affects only the
responsibilities of Federal agencies. The
Act imposes no other duties with
respect to critical habitat, either for
States and local governments, or for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
anyone else. As a result, the rule does
not have substantial direct effects either
on the States, or on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
powers and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. The
designation may have some benefit to
these governments because the areas
that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species are more
clearly defined, and the physical and
biological features of the habitat
necessary to the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may
occur. However, it may assist these local
governments in long-range planning
(because these local governments no
longer have to wait for case-by-case
section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) would be required.
While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits,
or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order
12988
In accordance with Executive Order
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office
of the Solicitor has determined that the
rule does not unduly burden the judicial
system and that it meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating
critical habitat in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. To assist the
public in understanding the habitat
needs of the species, the rule identifies
the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
Ivesia webberi. The designated areas of
critical habitat are presented on maps,
and the rule provides several options for
the interested public to obtain more
detailed location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new
collections of information that require
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements
on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
32143
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This position was upheld by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied
516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to tribes.
We determined that there are no tribal
lands occupied by Ivesia webberi at the
time of listing that contain the physical
or biological features essential to
conservation of the species, and no
tribal lands unoccupied by I. webberi
that are essential for the conservation of
the species. Therefore, we are not
designating critical habitat for I. webberi
on tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
is available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
32144
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this
rulemaking are the staff members of the
Pacific Southwest Regional Office and
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 17.96, amend paragraph (a) by
adding an entry for Ivesia webberi
(Webber’s ivesia), in alphabetical order
under Family Rosaceae, to read as
follows:
■
§ 17.95
Critical habitat—plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
*
*
*
*
*
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Family Rosaceae: Ivesia webberi
(Webber’s ivesia)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra Counties,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
California, and Washoe and Douglas
Counties, Nevada, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary
constituent elements of the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of Ivesia webberi consist of
four components:
(i) Plant community.
(A) Open to sparsely vegetated areas
composed of generally short-statured
associated plant species.
(B) Presence of appropriate associated
species that can include (but are not
limited to): Antennaria dimorpha,
Artemisia arbuscula, Balsamorhiza
hookeri, Elymus elymoides, Erigeron
bloomeri, Lewisia rediviva, Poa
secunda, and Viola beckwithii.
(C) An intact assemblage of
appropriate associated species to attract
the floral visitors that may be acting as
pollinators of Ivesia webberi.
(ii) Topography. Flats, benches, or
terraces that are generally above or
adjacent to large valleys. Occupied sites
vary from slightly concave to slightly
convex or gently sloped (0–15°) and
occur on all aspects.
(iii) Elevation. Elevations between
4,475 and 6,237 feet (1,364 and 1,901
meters).
(iv) Suitable soils and hydrology.
(A) Vernally moist soils with an
argillic horizon that shrink and swell
upon drying and wetting; these soil
conditions are characteristic of known
Ivesia webberi populations and are
likely important in the maintenance of
the seedbank and population
recruitment.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(B) Suitable soils that can include (but
are not limited to): Reno—a fine,
smectitic, mesic Abruptic Xeric
Argidurid; Xman—a clayey, smectitic,
mesic, shallow Xeric Haplargids; Aldi—
a clayey, smectitic, frigid Lithic Ultic
Argixerolls; and Barshaad—a fine,
smectitic, mesic Aridic Palexeroll.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal
boundaries on July 3, 2014.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data
layers defining map units were created
on the base of both satellite imagery
(ESRI ArcGIS Imagery Basemap) as well
as USGS geospatial quadrangle maps
and were mapped using NAD 83
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM),
zone 11N coordinates. The maps in this
entry, as modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, establish the boundaries
of the critical habitat designation. The
coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based are available
to the public at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R8–ES–2013–0080, and at the
field office responsible for this
designation (i.e., Nevada Fish and
Wildlife Office (https://www.fws.gov/
nevada/)). You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one
of the Service regional offices, the
addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
32145
(5) Index map follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
ER03JN14.000</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(6) Unit 1: Sierra Valley, Plumas
County, California.
(i) Unit 1 includes 274 ac (111 ha).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
ER03JN14.001</GPH>
32146
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
ER03JN14.002</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(7) Unit 2: Constantia, Lassen County,
California.
(i) Unit 2 includes 155 ac (63 ha).
32147
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(8) Unit 3: East of Hallelujah Junction
Wildlife Area, Evans Canyon; Lassen
County, California.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
(i) Unit 3 includes 122 ac (49 ha).
(ii) Map of Units 3 and 4 follows:
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
ER03JN14.003</GPH>
32148
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
(10) Unit 5: Subunit 5a, Dog Valley
Meadow, and Subunit 5b, Upper Dog
Valley; Sierra County, California.
(i) Subunit 5a includes 386 ac (156
ha), and subunit 5b includes 29 ac (12
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
ha). Combined, Unit 5 includes 415 ac
(168 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 5 (Subunits 5a and
5b) follows:
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
ER03JN14.004</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(9) Unit 4: Hallelujah Junction
Wildlife Area, Sierra County, California.
(i) Unit 4 includes 69 ac (28 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 4 is provided at
paragraph (8)(ii) of this entry.
32149
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(11) Unit 6: White Lake Overlook,
Sierra County, California.
(i) Unit 6 includes 109 ac (44 ha).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
(ii) Map of Units 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
ER03JN14.005</GPH>
32150
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
(i) Unit 8 includes 62 ac (25 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 8 is provided at
paragraph (11)(ii) of this entry.
(14) Unit 9: Stateline Road 1, Sierra
County, California, and Washoe County,
Nevada.
(i) Unit 9 includes 193 ac (78 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 9 is provided at
paragraph (11)(ii) of this entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(15) Unit 10: Stateline Road 2, Sierra
County, California, and Washoe County,
Nevada.
(i) Unit 10 includes 66 ac (27 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 10 is provided at
paragraph (11)(ii) of this entry.
(16) Unit 11: Hungry Valley, Washoe
County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 11 includes 56 ac (23 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
ER03JN14.006</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(12) Unit 7: Subunit 7a, Mules Ear
Flat, Sierra County, California; Subunit
7b, Three Pine Flat and Jeffery Pine
Saddle, Washoe County, Nevada.
(i) Subunit 7a includes 65 ac (27 ha),
and subunit 7b includes 68 ac (27 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 7 is provided at
paragraph (11)(ii) of this entry.
(13) Unit 8: Ivesia Flat, Washoe
County, Nevada.
32151
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(17) Unit 12: Black Springs, Washoe
County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 12 includes 163 ac (66 ha).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
(ii) Map of Units 12 and 13 follows:
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
ER03JN14.007</GPH>
32152
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
(ii) Map of Unit 13 is provided at
paragraph (17)(ii) of this entry.
(19) Unit 14: Dutch Louie Flat,
Washoe County, Nevada.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(i) Unit 14 includes 54 ac (22 ha).
(ii) Map of Units 14 and 15 follows:
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
ER03JN14.008</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(18) Unit 13: Raleigh Heights, Washoe
County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 13 includes 253 ac (103 ha).
32153
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
(20) Unit 15: The Pines Powerline,
Washoe County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 15 includes 32 ac (13 ha).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
(ii) Map of Unit 15 is provided at
paragraph (19)(ii) of this entry.
(21) Unit 16: Dante Mine Road,
Douglas County, Nevada.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(i) Unit 16 includes 14 ac (6 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 16 follows:
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
ER03JN14.009</GPH>
32154
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
Dated: May 21, 2014.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
*
[FR Doc. 2014–12629 Filed 6–2–14; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Jun 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\03JNR3.SGM
03JNR3
32155
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32125-32155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12629]
[[Page 32125]]
Vol. 79
Tuesday,
No. 106
June 3, 2014
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Ivesia webberi; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 32126]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ57
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Ivesia webberi
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate
critical habitat for Ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia) under the
Endangered Species Act (Act). In total, approximately 2,170 acres (879
hectares) in Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra Counties in northeastern
California, and in Washoe and Douglas Counties in northwestern Nevada,
fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The
effect of this regulation is to conserve I. webberi's critical habitat
under the Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 3, 2014.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fws.gov/nevada/. Comments and
materials we received, as well as some supporting documentation we used
in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments, materials, and documentation
that we considered in this rulemaking are available by appointment,
during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada
Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV
89502; telephone 775-861-6300; facsimile 775-861-6301.
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical
habitat designation and are available at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080, and at the Nevada Fish and Wildlife
Office (https://www.fws.gov/nevada) (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information that we
developed for this critical habitat designation will also be available
at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out
above, and may also be included in the preamble and at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340
Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; telephone 775-861-6300;
facsimile 775-861-6301. Persons who use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act), any species that is determined to be an
endangered or threatened species requires critical habitat to be
designated, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.
Designations and revisions of critical habitat can only be completed by
issuing a rule. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary
shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we published a final rule to
list Ivesia webberi as a threatened species. This is a final rule to
designate critical habitat for I. webberi. The critical habitat areas
we are designating in this rule constitute our current best assessment
of the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for I.
webberi. In total, we are designating as critical habitat approximately
2,170 acres (ac) (879 hectares (ha)) of land in 16 units for the
species.
We have prepared an economic analysis of the designation of
critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we have
prepared an analysis of the economic impacts of the critical habitat
designations and related factors. We announced the availability of the
DEA in the Federal Register on February 13, 2014 (79 FR 8668), allowing
the public to provide comments on our analysis. We have incorporated
the comments and have completed the final economic analysis (FEA)
concurrently with this final determination.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically
sound data and analyses. We requested opinions from three knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical
assumptions and analysis, and whether or not we had used the best
available information. We received no comments or information from
these peer reviewers. We also considered all comments and information
we received from the public during the comment period.
Previous Federal Actions
The proposed listing rule for Ivesia webberi (78 FR 46889; August
2, 2013) contains a detailed description of previous Federal actions
concerning this species.
On August 2, 2013, we published in the Federal Register a proposed
critical habitat designation for I. webberi (78 FR 46862). On February
13, 2014, we revised the proposed critical habitat designation and
announced the availability of our draft economic analysis (DEA) (79 FR
8668). Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we published a final rule
to list Ivesia webberi as a threatened species under the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.).
Summary of Changes From August 2, 2013, Proposed Rule
In this final critical habitat designation, we make final the minor
changes that we proposed in the document that published in the Federal
Register on February 13, 2014 (79 FR 8668). At that time, we increased
the designation (from that proposed on August 2, 2013 (78 FR 46862)) by
approximately 159 ac (65 ha), to a total of approximately 2,170 ac (879
ha). This increase occurred in four units as a result of the following:
(1) Unit 9 included newly discovered, occupied Ivesia webberi habitat
(C. Schnurrenberger, unpubl. survey 2013); and (2) the boundaries of
Units 12, 13, and 14 were simplified to reduce the number of
irregularly shaped lobes and align the boundaries with discernible
features such as ridgelines, roads, topographic contours, and
vegetation communities. Overall, this increase in proposed critical
habitat (as announced on February 13, 2014 (79 FR 8668)) was based on
new information received from the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service)
that better defined the physical or biological features along the
boundaries of five proposed units, resulting in changes to the acreages
for those units.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
[[Page 32127]]
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are those
specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide
for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area presently occupied by a species only when a
designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure
the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available.
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to
designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include articles in peer-reviewed
journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties,
scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, other
unpublished materials, or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this
species. 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 (HCPs), or other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may
require special management considerations or protection. These include,
but are not limited to:
[[Page 32128]]
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for Ivesia webberi from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and
life history as described in the Critical Habitat section of the
proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the Federal
Register on August 2, 2013 (78 FR 46862), and in the information
presented below. Additional information can be found in the final
listing rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, and the
Species Report for this species (Service 2014, entire), which is
available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2013-0080. We have determined that I. webberi requires the following
physical or biological features:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Plant Community and Competitive Ability--Ivesia webberi is
primarily associated with Artemisia arbuscula Nutt. (low sagebrush) and
other perennial, rock garden-type plants such as: Antennaria dimorpha
(low pussytoes), Balsamorhiza hookeri (Hooker's balsamroot), Elymus
elymoides (squirreltail), Erigeron bloomeri (scabland fleabane),
Lewisia rediviva (bitter root), Poa secunda (Sandburg bluegrass), and
Viola beckwithii (Beckwith's violet) (Witham 2000, p. 17; Morefield
2004, 2005, unpubl. survey; Howle and Henault 2009, unpubl. survey; BLM
2011, 2012a, unpubl. survey; Howle and Chardon 2011a, 2011b, 2011c,
unpubl. survey). Overall, this plant community is open and sparsely
vegetated and relatively short-statured, with I. webberi often
dominating or co-dominating where it occurs (Witham 2000, p. 17).
Because Ivesia webberi is found in an open, sparsely vegetated
plant community, it is likely a poor competitor. Nonnative, invasive
plant species such as Bromus tectorum L. (cheatgrass), Taeniatherum
caput-medusae (medusahead), and Poa bulbosa (bulbous bluegrass) form
dense stands of vegetation that compete with native plant species, such
as I. webberi, for the physical space needed to establish individuals
and recruit new seedlings. This competition for space is compounded as
dead or dying nonnative vegetation accumulates, eventually forming a
dense thatch that obscures the soil crevices used by native species as
seed accumulation and seedling recruitment sites (Davies 2008, pp. 110-
111; Gonzalez et al. 2008, entire; Mazzola et al. 2011, pp. 514-515;
Pierson et al. 2011, entire). Consequently, nonnative species deter
recruitment and population expansion of I. webberi, as well as the
entire Artemisia arbuscula (low sagebrush)-perennial bunchgrass-forb
community with which I. webberi is associated. Therefore, we consider
open, sparsely vegetated assemblages of A. arbuscula and other
perennial grass and forb rock garden species to be a physical or
biological feature for I. webberi.
Elevation--Known populations of Ivesia webberi occur between 4,475
and 6,237 feet (ft) (1,364 and 1,901 meters (m)) in elevation (Steele
and Roe 1996, unpubl. survey; Witham 2000, p.16; Howle and Henault
2009, unpubl. survey). Because plants are not currently known to occur
outside of this elevation band, we have identified this elevation range
as a physical or biological feature for I. webberi.
Topography, Slope, and Aspect--Ivesia webberi occurs on flats,
benches, or terraces that are generally above or adjacent to large
valleys. These sites vary from slightly concave to slightly convex or
gently sloped (0-15[deg]) and occur on all aspects (Witham 2000, p.
16). Because plants have not been identified outside these landscape
features or on slopes greater than 15[deg], we have identified slightly
concave, convex, and gently sloped (0-15[deg]) landscapes to be
physical and biological features for I. webberi.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Soils--Populations of Ivesia webberi occur on a variety of soil
series types, including, but not limited to: Reno--a fine, smectitic,
mesic Abruptic Xeric Argidurid; Xman--a clayey, smectitic, mesic,
shallow Xeric Haplargids; Aldi--a clayey, smectitic, frigid Lithic
Ultic Argixerolls; and Barshaad--a fine, smectitic, mesic Aridic
Palexeroll (USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service) 2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2012a, 2012b). The majority
of soils in which I. webberi occurs have an argillic (i.e., clay)
horizon within 19.7 inches (in) (50 centimeters (cm)) of the soil
surface (USDA NRCS 2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2012a, 2012b). An argillic
horizon is defined as a subsurface horizon with a significantly higher
percentage of clay than the overlying soil material (Soil Survey Staff
2010, p. 30). The clay content (percent by weight) of an argillic
horizon must be 1.2 times the clay content of an overlying horizon
(Soil Survey Staff 1999, p. 31). Agrillic horizons are illuvial,
meaning they form below the soil surface, but may be exposed at the
surface later due to erosion. Typically there is little or no evidence
of illuvial clay movement in soils on young landscapes; therefore, soil
scientists have concluded that the formation of an argillic horizon
requires at least a few thousand years (Soil Survey Staff 1999, p. 29).
This argillic horizon represents a time-landscape relationship that can
be locally and regionally important because its presence indicates that
the geomorphic surface has been relatively stable for a long period of
time (Soil Survey Staff 1999, p. 31).
The shallow, clay soils that Ivesia webberi inhabits are very rocky
on the surface and tend to be wet in the spring, but dry out as the
season progresses (Zamudio 1999, p. 1). The high clay content in the
soils creates a shrink-swell behavior as the soils wet and dry, which
helps to ``heave'' rocks in the soil profile to the surface and creates
the rocky surface ``pavement'' (Zamudio 1999, p. 1). The unique soils
and hydrology of I. webberi sites may exclude competition from other
species, including Bromus tectorum (Zamudio 1999, p. 1; Witham 2000, p.
16). The shrink-swell of the clay zone, which extends into the subsoil,
favors perennials with deep taproots or annuals with shallow roots that
can complete their life cycle before the surface soil dries out
(Zamudio 1999, p. 1; Witham 2000, pp. 16, 20). The root systems of tap-
rooted perennial forbs are suited to soil with clay subsoils because
the roots branch profusely under the crown, spread laterally, and
penetrate the clay B horizon along vertical cracks (within the horizon)
(Hugie et al. 1964, p. 200). The roots are flattened, but unbroken by
shrink-swell activity (Hugie et al. 1964, p. 200). Early maturing
plants, such as I. webberi, presumably prefer soils with these heavy
clay horizons because of the abundant spring moisture, which
essentially saturates the surface horizons with water. Based on the
information above, we consider soil with an argillic horizon
characterized by shrink-swell behavior to represent a
[[Page 32129]]
physical or biological feature for I. webberi.
Water--Ivesia webberi is restricted to sites with soils that are
vernally moist (Zamudio 1999a, p. 1; Witham 2000, p. 16). From this
finding, we infer that sufficient winter and spring moisture not only
contributes to the physical properties of the substrate in which I.
webberi occurs (i.e., the shrink-swell pattern that contributes to the
formation of soil crevices), but also triggers biological responses in
I. webberi, in the form of stimulating germination, growth, flowering,
and seed production. Moisture retention is influenced by site
topography as well as soil properties. Therefore, we consider soils
that are vernally moist as a physical or biological feature for I.
webberi.
Light--Although little is known regarding the light requirements of
Ivesia webberi, inferences are possible from the plant species and the
plant community from which I. webberi is associated (described under
the ``Plant Community and Competitive Ability'' section of the ``Space
for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior''
discussion, above, and the ``Habitat'' section of the Species Report
(Service 2014, pp. 6-7). Generally speaking, co-occurring plant species
are short-statured; when assembled into an low sagebrush-perennial
bunchgrass-forb community, plants tend to occur widely spaced with
intervening patches of rocky, open ground. These factors suggest that
I. webberi is not shade-tolerant. Therefore, we assume that I. webberi
is able to persist, at least in part, due to a lack of light
competition with taller plants.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Reproduction--Ivesia webberi is a perennial plant species that is
not rhizomatous or otherwise clonal. Therefore, like other Ivesia
species, reproduction in I. webberi is presumed to occur primarily via
sexual means (i.e., seed production and seedling recruitment). As with
most plant species, I. webberi does not require separate sites for
breeding, rearing, and reproduction other than the locations in which
parent plants occur and any area necessary for pollinators and seed
dispersal. Seeds of I. webberi are relatively large and unlikely to be
dispersed by wind or animal vectors; upon maturation of the
inflorescence and fruit, seeds are likely to fall to the ground in the
immediate vicinity of parent plants (Witham 2000, p. 20). Depressions
and crevices in soil frequently serve as seed accumulation or seedling
establishment sites in arid ecosystems because they trap seeds and
often have higher soil water due to trapped snow and accumulated
precipitation (Reichman 1984, pp. 9-10; Eckert et al. 1986, pp. 417-
420). The cracks of the shrink-swell clay soils that typify I. webberi
habitat are thought to trap seeds and retain them on-site, and may
serve to protect seeds from desiccation from sunlight or wind. Although
the long-term viability of these seeds is unknown, I. webberi seeds
held within these crevices may accumulate and function as a seedbank
for I. webberi reproduction. Thus, the physical and biological feature
of soil with an argillic horizon and shrink-swell behavior identified
above under the ``Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other
Nutritional or Physiological Requirements'' section also has an
important reproduction function for I. webberi.
Pollination--Pollinators specific to Ivesia webberi have not been
identified. However, most Ivesia species reproduce from seed with
insect-mediated pollination occurring between flowers of the same or
different plants (Witham 2000, p. 20). Floral visitors have been
observed frequenting the flowers of I. aperta var. canina, which co-
occurs with I. webberi at one population (USFWS 5; J. Johnson, unpubl.
photos 2007). Although these floral visitors can only represent
presumed pollinators because they were not observed to be carrying
pollen, they represent the best available information regarding
possible pollinators of I. webberi. Since no single pollinator or group
of pollinators is known for I. webberi, we are not able to define
habitat requirements for I. webberi in terms of the distances that
particular orders, genera, or species of insect pollinators are known
to travel.
Successful transfer of pollen among Ivesia webberi populations,
therefore, may be inhibited if populations are separated by distances
greater than pollinators can travel, or if a pollinator's nesting
habitat or behavior is negatively affected (BLM 2012b, p. 2). Some bees
such as bumblebees and other social species are able to fly extremely
long distances. However, evidence suggests that their habitat does not
need to remain contiguous, but it is more important that the protected
habitat is large enough to maintain floral diversity to attract these
pollinators (BLM 2012b, p. 18). By contrast, most solitary bees remain
close to their nest; thus foraging distance tends to be 1,640 ft (500
m) or less (BLM 2012b, p. 19). Conservation strategies that strive to
maintain not just I. webberi, but the range of associated native plant
species (many of which are also insect-pollinated) would therefore
serve to attract a wide array of insect pollinators, both social and
solitary, that may also serve as pollinators of I. webberi (BLM 2012b,
pp. 5-6, 19). Because annual, nonnative, invasive grasses (such as
Bromus tectorum) are wind-pollinated, they offer no reward for
pollinators; as such nonnative species become established, pollinators
are likely to become deterred from visiting areas occupied by I.
webberi. Therefore, we consider an area of sufficient size with an
intact assemblage of native plant species to provide for pollinator
foraging and nesting habitat to be a physical or biological feature for
I. webberi.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
The long-term conservation of Ivesia webberi is dependent on
several factors, including, but not limited to: Maintenance of areas
necessary to sustain natural ecosystem components, functions, and
processes (such as light and intact soil hydrology); and sufficient
adjacent suitable habitat for vegetative reproduction, population
expansion, and pollination.
Disturbance--Soils with a high content of shrink-swell clays, such
as those where Ivesia webberi is found, often create an unstable soil
environment to which this species is presumably adapted (Belnap 2001,
p. 183). These micro-scale disturbances are of light to moderate
intensity; we are unaware of information to indicate that I. webberi
has evolved with or is tolerant of moderate to heavy, landscape-scale
disturbances. Moderate to heavy soil disturbances such as off-highway
vehicle (OHV) use, road corridors, residential or commercial
development, and livestock grazing can impact the species and its
seedbank through habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation due to
soil compaction and altered soil hydrology (Witham 2000, Appendix 1, p.
1; Bergstrom 2009, pp. 25-26).
Climate change projections in the Great Basin, where Ivesia webberi
occurs, include increasing temperatures (Chambers and Pellant 2008, p.
29; Finch 2012, p. 4), earlier spring snow runoff (Stewart et al. 2005,
p. 1152), declines in snowpack (Knowles et al. 2006, p. 4557; Mote et
al. 2005, entire), and increased frequencies of drought and fire
(Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1181-1184; Littell et al. 2009, pp. 1014-1019;
Abatzoglou and Kolden 2011, pp. 474-475). Nonnative, invasive plant
species and modified fire regimes are already impacting the quality and
composition of the low sagebrush-perennial
[[Page 32130]]
bunchgrass-forb plant community where I. webberi occurs (BLM 2012c). We
anticipate that climate-related changes expected across the Great
Basin, such as altered precipitation and temperature patterns, will
accelerate the pace and spatial extent of nonnative plant infestations
and altered fire regimes. These patterns of climate change may also
decrease survivorship of I. webberi by causing physiological stress,
altering phenology, and reducing recruitment events and seedling
establishment.
Managing for appropriate disturbance regimes (in terms of the type
or intensity of disturbance) is difficult, because sources of
disturbance are numerous and our ability to predict the effects of
multiple, interacting disturbance regimes upon species and their
habitats is limited. For the reasons discussed above, we identify areas
not subject to moderate to heavy, landscape-scale disturbances, such as
impacts from vehicles driven off established roads or trails,
development, livestock grazing, and frequent wildfire, to be a physical
or biological feature for I. webberi.
Primary Constituent Elements for Ivesia webberi
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of Ivesia webberi in areas occupied at the time of
listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements.
Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the
physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-
history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
elements specific to Ivesia webberi are:
(i) Plant community.
(A) Open to sparsely vegetated areas composed of generally short-
statured associated plant species.
(B) Presence of appropriate associated species that can include
(but are not limited to): Antennaria dimorpha, Artemisia arbuscula,
Balsamorhiza hookeri, Elymus elymoides, Erigeron bloomeri, Lewisia
rediviva, Poa secunda, and Viola beckwithii.
(C) An intact assemblage of appropriate associated species to
attract the floral visitors that may be acting as pollinators of Ivesia
webberi.
(ii) Topography. Flats, benches, or terraces that are generally
above or adjacent to large valleys. Occupied sites vary from slightly
concave to slightly convex or gently sloped (0-15[deg]) and occur on
all aspects.
(iii) Elevation. Elevations between 4,475 and 6,237 ft (1,364 and
1,901 m).
(iv) Suitable soils and hydrology.
(A) Vernally moist soils with an argillic horizon that shrink and
swell upon drying and wetting; these soil conditions are characteristic
of known Ivesia webberi populations and are likely important in the
maintenance of the seedbank and population recruitment.
(B) Suitable soils that can include (but are not limited to):
Reno--a fine, smectitic, mesic Abruptic Xeric Argidurid; Xman--a
clayey, smectitic, mesic, shallow Xeric Haplargids; Aldi--a clayey,
smectitic, frigid Lithic Ultic Argixerolls; and Barshaad--a fine,
smectitic, mesic Aridic Palexeroll.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. All areas designated as critical habitat contain features
that will require some level of management to address the current and
future threats. In all units, special management will be required to
ensure that the habitat is able to provide for the growth and
reproduction of the species.
A detailed discussion of threats to Ivesia webberi and its habitat
can be found in the Ivesia webberi Species Report (Service 2014, pp.
22-32). The features essential to the conservation of I. webberi (plant
community and competitive ability, and suitable topography, elevation,
soils, and hydrology required for the persistence of adults as well as
successful reproduction of such individuals and the formation of a
seedbank) may require special management considerations or protection
to reduce threats. The current range of I. webberi is subject to human-
caused modifications from the introduction and spread of nonnative
invasive species including Bromus tectorum, Poa bulbosa, and
Taeniatherum caput-medusae; modified wildfire regime; increased access
and fragmentation of habitat by new roads and OHVs; agricultural,
residential, and commercial development; and soil and seedbank
disturbance by livestock (Service 2014, pp. 22-32).
Special management considerations or protection are required within
critical habitat areas to address these threats. Management activities
that could ameliorate these threats include (but are not limited to):
Treatment of nonnative, invasive plant species; minimization of OHV
access and placement of new roads away from the species and its
habitat; regulations or agreements to minimize the effects of
development in areas where the species resides; minimization of
livestock use or other disturbances that disturb the soil or seeds; and
minimization of habitat fragmentation. Where the species occurs on
private lands, protection and management could be enhanced by various
forms of land acquisition from willing sellers, ranging from the
purchase of conservation easements to fee title acquisition. These
activities would protect the primary constituent elements for the
species by preventing the loss of habitats and individuals, protecting
the habitat and soils from undesirable patterns or levels of
disturbance, and facilitating the management for desirable conditions,
including disturbance regimes.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain the
features essential to the conservation of the species. If, after
identifying these specific areas, we determine the areas are inadequate
to ensure conservation of the species, in accordance with the Act and
our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we then consider
whether designating additional areas outside of the geographic area
occupied by the species are essential for the conservation of the
species. We are not designating any areas outside the geographical area
presently occupied by the species because its present range is
sufficient to ensure the conservation of Ivesia webberi.
We delineated the critical habitat unit boundaries for Ivesia
webberi using the following steps:
(1) In determining what areas were occupied by Ivesia webberi, we
used polygon data collected by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (BLM
2011, 2012a, unpubl. survey), California Natural Diversity Database
(Schoolcraft 1992, 1998, unpubl. survey; Krumm and Clifton 1996,
unpubl. survey; Steele and
[[Page 32131]]
Roe 1996, unpubl. survey), California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(Sustain Environmental Inc. 2009, p. III-19), Nevada Natural Heritage
Program (Witham 1991, entire; Witham 2000, entire; Morefield 2004,
2005, 2010a, 2010b, unpubl. survey; Picciani 2006, unpubl. survey),
Forest Service (Duron 1990, entire; Howle and Henault 2009, unpubl.
survey; Howle and Chardon 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, unpubl. survey), and
consulting firms (Wood Rogers 2007, Tables 2 and 3, pp. 5-6) to map
specific locations of I. webberi using ArcMap 10.1. These locations
were classified into discrete populations based on mapping standards
devised by NatureServe and its network of Natural Heritage Programs
(NatureServe 2004, entire).
(2) We extended the boundaries of the polygon defining each
population or subpopulation by 1,640 ft (500 m) to provide for
sufficient pollinator habitat. This creates an area that is large
enough to maintain flora diversity that would protect nesting areas of
solitary pollinator species, while creating a large enough patch of
flora diversity to attract social, wide-ranging pollinator species (as
described above under the ``Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or
Rearing (or Development) of Offspring'' section; BLM 2012b, p. 19).
(3) We then removed areas not containing the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of I. webberi within the 1,640-
ft-wide (500-m-wide) area surrounding each population. We used a
habitat model to identify areas lacking physical or biological
features. The habitat model was developed by comparing occupied areas
and the known environmental variables of these areas, such as
elevation, slope, and soil type that we determined to be physical and
biological features for this species. The environmental variables with
the highest predictive ability influenced the habitat the model
identified. Finally, we used ESRI ArcGIS (Geographic Information
Systems) Imagery Basemap satellite imagery to exclude forested areas
within the areas the model selected because this is not the vegetation
type that is a physical and biological feature for I. webberi.
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such
lands lack physical or biological features for Ivesia webberi. The
scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been
excluded by text in the final rule and are not designated as critical
habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands will not
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would
affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical
habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the Regulation Promulgation section. We include more
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2013-0080, on our Internet site at https://www.fws.gov/nevada/, and at
the field office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
We are designating lands that we have determined are the specific
areas within the geographical area presently occupied by the species,
that contain the physical or biological features to support life-
history processes essential for the conservation of Ivesia webberi as
critical habitat.
Sixteen units (two of which contain subunits) are designated based
on the physical or biological features being present to support Ivesia
webberi's life processes. Some units contain all of the physical or
biological features and support multiple life processes. Some segments
contain only some of the physical or biological features necessary to
support Ivesia webberi's particular use of that habitat.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 16 units as critical habitat for Ivesia webberi,
all of which are occupied. The critical habitat areas described below
constitute our best assessment at this time of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat. Those 16 units are: (1) Sierra Valley,
(2) Constantia, (3) East of Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area (HJWA),
Evans Canyon, (4) Hallelujah Junction Wildife Area (WA), (5) subunit
5a-Dog Valley Meadow and subunit 5b-Upper Dog Valley, (6) White Lake
Overlook, (7) subunit 7a-Mules Ear Flat and subunit 7b-Three Pine Flat
and Jeffrey Pine Saddle, (8) Ivesia Flat, (9) Stateline Road 1, (10)
Stateline Road 2, (11) Hungry Valley, (12) Black Springs, (13) Raleigh
Heights, (14) Dutch Louie Flat, (15) The Pines Powerline, and (16)
Dante Mine Road. Table 1 lists the critical habitat units and subunits
and the area of each.
Table 1--Designated Critical Habitat Units for Ivesia webberi.
[Area estimates reflect all land within the critical habitat boundary]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State or
Federally local Privately
Population owned land government owned land Total area
CH unit and subunit (USFWS) Unit or subunit name acres owned land acres acres
(hectares) acres (hectares) (hectares)
(hectares)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................... 1 Sierra Valley............... 51 44 179 274
(21) (18) (73) (111)
2......................................... 2 Constantia.................. 155 .............. .............. 155
(63) (63)
3......................................... 3 East of HJWA, Evans Canyon.. 22 100 .............. 122
(9) (41) (49)
4......................................... 4 Hallelujah Junction WA...... .............. 69 .............. 69
(28) (28)
5:
5a.................................... 5 Dog Valley Meadow........... 386 .............. .............. 386
(156) (156)
[[Page 32132]]
5b........................................ 5 Upper Dog Valley............ 12 .............. 17 29
(5) (7) (12)
6......................................... 6 White Lake Overlook......... 98 .............. 11 109
(40) (4) (44)
7:
7a.................................... 7 Mules Ear Flat.............. 31 .............. 34 65
(13) (14) (27)
7b........................................ 7 Three Pine Flat; Jeffrey 3 .............. 65 68
Pine Saddle. (1) (26) (27)
8......................................... 8 Ivesia Flat................. 62 .............. .............. 62
(25) (25)
9......................................... 9 Stateline Road 1............ 186 .............. 7 193
(75) (3) (78)
10........................................ 10 Stateline Road 2............ 66 .............. .............. 66
(27) (27)
11........................................ 11 Hungry Valley............... 56 .............. .............. 56
(23) (23)
12........................................ 12 Black Springs............... 133 .............. 30 163
(54) (12) (66)
13........................................ 13 Raleigh Heights............. 229 .............. 24 253
(93) (10) (103)
14........................................ 14 Dutch Louie Flat............ 13 .............. 41 54
(5) (17) (22)
15........................................ 15 The Pines Powerline......... .............. .............. 32 32
(13) (13)
16........................................ 16 Dante Mine Road............. 10 .............. 4 14
(4) (2) (6)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. .............. ............................ 1,513 214 444 2,170
(612) (86) (180) (879)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, below.
Unit 1: Sierra Valley
Unit 1 consists of 274 ac (111 ha) of Federal, State, and private
lands. This unit is located near the junction of State Highway 49 and
County Highway A24 in Plumas County, California. Nineteen percent of
this unit is on Federal lands managed by the BLM, 16 percent is on
California State land, and 65 percent is on private lands. This unit is
currently occupied and is the most western occupied unit within the
range of Ivesia webberi. The Sierra Valley Unit is important to the
recovery of I. webberi because it supports 44.8 ac (18.1 ha), or nearly
one-third (27.2 percent), of all habitat (165 ac (66.8 ha)) that is
occupied by I. webberi across the species' range. Threats to I. webberi
in this unit include nonnative, invasive species; wildfire; OHV use;
roads; livestock grazing; and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. While these lands currently have the physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of I. webberi,
because of a lack of cohesive management and protections, special
management will be required to maintain these features in this unit.
These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special
Management Considerations or Protection'' section.
Unit 2: Constantia
Unit 2 consists of 155 ac (63 ha) of Federal land. This unit is
located east of U.S. Highway 395, southeast of the historic town of
Constantia, in Lassen County, California. One hundred percent of this
unit is on Federal lands managed by the BLM. This unit is currently
occupied and is the most northern occupied unit within the range of
Ivesia webberi. The Constantia Unit is important to the recovery of I.
webberi primarily because it represents one of relatively few locations
within the Great Basin where the species is known to exist. Given the
increasing prevalence of both site-specific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and specifically within areas occupied
by I. webberi (Service 2014, entire), this location and most others
where the species occurs confer redundancy within the species'
distribution, thereby buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these threats or other less-
predicable stochastic events. Not a lot is known about the current
condition of I. webberi and its habitat at this site; however, wildfire
and any other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities are
threats to I. webberi in this unit. While these lands currently have
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and protections,
special management will be required to maintain these features in this
unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the
``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section.
[[Page 32133]]
Unit 3: East of Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area (HJWA)-Evans Canyon
Unit 3 consists of 122 ac (49 ha) of Federal and State lands. This
unit is located east of U.S. Highway 395 on the border of HJWA in
Lassen County, California. Eighty-two percent of this unit is on
California State land managed as the HJWA, and 18 percent is on Federal
land managed by the BLM. This unit is currently occupied and is
approximately 1.6 mi (2.6 km) away from Unit 4, which may allow for
social pollinator dispersal between these two units. Additionally, this
is the only place where Ivesia webberi is found as a co-dominant in an
Artemisia tridentata Nutt. (big sagebrush) community instead of an
Artemisia arbuscula (low sagebrush) community. The perennial bunchgrass
and forb components of the Artemisia tridentata community found within
this unit are the same as those occurring in locations where A.
arbuscula is co-dominant with I. webberi. The East of HJWA-Evans Canyon
Unit is important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it
represents one of relatively few locations within the Great Basin where
the species is known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both
site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this
region and specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service
2014, entire), this location and most others where the species occurs
confer redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering
the species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Wildfire and any
other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities are threats
to I. webberi in this unit. While these lands currently have the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of I.
webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and protections,
special management will be required to maintain these features in this
unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the
``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section.
Unit 4: Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area (HJWA)
Unit 4 consists of 69 ac (28 ha) of State lands. This unit is
located west of U.S. Highway 395 within HJWA in Sierra County,
California. One hundred percent of this unit is on California State
land managed as the HJWA. It is currently occupied and is approximately
1.6 mi (2.6 km) away from Unit 3, which may allow for social pollinator
dispersal between these two units. The HJWA Unit is important to the
recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents one of
relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the species is
known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both site-specific
and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 2014,
entire), this location and most others where the species occurs confer
redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering the
species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Wildfire and any
other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities are threats
to I. webberi in this unit. While these lands currently have the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of I.
webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and protections,
special management will be required to maintain these features in this
unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the
``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section.
Unit 5: Subunit 5a-Dog Valley Meadow and Subunit 5b-Upper Dog Valley
Subunit 5a-Dog Valley Meadow
Subunit 5a consists of 386 ac (156 ha) of Federal lands. This
subunit is located east of Long Valley Road in Dog Valley in Sierra
County, California. One hundred percent of this subunit is on Federal
lands managed by the Forest Service. It is currently occupied and is
0.5 mi (0.8 km) away from Subunit 5b, which may allow for social
pollinator dispersal between these two subunits. The Dog Valley Meadow
Subunit is important to the recovery of Ivesia webberi because it
supports 71.58 ac (28.97 ha), or nearly half (43.5 percent), of all
habitat (165 ac (66.8 ha)) that is occupied by I. webberi across the
species' range and 100,000 plants, or approximately 2 to 10 percent
(i.e., dependent on which population estimate range is used for the
calculation) of individuals known to exist across the species' range
(Service 2014, pp. 15-16). Threats to I. webberi in this subunit
include nonnative, invasive plant species; wildfire; OHV and other
recreational use; and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this subunit historically was
grazed, but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2014, p.
16). While these lands currently have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack
of cohesive management and protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in this subunit. These threats
should be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management
Considerations or Protection'' section.
Subunit 5b--Upper Dog Valley
Subunit 5b consists of 29 ac (12 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This subunit is located west of Long Valley Road and south of the Dog
Valley campground in Dog Valley in Sierra County, California. Forty-one
percent of this subunit is on Federal lands managed by the Forest
Service, and 59 percent is on private lands. It is currently occupied
and is 0.5 mi (0.8 km) away from Subunit 5a, which may allow for social
pollinator dispersal between these two subunits. The Upper Dog Valley
Subunit is important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it
represents one of relatively few locations within the Great Basin where
the species is known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both
site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this
region and specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service
2014, entire), this location and most others where the species occurs
confer redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering
the species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I.
webberi in this subunit include nonnative, invasive plant species;
wildfire; OHV use; and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this subunit historically was
grazed, but the grazing allotment is currently vacant (Service 2014, p.
16). While these lands currently have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack
of cohesive management and protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in this subunit. These threats
should be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management
Considerations or Protection'' section.
Unit 6: White Lake Overlook
Unit 6 consists of 109 ac (44 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This unit is located north of Long Valley Road in Sierra County,
California. Ninety percent of this unit is on Federal lands managed by
the Forest Service and 10 percent is on private lands. This unit is
currently occupied and is 1 mi (1.6 km) or less away from Units 7 and
9, which
[[Page 32134]]
may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these units. The
White Lake Overlook Unit is important to the recovery of Ivesia webberi
because it supports 13.56 ac (5.49 ha), or 8.2 percent, of all habitat
(165 ac (66.8 ha)) that is occupied by I. webberi across the species'
range. Threats to I. webberi in this unit include wildfire and any
other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities. While these
lands currently have the physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special management will be required to
maintain these features in this unit. These threats should be addressed
as detailed above in the ``Special Management Considerations or
Protection'' section.
Unit 7: Subunit 7a--Mules Ear Flat and Subunit 7b--Three Pine Flat and
Jeffrey Pine Saddle
Subunit 7a--Mules Ear Flat
Subunit 7a consists of 65 ac (27 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This subunit is located west of the California-Nevada border and
southeast of Long Valley Road in Sierra County, California. Forty-eight
percent of this subunit is on Federal land managed by the Forest
Service, and 52 percent is on private lands. This subunit is currently
occupied and is 1 mi (1.6 km) or less away from Units 6 and 9, which
may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these units. The
Mules Ear Flat Subunit is important to the recovery of I. webberi
primarily because it represents one of relatively few locations within
the Great Basin where the species is known to exist. Given the
increasing prevalence of both site-specific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and specifically within areas occupied
by I. webberi (Service 2014, entire), this location and most others
where the species occurs confer redundancy within the species'
distribution, thereby buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these threats or other less-
predicable stochastic events. Threats to I. webberi in this subunit
include nonnative, invasive plant species; wildfire; OHV use; roads;
and any other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities.
Additionally, this subunit historically was grazed, but the grazing
allotment currently is vacant (Service 2014, p. 17). While these lands
currently have the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management
and protections, special management will be required to maintain these
features in this subunit. These threats should be addressed as detailed
above in the ``Special Management Considerations or Protection''
section.
Subunit 7b--Three Pine Flat and Jeffrey Pine Saddle
Subunit 7b consists of 68 ac (27 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This subunit is located east of the California-Nevada border in Washoe
County, Nevada. Four percent of this subunit is on Federal lands
managed by the Forest Service, and 96 percent is on private lands. It
is currently occupied and is 1 mi (1.6 km) or less away from Units 6,
8, and 9, which may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these
units. The Three Pine Flat and Jeffery Pine Saddle Subunit is important
to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents one of
relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the species is
known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both site-specific
and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 2014,
entire), this location and most others where the species occurs confer
redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering the
species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I.
webberi in this subunit include nonnative, invasive plant species;
wildfire; OHV use; roads; and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this subunit historically was
grazed, but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2014, p.
17). While these lands currently have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack
of cohesive management and protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in this subunit. These threats
should be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management
Considerations or Protection'' section.
Unit 8: Ivesia Flat
Unit 8 consists of 62 ac (25 ha) of Federal land. This unit is
located south of U.S. Highway 395 in Washoe County, NV. One hundred
percent of this unit is on Federal land managed by the Forest Service.
It is currently occupied and is 1 mi (1.6 km) away from Subunit 7b,
which may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these two
units. The Ivesia Flat Unit is important to the recovery of Ivesia
webberi because it supports 100,000 plants (Service 2014, p. 17), or
approximately between 2 and 10 percent (i.e., dependent on which
population estimate range is used for the calculation) of individuals
known to exist across the species' range. Threats to I. webberi in this
unit include nonnative, invasive plant species; wildfire; OHV use;
roads; and any other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing
activities. Additionally, this unit historically was grazed, but the
grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2014, pp. 17-18). While
these lands currently have the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of
cohesive management and protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in this unit. These threats should
be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management
Considerations or Protection'' section.
Unit 9: Stateline Road 1
Unit 9 consists of 193 ac (78 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This unit is located along the California-Nevada border in Sierra
County, California, and Washoe County, Nevada. Ninety-six percent of
this unit is on Federal land managed by the Forest Service, and 4
percent is on private lands. It is currently occupied and is 1 mi (1.6
km) or less away from Units 6, 7, and 10, which may allow for social
pollinator dispersal between these units. The Stateline Road 1 Unit is
important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents
one of relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the
species is known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both
site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this
region and specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service
2014, entire), this location and most others where the species occurs
confer redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering
the species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I.
webberi in this unit include nonnative, invasive plant species;
wildfire; development; and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this unit historically was grazed,
but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2014, p. 18).
While these lands currently have the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of
cohesive management and protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in this unit.
[[Page 32135]]
These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special
Management Considerations or Protection'' section.
Unit 10: Stateline Road 2
Unit 10 consists of 66 ac (27 ha) of Federal land. This unit is
located along the California-Nevada border in Sierra County,
California, and Washoe County, Nevada. One hundred percent of this unit
is on Federal land managed by the Forest Service. It is currently
occupied and is less than 1 mi (1.6 km) away from Unit 9, which may
allow for social pollinator dispersal between these units. The
Stateline Road 2 Unit is important to the recovery of I. webberi
primarily because it represents one of relatively few locations within
the Great Basin where the species is known to exist. Given the
increasing prevalence of both site-specific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and specifically within areas occupied
by I. webberi (Service 2014, entire), this location and most others
where the species occurs confer redundancy within the species'
distribution, thereby buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these threats or other less-
predicable stochastic events. Threats to I. webberi in this unit
include nonnative, invasive plant species; wildfire; development; and
any other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities.
Additionally, this unit historically was grazed, but the grazing
allotment currently is vacant (Service 2014, p. 18). While these lands
currently have the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management
and protections, special management will be required to maintain these
features in this unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed
above in the ``Special Management Considerations or Protection''
section.
Unit 11: Hungry Valley
Unit 11 consists of 56 ac (23 ha) of Federal land. This unit is
located west of Eagle Canyon Drive in Washoe County, Nevada. One
hundred percent of this unit is on Federal land managed by the BLM. It
is currently occupied and is the eastern most occupied unit within the
range of Ivesia webberi. The Hungry Valley Unit is important to the
recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents one of
relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the species is
known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both site-specific
and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 2014,
entire), this location and most others where the species occurs confer
redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering the
species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I.
webberi in this unit include nonnative, invasive plant species;
wildfire; OHV use and other recreational use; roads; livestock grazing;
and any other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities.
While these lands currently have the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of
cohesive management and protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in this unit. These threats should
be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management
Considerations or Protection'' section.
Unit 12: Black Springs
Unit 12 consists of 163 ac (66 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This unit is located northwest of North Virginia Street and south of
U.S. Highway 395 in Washoe County, Nevada. Eighty-two percent of this
unit is on Federal land managed by the Forest Service, and 18 percent
is on private lands. It is currently occupied and is approximately 1 mi
(1.6 km) away from Unit 13, which may allow for social pollinator
dispersal between these units. The Black Springs Unit is important to
the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents one of
relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the species is
known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both site-specific
and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 2014,
entire), this location and most others where the species occurs confer
redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering the
species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I.
webberi in this unit include nonnative, invasive plant species;
wildfire; OHV use; roads; and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this unit historically was grazed,
but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2014, p. 19).
While these lands currently have the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of
cohesive management and protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in this unit. These threats should
be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management
Considerations or Protection'' section.
Unit 13: Raleigh Heights
Unit 13 consists of 253 ac (103 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This unit is located northwest of North Virginia Street and south of
U.S. Highway 395 in Washoe County, Nevada. Ninety-one percent of this
unit is on Federal land managed by the Forest Service, and 9 percent is
on private lands. It is currently occupied and is approximately 1 mi
(1.6 km) away from Unit 12, which may allow for social pollinator
dispersal between these units. The Raleigh Heights Unit is important to
the recovery of Ivesia webberi because it supports between 100,000 to
4,000,000 plants (Service 2014, p. 19), or approximately 10 to 79.5
percent (i.e., dependent on which population estimate range is used for
the calculation) of individuals known to exist across the species'
range. Threats to I. webberi in this unit include nonnative, invasive
plant species; wildfire; OHV use; roads; and any other forms of
vegetation or ground-disturbing activities. While these lands currently
have the physical and biological features essential to the conservation
of I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and
protections, special management will be required to maintain these
features in this unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed
above in the ``Special Management Considerations or Protection''
section.
Unit 14: Dutch Louie Flat
Unit 14 consists of 54 ac (22 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This unit is located southwest of South McCarran Boulevard in Washoe
County, Nevada. Twenty-four percent of this unit is on Federal lands
managed by the Forest Service, and 76 percent is on private lands. It
is currently occupied and is approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) away from
Unit 15, which may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these
units. The Dutch Louie Flat Unit is important to the recovery of Ivesia
webberi because it supports between 600,000 to 693,795 plants (Service
2014, pp. 19-20), or approximately 14 to 61 percent (i.e., dependent on
which population estimate range is used for the calculation) of
individuals known to exist across the species' range. Threats to I.
webberi in this unit include nonnative, invasive plant species;
wildfire; OHV and other recreational use; roads; development; and any
other
[[Page 32136]]
forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities. While these lands
currently have the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management
and protections, special management will be required to maintain these
features in this unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed
above in the ``Special Management Considerations or Protection''
section.
Unit 15: The Pines Powerline
Unit 15 consists of 32 ac (13 ha) of private lands. This unit is
located southwest of South McCarran Boulevard in Washoe County, Nevada.
One hundred percent of this unit is on private lands. It is currently
occupied and is approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) away from Unit 14, which
may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these two units. The
Pines Powerline Unit is important to the recovery of I. webberi
primarily because it represents one of relatively few locations within
the Great Basin where the species is known to exist. Given the
increasing prevalence of both site-specific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and specifically within areas occupied
by I. webberi (Service 2014, entire), this location and most others
where the species occurs confer redundancy within the species'
distribution, thereby buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these threats or other less-
predicable stochastic events. Threats to I. webberi in this unit
include nonnative, invasive plant species; wildfire; OHV and other
recreational use; roads; development; and any other forms of vegetation
or ground-disturbing activities. While these lands currently have the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of I.
webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and protections,
special management will be required to maintain these features in this
unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the
``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section.
Unit 16: Dante Mine Road
Unit 16 consists of 14 ac (6 ha) of Federal and private lands. This
unit is located east of U.S. Highway 395 in Douglas County, Nevada.
Seventy-three percent of this unit is on Federal land managed by the
BLM, and 27 percent is on private lands. It is currently occupied and
is the southernmost unit within the range of Ivesia webberi. The Dante
Mine Road Unit is important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily
because it represents one of relatively few locations within the Great
Basin where the species is known to exist. Given the increasing
prevalence of both site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating
throughout this region and specifically within areas occupied by I.
webberi (Service 2014, entire), this location and most others where the
species occurs confer redundancy within the species' distribution,
thereby buffering the species against the risk of extirpation likely to
result from these threats or other less-predicable stochastic events.
Threats to I. webberi in this unit include nonnative, invasive plant
species; wildfire; roads; development; and any other forms of
vegetation or ground-disturbing activities. While these lands currently
have the physical and biological features essential to the conservation
of I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and
protections, special management will be required to maintain these
features in this unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed
above in the ``Special Management Considerations or Protection''
section.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 434 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the provisions of the Act, we determine
destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, with
implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the
species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or
[[Page 32137]]
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 we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi. As discussed
above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-history needs of
the species and provide for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for Ivesia webberi. These activities include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions that would lead to the destruction or alteration of
plants, their seedbank, or their habitat; or actions that destroy or
result in continual or excessive disturbance of the clay soils where
Ivesia webberi is found. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to: Activities associated with road construction and
maintenance; excessive OHV use; activities associated with commercial
and residential development, including roads and associated
infrastructure; utility corridors or infrastructure; and excessive
livestock grazing. These activities could lead to the loss of
individuals; reduce plant numbers by prohibiting recruitment; remove
the seedbank; fragment the habitat; introduce nonnative, invasive
species; and alter the soil such that important shrink and swell
processes no longer occur.
(2) Actions that would result in the loss of pollinators or their
habitat, such that reproduction could be diminished. Such activities
could include, but are not limited to: Destroying ground nesting
habitat; habitat fragmentation that prohibits pollinator movement from
one area to the next; spraying pesticides that would kill pollinators;
and eliminating other plant species on which pollinators are reliant
for floral resources (this could include the replacement of native forb
species with nonnative, invasive annual grasses, which do not provide
floral resources for pollinators). These activities could result in
reduced reproduction, fruit production, and recruitment in Ivesia
webberi.
(3) Actions that would result in excessive plant competition at
Ivesia webberi populations. These activities could include, but are not
limited to, using highly competitive species in restoration efforts or
creating disturbances that allow establishment of nonnative, invasive
species such as Bromus tectorum, Poa bulbosa, and Taeniatherum caput-
medusae. These activities could cause I. webberi to be outcompeted and
subsequently either lost or reduced in numbers of individuals.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat
any lands or other geographic areas owned or controlled by the
Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to
an integrated natural resources management plan [INRMP] prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.'' There are no
Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP within this final
critical habitat designation.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if she determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we prepared a draft economic analysis (DEA)
of the proposed critical habitat designation and related factors
(composed of three documents, i.e., Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc)
2013; IEc 2014; and Service 2013). The DEA was made available for
public review from February 13, 2014, through March 17, 2014 (79 FR
8668); no new information was received during that comment period.
Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed and evaluated
all information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to
our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this
critical habitat designation. We took into consideration one public
comment we received and the revision to the proposed critical habitat
designation as outlined in the February 13, 2014, publication (79 FR
8668). Although we conducted a review of the revisions to the Ivesia
webberi proposed critical habitat (as announced on February 13, 2014,
at 79 FR 8668), we do not anticipate that those revisions to proposed
critical habitat changed the findings as outlined in our DEA (Lee 2014,
pers. comm.). A summary of our complete evaluation is presented below.
Our economic analysis quantifies economic impacts of Ivesia webberi
conservation efforts associated with the following categories of
activity: (1) Federal lands management (Forest Service and BLM); (2)
commercial or residential development; (3) livestock grazing; (4) OHV
and other recreational activities; (5) wildfire; (6) vegetation
management, including fuels reduction activities and management for
invasive
[[Page 32138]]
species; and (7) vegetation or ground-disturbing activities associated
with construction, maintenance or use of roads, trails, transmission
lines, or other infrastructure corridors (Service 2013, pp. 3-10). We
considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, we
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
We determined that the section 7-related costs of designating
critical habitat for Ivesia webberi are likely to be limited to the
additional administrative effort required to consider adverse
modification in a small number of consultations. This finding is based
on:
(1) All units are considered occupied, providing baseline
protection resulting from the listing of the species as threatened
under the Act.
(2) Activities occurring within designated critical habitat with a
potential to affect the species' habitat are also likely to adversely
affect the species, either directly or indirectly.
(3) Project modifications requested to avoid adverse modification
are likely to be the same as those needed to avoid jeopardy in occupied
habitat.
(4) Federal agencies operating in critical habitat areas are
already aware of the presence of Ivesia webberi and also are
experienced with consulting with us under section 7 of the Act on other
federally listed species.
Thus, in the baseline, they are likely to consult even in buffer
areas surrounding the species included in the designation to ensure
protection of pollinator habitat.
The incremental administrative burden resulting from the
designation is unlikely to reach $100 million in a given year based on
the small number of anticipated consultations (i.e., less than two
consultations per year) and per-consultation costs. Furthermore, it is
unlikely that the designation of critical habitat will trigger
additional requirements under State or local regulations. Costs
resulting from public perception of the effect of critical habitat, if
they occur, are unlikely to reach $100 million in a given year, based
on the small number of acres possibly affected and average land values
in the vicinity of those acres.
Also as announced in our February 13, 2014, publication (79 FR
8668), we added 16 ac (6 ha) of private lands to the proposed critical
habitat designation within Unit 12 (Black Springs) and Unit 13 (Raleigh
Heights). In our DEA, we considered the potential for public perception
effects that may result from the designation on four units located
close to the Reno/Sparks metropolitan area, which included Units 12 and
13. Assuming that the additional private lands are also potentially
developable, this increased the total number of acres that may be
subject to development pressure in the foreseeable future to 125 ac (51
ha), as compared to the 114 ac (46 ha) presented in our DEA. We do not
anticipate this revised amount of private, potentially developable land
changes the conclusions presented in IEc (2014) (pp. 8-11).
As a result of this reevaluation (Lee 2014, pers. comm.) of the
information analyzed in our DEA (IEc 2013; IEc 2014; Service 2013), we
reaffirm that we did not identify any disproportionate costs that are
likely to result from the designation. Consequently, the Secretary is
not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this
designation of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi based on economic
impacts.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts or Homeland Security
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist. In preparing this final rule, we have
determined that no lands within the designation of critical habitat for
Ivesia webberi are owned or managed by the Department of Defense or
Department of Homeland Security, and, therefore, we anticipate no
impact on national security or homeland security. Consequently, the
Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from
this final designation based on impacts on national security or
homeland security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we also consider any other
relevant impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat. We
consider a number of factors, including whether the landowners have
developed any HCPs or other management plans for the area, or whether
there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by
designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we
look at any tribal issues and consider the government-to-government
relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We also
consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are
currently no permitted HCPs or other management plans for Ivesia
webberi, and the final designation does not include any tribal lands or
tribal trust resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands,
partnerships, or HCPs from this critical habitat designation.
Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude
any areas from this final designation based on other relevant impacts.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi during two comment
periods. The first comment period associated with the publication of
the proposed rule (78 FR 46862) opened on August 2, 2013, and closed on
October 1, 2013. We also requested comments on the proposed critical
habitat designation and associated draft economic analysis during a
comment period that opened February 13, 2014, and closed on March 17,
2014 (79 FR 8668). We did not receive any requests for a public
hearing. We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and
invited them to comment on the proposed rule and draft economic
analysis during these comment periods.
During the first comment period, we received 10 comment letters
directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. During
the second comment period, we received four comment letters addressing
the proposed critical habitat designation or the draft economic
analysis. All substantive information provided during comment periods
has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or
is addressed below. Comments we received are addressed in the following
summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from three knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and
conservation biology principles. We did not receive any responses from
the peer reviewers.
Comments From States
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for [her] failure to adopt
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' We did
not receive any comments from the States of California or Nevada.
[[Page 32139]]
Comments From Federal Agencies
(1) Comment: The Forest Service recommends simplifying the
boundaries of the critical habitat polygons to reduce the number of
irregularly shaped lobes and aligning the boundaries with discernible
features such as ridgelines, roads, topographic contours, and
vegetation communities. They state that aligning the boundaries in this
manner would be consistent with species conservation to provide more
uncomplicated management under the Act. The Forest Service identified
Units 12, 13, and 14 as highest priority for adjustment.
Our Response: We agree with this comment, and have simplified the
boundaries of these critical habitat units accordingly. Additionally,
per 2013 survey information provided to us from the Forest Service, we
have expanded the boundary of Unit 9 to include newly discovered,
occupied Ivesia webberi habitat (C. Schnurrenberger, unpubl. survey
2013).
(2) Comment: The Forest Service recommends that the final critical
habitat rule identify Ivesia webberi populations that would be
particularly vulnerable to stochastic events. The Forest Service
recommends indicating such populations occur in Units 6, 7 (Subunits 7a
and 7b), 9, 10, and 12, which occur on Forest Service lands.
Our Response: Plant species (such as Ivesia webberi) that have a
restricted range, specialized habitat requirements, and limited
recruitment and dispersal have a higher risk of extinction due to
demographic uncertainty and random environmental events (Shaffer 1987,
pp. 69-75; Lande 1993, pp. 911-927; Hawkins et al. 2008, pp. 41-42). We
regard all populations of I. webberi to be vulnerable to stochastic
events because they are generally small, relatively isolated, and (in
many cases) subject to one or more threats (Service 2014, pp. 31-33).
(3) Comment: The Forest Service recommends we consider the possible
relevance of historical and potential habitats for the full recovery of
Ivesia webberi.
Our Response: We agree with this comment; these factors will
receive full consideration during recovery planning and implementation.
Public Comments
(4) Comment: One commenter recognized that the law requires the
Service to designate critical habitat for listed species, but expressed
the view that proposing critical habitat concurrent with listing was
``pre-decisional'' and ``counterintuitive.''
Our Response: When prudent and determinable, the Act requires the
Service to designate any habitat considered to be critical habitat
concurrently with making a determination that a species is an
endangered or threatened species. The Act's section 4(a)(3)(A)(i)
states that the Secretary ``shall, concurrently with making a
determination . . . that a species is an endangered species or a
threatened species, designate any habitat of such species which is then
considered to be critical habitat.''
(5) Comment: One commenter stated that it was a contradiction to
state that critical habitat (as discussed under the Background section
of the proposed rule) does not affect land ownership (or establish a
similar type of refuge or conserved area) and then indicate (under the
Special Management Considerations or Protection section of the proposed
rule) that special management would be required to conserve the
species' habitat. This commenter asked why the identification of
special management considerations does not, in effect, create a
conservation area.
Our Response: Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat, in
part, as those specific areas that ``may require special management
considerations or protection.'' The identification of special
management considerations, however, does not affect land ownership or
establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. As stated in the proposed rule, the designation of
critical habitat, and specifically the identification of management
that may be required to maintain physical and biological features for a
given a species, does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal
government entities or private parties. The designation does not
require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement
measures by non-Federal landowners, nor is any conserved or preserved
area created. Under section 7 of the Act, the only regulatory effect is
that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. While non-Federal entities that
receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise
require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action,
may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests with the Federal agency.
(6) Comment: Multiple commenters asked how the critical habitat
designation would affect private property and private property owners.
One commenter specifically asked whether special management
considerations were required to be implemented by private property
owners.
Our Response: As stated in the proposed rule, the designation of
critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal
government entities or private parties, or require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal
landowners. See additional discussion above in our response to Comment
(5).
(7) Comment: One commenter asked whether critical habitat
designation represents a taking of private property.
Our Response: We analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for Ivesia webberi and concluded that this
final designation will not have significant takings implications (see
Takings--Executive Order 12630 under the Required Determinations
section). A person wishing to develop private land that has been
designated as critical habitat, in accordance with State law, and with
no Federal jurisdiction involved does not violate the Act. Critical
habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through
requiring Federal agencies to consult with us to ensure that action
they carry out, fund, or authorize does not result in the destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat. If there is no Federal
nexus, the critical habitat designation of private lands itself does
not restrict any private activities. See also response to Comment 14.
(8) Comment: One commenter asked if property owners have been
notified.
Our Response: The Act does not require us to notify individual
property owners affected by a proposed listing or critical habitat
designation. However, we conducted extensive outreach in accordance
with 50 CFR 424.16, including giving notice of the proposed regulation
to the public, Federal agencies, and State agencies; publishing a
summary of the proposed regulation in the Reno Gazette Journal; and
holding a public informational meeting.
(9) Comment: Several comments were received related to road
closures and anticipated impacts upon recreational activities,
particularly the use of OHVs (including 4-wheel drive vehicles). One
commenter asked how road closures would protect Ivesia webberi. Another
commenter stated that OHVs are used as their primary mode of
transportation, and recommended that this be taken into consideration
when roads or trails are considered for closure. One
[[Page 32140]]
commenter asked how the species would be protected or affected if
hiking is still allowed.
Our Response: Final rules designating critical habitat do not
automatically eliminate or place restrictions on any recreational
activities, such as hiking or OHV use, within critical habitat. A
critical habitat designation does not establish any closures of roads
or trails. Rather, once critical habitat is designated on Federal
lands, it becomes the responsibility of the Federal agency with
jurisdiction over those lands included in the designation to review the
various kinds of recreational activities allowed on its lands to
determine in consultation with the Service if these activities may
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. The decision to close or restrict recreational
activities (OHV, hiking, or other) to potentially protect or reduce
impacts to a listed species or its critical habitat is made by that
Federal agency.
With regard to the question of how road closures would protect
Ivesia webberi, we first reiterate that critical habitat designation
does not establish road closures. However, road closures represent a
means of addressing and reducing the patterns of disturbance to I.
webberi habitat that are associated with road corridors subject to
heavy use. Road corridors experiencing heavy use, and particularly
those roads that serve to provide access (via off-road travel) into
habitats occupied by I. webberi, are likely to eliminate conditions
required by the species for persistence and reproduction. As noted in
the Physical or Biological Features section above, moderate to heavy
soil disturbances such as OHV use, road corridors, residential or
commercial development, and livestock grazing can impact the species
and its seedbank through habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation
due to soil compaction and altered soil hydrology (Witham 2000,
Appendix 1, p. 1; Bergstrom 2009, pp. 25-26). For more information,
please see ``Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements'' under the Physical or Biological Features
section, above).
(10) Comment: One commenter requested that any location within the
proposed critical habitat designation that has an adopted route travel
management system be excluded from the final critical habitat
designation, with a 50-ft (15-m) from centerline corridor established
to allow space for parking.
Our Response: Travel or route planning documents, and any
accompanying evaluations of the legal status of existing or potential
travel routes, are planning and management actions within the
jurisdiction of land management agencies. Critical habitat designations
do not establish any planning documents or management plans; rather,
the designation of critical habitat identifies those physical and
biological features that may be essential to the conservation of a
species and may require special management considerations and
protections, and the land area on which those features are found. To
the extent that certain areas within our critical habitat designation
contain roads and other manmade structures (e.g., fences, houses, paved
areas, and other structures), these features are not included within
the critical habitat designation because they do not contain the
primary constituent elements and because they do not meet the
definition of critical habitat under the Act.
(11) Comment: One commenter stated that, in 2006, a 4-wheel drive
club successfully blockaded about 1,000 linear ft (305 m) on the west
edge of Dutch Louie Flat meadow with used utility poles to prevent
vehicles and people from going into the meadow. This commenter then
states that if Service, Forest Service, and Nevada Department of
Wildlife employees have been walking through the Dutch Louie Flat
meadow, they have been trampling the plant.
Our Response: We are aware of this action having been undertaken in
``Dutch Louie Flat meadow''; however, this area (the meadow) is not
located within our critical habitat designation and does not contain
Ivesia webberi. Unit 14 (Dutch Louie Flat, as described under the Final
Critical Habitat Designation section, above) is located approximately
1.4 mi (2.3 km) northwest of the ``Dutch Louie Flat meadow'' where the
4-wheel drive club conducted their activities.
(12) Comment: Two commenters made specific reference to the old
road between Hoge Road and North Virginia Street (in apparent reference
to Unit 13 of the critical habitat designation), and stated that Ivesia
webberi does not grow on this road, is 40 or 50 yards (37 or 46 m) or
more away from the road, and is in very limited places, and the road is
not composed of suitable soils.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary
shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of
the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. While we
cannot be certain from the comment which road is being referenced here,
we are aware that Unit 13 contains many roads that receive varied
levels of use. The best available information indicates that Ivesia
webberi grows sporadically within some of the road corridors in Unit
13, and along the shoulders of other road corridors within this unit
(S. Kulpa, J. Johnson, E. Bergstrom, and K. O'Conner, unpublished field
notes 2013). The presence of the species within or along these road
corridors indicates that the physical or biological features, and thus
the primary constituent elements required by the species are still
currently present in these areas. Along most road corridors within this
species' range, and within our critical habitat designation, frequent
(historical or current) OHV use most often results in a well-
established corridor in which vegetation is absent and soils have been
compacted to a degree that discourages or precludes the re-
establishment of vegetation (including I. webberi).
(13) Comment: A commenter asked if any scientific studies have been
conducted that indicate if livestock use within the critical habitat
areas has an adverse effect on Ivesia webberi. The commenter believes
the presence of the species within grazed areas should serve as an
indication that livestock have not adversely affected the plant.
Our Response: We are not aware of studies specifically examining
the effects of livestock grazing upon Ivesia webberi. However, as noted
elsewhere in the proposed critical habitat designation and this final
rule, moderate to heavy soil disturbances such as OHV use, road
corridors, residential or commercial development, and livestock grazing
can impact the species and its seedbank through habitat loss,
fragmentation, and degradation due to soil compaction and altered soil
hydrology (Witham 2000, Appendix 1, p. 1; Bergstrom 2009, pp. 25-26).
We have specifically identified vernally moist soils with an argillic
horizon that shrink and swell upon wetting and drying as a physical and
biological feature essential for the conservation of I. webberi.
Excessive or inadequately managed livestock grazing has the potential
to eliminate these conditions that are required by the species for
persistence and reproduction. See the Summary of Biological Status and
Threats section of the proposed listing rule (78 FR 46889; August 2,
2013) and the Species Report (Service 2014, pp. 29-30) for additional
discussion on the potential effects of grazing to I. webberi habitat.
[[Page 32141]]
(14) Comment: One commenter stated that a portion of the private
lands within Unit 1 has historically been used for livestock grazing,
and asked who would determine whether special management considerations
or protection would be required in this area, and how that special
management or protections would be enforced.
Our Response: The designation of critical habitat does not impose a
legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private
parties. Under section 7 of the Act, the only regulatory effect is that
Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. While non-Federal entities that
receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise
require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action
(i.e., a Federal nexus exists), may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests with the
Federal agency. Therefore, there is no requirement or enforcement of
special management considerations or protections on the private lands
within Unit 1 or any other private lands (without a Federal nexus)
within the critical habitat designation for Ivesia webberi.
(15) Comment: One commenter advocated for public education to users
of motorized recreational vehicles.
Our Response: We agree that public education is a vital component
of any conservation program and will promote outreach for Ivesia
webberi and its critical habitat through avenues such as (but not
limited to) our continued coordination with partners and future
recovery planning efforts.
(16) Comment: One commenter recommended that we consider geothermal
energy sources as a threat to Unit 16 because it occurs near an active
exploration area that is on Forest Service land. The commenter believe
that exploitation of geothermal energy resources in this area could
have impacts on hydrological processes in Unit 16.
Our Response: Per our coordination with the Forest Service, we are
not aware of any geothermal energy projects within the vicinity of Unit
16.
Comments Related to the Draft Economic Analysis (DEA)
(17) Comment: One commenter stated that the DEA did not assess the
economic benefits that may result from the designation of 114 ac (46
ha) of private, vacant lands as critical habitat in the Reno/Sparks
metropolitan area. In particular, the commenter suggested that critical
habitat designation may increase the likelihood that these areas remain
in an open and undeveloped condition. Further, this commenter noted
that a significant body of literature suggests that proximity to
conserved, open space generates economic benefits to surrounding
landowners and communities through improvements in water management,
increases in revenues from recreational activities, increases in
revenues to local municipalities, and increases in housing prices.
Our Response: The primary goal of critical habitat designation for
Ivesia webberi is to promote the conservation of the species. Critical
habitat designation may also generate ancillary benefits, which are
defined as favorable impacts of a rulemaking that are typically
unrelated, or secondary, to the statutory purpose of the rulemaking
(Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 2003). Critical habitat aids in
the conservation of species specifically by protecting the physical or
biological features on which the species depends. To this end,
management actions undertaken to conserve a species or habitat may have
coincident, positive social welfare implications, such as increased
recreational opportunities in a region or improved property values on
nearby parcels.
As described in our DEA (IEc 2014, p. 2), incremental changes in
land management as a result of the designation of critical habitat are
unlikely. This finding is based primarily on the fact that all areas
designated as critical habitat are considered occupied by the species
and therefore receive baseline protection from the listing of the
species under the Act. Thus, in this instance, critical habitat
designation will likely add a slight incremental conservation benefit
to that already provided by baseline conservation efforts (e.g.,
efforts resulting from the listing of the species as threatened under
the Act). For the same reason, it follows that the critical habitat
designation will likely add slight incremental ancillary benefits above
those provided in the baseline.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order
12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system
to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best,
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory
ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible,
and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563
emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available
science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public
participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this
rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual
[[Page 32142]]
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we considered the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation
as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself, and therefore, not required to evaluate the
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried by the Agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only Federal action
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal
action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. There
is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that this final
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and
evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may
pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic
impacts of this critical habitat designation. Based on this
information, we affirm our certification that this final critical
habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this
Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a
significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory
action under consideration.
Based on information in the economic analysis, energy-related
impacts associated with Ivesia webberi conservation activities within
critical habitat are not expected. As such, the designation of critical
habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
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.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it would 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. Our economic analysis concludes that the economic costs of
implementing the rule through section 7 of the Act will most likely be
limited to the additional administrative effort required to consider
adverse modification. This finding is based on the following factors:
(a) All units are considered occupied, providing baseline
protection;
(b) Activities occurring within designated critical habitat with a
potential to affect critical habitat are also likely to adversely
affect the species, either directly or indirectly;
(c) In occupied habitat, project modifications requested to avoid
adverse modification are likely to be the same as those needed to avoid
jeopardy; and
(d) Federal agencies operating in designated critical habitat areas
are already aware of the presence of the species and are also
experienced consulting with the Service under section 7 of the Act on
other federally listed species. Thus, they are likely to consult even
in buffer areas applied to occupied habitat, included in the
designation to ensure the protection of pollinator habitat.
[[Page 32143]]
Consequently, we do not believe that the critical habitat
designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government
entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for Ivesia webberi in a takings
implications assessment. As discussed above, the designation of
critical habitat affects only Federal actions. Although private parties
that receive Federal funding, assistance, or require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Our DEA found (and our FEA
reaffirms) that no significant economic impacts are likely to result
from the designation of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi. Because
the Act's critical habitat protection requirements apply only to
Federal agency actions, few conflicts between critical habitat and
private property rights should result from this designation. Based on
information contained in the DEA and described within this document, it
is not likely that economic impacts to a property owner would be of a
sufficient magnitude to support a takings action. Therefore, the
takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of
critical habitat for I. webberi does not pose significant takings
implications.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement
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 designation with,
appropriate State resource agencies in California and Nevada. We did
not receive comments from California or Nevada in response to our
request for information on the proposed rule. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have
substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the
species are more clearly defined, and the physical and biological
features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species
are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist
these local governments in long-range planning (because these local
governments no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the
species, the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of Ivesia webberi. The
designated areas of critical habitat are presented on maps, and the
rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more
detailed location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. We determined that there are no tribal
lands occupied by Ivesia webberi at the time of listing that contain
the physical or biological features essential to conservation of the
species, and no tribal lands unoccupied by I. webberi that are
essential for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not
designating critical habitat for I. webberi on tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Nevada
Fish and Wildlife
[[Page 32144]]
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rulemaking are the staff members of the
Pacific Southwest Regional Office and Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for Ivesia
webberi (Webber's ivesia), in alphabetical order under Family Rosaceae,
to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Rosaceae: Ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Plumas, Lassen, and
Sierra Counties, California, and Washoe and Douglas Counties, Nevada,
on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Ivesia
webberi consist of four components:
(i) Plant community.
(A) Open to sparsely vegetated areas composed of generally short-
statured associated plant species.
(B) Presence of appropriate associated species that can include
(but are not limited to): Antennaria dimorpha, Artemisia arbuscula,
Balsamorhiza hookeri, Elymus elymoides, Erigeron bloomeri, Lewisia
rediviva, Poa secunda, and Viola beckwithii.
(C) An intact assemblage of appropriate associated species to
attract the floral visitors that may be acting as pollinators of Ivesia
webberi.
(ii) Topography. Flats, benches, or terraces that are generally
above or adjacent to large valleys. Occupied sites vary from slightly
concave to slightly convex or gently sloped (0-15[deg]) and occur on
all aspects.
(iii) Elevation. Elevations between 4,475 and 6,237 feet (1,364 and
1,901 meters).
(iv) Suitable soils and hydrology.
(A) Vernally moist soils with an argillic horizon that shrink and
swell upon drying and wetting; these soil conditions are characteristic
of known Ivesia webberi populations and are likely important in the
maintenance of the seedbank and population recruitment.
(B) Suitable soils that can include (but are not limited to):
Reno--a fine, smectitic, mesic Abruptic Xeric Argidurid; Xman--a
clayey, smectitic, mesic, shallow Xeric Haplargids; Aldi--a clayey,
smectitic, frigid Lithic Ultic Argixerolls; and Barshaad--a fine,
smectitic, mesic Aridic Palexeroll.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
July 3, 2014.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created on the base of both satellite imagery (ESRI ArcGIS Imagery
Basemap) as well as USGS geospatial quadrangle maps and were mapped
using NAD 83 Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), zone 11N coordinates.
The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory
text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are
available to the public at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080, and at the field office responsible for this
designation (i.e., Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (https://www.fws.gov/nevada/)). You may obtain field office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
[[Page 32145]]
(5) Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN14.000
[[Page 32146]]
(6) Unit 1: Sierra Valley, Plumas County, California.
(i) Unit 1 includes 274 ac (111 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN14.001
[[Page 32147]]
(7) Unit 2: Constantia, Lassen County, California.
(i) Unit 2 includes 155 ac (63 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN14.002
[[Page 32148]]
(8) Unit 3: East of Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area, Evans
Canyon; Lassen County, California.
(i) Unit 3 includes 122 ac (49 ha).
(ii) Map of Units 3 and 4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN14.003
[[Page 32149]]
(9) Unit 4: Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area, Sierra County,
California.
(i) Unit 4 includes 69 ac (28 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 4 is provided at paragraph (8)(ii) of this entry.
(10) Unit 5: Subunit 5a, Dog Valley Meadow, and Subunit 5b, Upper
Dog Valley; Sierra County, California.
(i) Subunit 5a includes 386 ac (156 ha), and subunit 5b includes 29
ac (12 ha). Combined, Unit 5 includes 415 ac (168 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 5 (Subunits 5a and 5b) follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN14.004
[[Page 32150]]
(11) Unit 6: White Lake Overlook, Sierra County, California.
(i) Unit 6 includes 109 ac (44 ha).
(ii) Map of Units 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN14.005
[[Page 32151]]
(12) Unit 7: Subunit 7a, Mules Ear Flat, Sierra County, California;
Subunit 7b, Three Pine Flat and Jeffery Pine Saddle, Washoe County,
Nevada.
(i) Subunit 7a includes 65 ac (27 ha), and subunit 7b includes 68
ac (27 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 7 is provided at paragraph (11)(ii) of this entry.
(13) Unit 8: Ivesia Flat, Washoe County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 8 includes 62 ac (25 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 8 is provided at paragraph (11)(ii) of this entry.
(14) Unit 9: Stateline Road 1, Sierra County, California, and
Washoe County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 9 includes 193 ac (78 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 9 is provided at paragraph (11)(ii) of this entry.
(15) Unit 10: Stateline Road 2, Sierra County, California, and
Washoe County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 10 includes 66 ac (27 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 10 is provided at paragraph (11)(ii) of this
entry.
(16) Unit 11: Hungry Valley, Washoe County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 11 includes 56 ac (23 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN14.006
[[Page 32152]]
(17) Unit 12: Black Springs, Washoe County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 12 includes 163 ac (66 ha).
(ii) Map of Units 12 and 13 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN14.007
[[Page 32153]]
(18) Unit 13: Raleigh Heights, Washoe County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 13 includes 253 ac (103 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 13 is provided at paragraph (17)(ii) of this
entry.
(19) Unit 14: Dutch Louie Flat, Washoe County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 14 includes 54 ac (22 ha).
(ii) Map of Units 14 and 15 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN14.008
[[Page 32154]]
(20) Unit 15: The Pines Powerline, Washoe County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 15 includes 32 ac (13 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 15 is provided at paragraph (19)(ii) of this
entry.
(21) Unit 16: Dante Mine Road, Douglas County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 16 includes 14 ac (6 ha).
(ii) Map of Unit 16 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JN14.009
[[Page 32155]]
* * * * *
Dated: May 21, 2014.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2014-12629 Filed 6-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
