2001 Federal Register, 4783; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

[Federal Register: January 18, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 12)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4783-4794]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18ja01-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AH05

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for Sidalcea oregana var. calva
(Wenatchee Mountains checker-mallow)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for Sidalcea oregana var. calva (Wenatchee
Mountains checker-mallow), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). An estimated maximum of 2,486 hectares (6,137
acres) lies within the boundary of the proposed critical habitat
designation, located in Chelan County, Washington. If this proposal is
made final, section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to insure
that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out does not result in
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 4
of the Act requires us to consider economic and other impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We solicit data and
comments from the public on all aspects of this proposal, including
data on the economic and other impacts of the designation. We may
revise this proposal to incorporate or address new information received
during the comment period.

DATES: We will accept comments until March 19, 2001. Public hearing
requests must be received by March 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comment Submission: If you wish to comment, you may submit
your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of
several methods:
You may submit written comments and information to Gerry Jackson,
Manager, Western Washington Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 510
Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington, 98503-1263.
You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
checkermallow@fws.gov. See the Public Comments Solicited section below
for file format and other information about electronic filing.
You may hand-deliver comments to our Western Washington Office at
the address given above.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be
available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours
at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Thomas, Ecologist, Endangered
Species Branch, Western Washington Office (see ADDRESSES section)
(telephone 360/753-4327; facsimile 360/534-9331).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Sidalcea oregana var. calva, the Wenatchee Mountains checker-
mallow, is known to occur at six sites (populations). It is a plant
found in mid-elevation wetlands and moist meadows in central
Washington. The plant communities where the species is found are
usually associated with meadows that have surface water or saturated
soils during the spring and early summer. The species may also be found
in open conifer forests dominated by Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine)
and Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir), and on the margins of shrub
and hardwood thickets adjacent to seeps, springs, or small drainages.
Soils are primarily composed of silt loams and clay loams with a high
percentage content of organic material, and they are poorly drained.
A member of the mallow family (Malvaceae), Sidalcea oregana var.
calva is an herbaceous perennial with a stout taproot that branches at
the root-crown giving rise to several stems. Plants range in height
from 20 to 150 centimeters (cm) (8 to 60 inches (in.)). Plants vary
from glabrous (lacking hairs and glands) to pubescent (hairy) or
stellate (with star-shaped hairs) below, and finely stellate above.
Flower clusters with one to many stalked flowers are arranged singly
along a common stem. The flowers have pink petals 1 to 2 cm (0.4 to 0.8
in.) long, and are borne on stalks ranging from 1 to 10 millimeters
(mm) (0.04 to 0.4 in.) in length. The calyx (outer whorl of floral
parts) ranges from uniformly finely stellate to bristly with a mixture
of longer, simple to four-rayed, spreading hairs. These hairs are
sometimes as long as 2.5 to 3 mm (0.1 to 0.12 in.) (Hitchcock and
Cronquist 1961).
Flowering begins in the middle of June and peaks in the middle to
end of July. Fruits are ripe in August. The species reproduces only
from seed. Based on examination of seed capsules the production of seed
appears to be high (Gamon 1987). The somewhat clumped distribution of
mature Sidalcea oregana var. calva plants suggests that seed dispersal
is restricted to the areas near to mature plants, unless the seeds

[[Page 4784]]

are moved by animals or transported by water.
The physical and biological habitat features essential to the
conservation of Sidalcea oregana var. calva include open meadows with
surface water or saturated upper soil profiles in the spring and early
summer; open conifer forests dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas-
fir; and the margins of shrub and hardwood thickets. All of these
habitats have surface water or saturated soils well into the early
summer. Elevations range from 488 to 1,000 meters (m) (1,600 to 3,300
feet (ft)). The species is generally found on flats or benches, but may
also occur in small ravines and occasionally on gently sloping uplands.
Concentrations of Sidalcea oregana var. calva are found in the
wetter portions of moist meadow habitat, in open forests in slight
topographic depressions, on the perimeter of shrub and hardwood
thickets dominated by quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), and along
permanent or intermittent streams in sparsely forested draws.
Frequently associated plant species include quaking aspen, black
hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii), common snowberry (Symphoricarpos
albus), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), few-flowered peavine
(Lathyrus pauciflorus), northern mule's-ear (Wyethia amplexicaulis),
sticky purple geranium (Geranium viscosissimum), western bistort
(Polygonum bistortoides), leafy aster (Aster foliaceus), Watson's
willow-herb (Epilobium watsonii), false hellebore (Veratrum
californica), and rudbeckia (Rudbeckia occidentalis) (Washington
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) 2000). One-half of the Sidalcea
oregana var. calva populations are found in association with Delphinium
viridescens (Wenatchee larkspur), a former Federal category 1 candidate
plant species. The latter species was removed from candidate status on
February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7610), because it was found to be more
abundant or widespread than previously believed.
At the time the final rule for Sidalcea oregana var. calva was
published (64 FR 71680), just five sites were known to exist. During
mid-summer 1999, a sixth population was discovered on private property
in Pendleton Canyon, an area that was burned and opened up by the Tyee
Fire of 1994. This location is less than 8 kilometers (km) (5 miles
(mi)) from the Camas Meadow population.
The wetland and moist meadow complex at Camas Meadows, an area
managed as a Natural Area Preserve (NAP) by the WDNR, contains the
largest population of Sidalcea oregana var. calva The Camas Meadow NAP
includes approximately 539 hectares (ha) (1,333 acres (ac)) (WDNR
2000), and is located in the rural/wildland interface about 16 km (10
mi) south of Leavenworth, Washington. An estimated 3,300 Sidalcea
oregana var. calva individuals occur there. Low density, rural
residential home sites have been developed adjacent to the NAP. Also,
the Camas Meadows Bible Camp has occupied the southern perimeter of the
meadow since the late 1940s, and the U.S. Forest Service (Forest
Service) administers properties surrounding the NAP.
Another population is located north of the Camas Meadow NAP, on
land administered by WDNR, and has approximately 30 individual plants.
At the time the final rule was published (64 FR 71680), this population
occurred on private land. The private landowners have since traded this
land to the State.
In addition to these two populations of Sidalcea oregana var.
calva, two other populations of Sidalcea oregana var. calva are known
to be present on private lands. One population, of about 200
individuals, is located at the Mountain Home Resort. The second
population is located in Pendleton Canyon, and consists of about 60
plants. The last two known populations are located on Forest Service
lands, containing less than 10 individual plants combined. The combined
number of individual plants for all six populations is approximately
3,600.
The primary threats to Sidalcea oregana var. calva include habitat
fragmentation and destruction due to alterations of hydrology, rural
residential development and associated activities, conversion of native
wetlands to orchards and other agricultural uses, competition from
native and non-native plants, recreation, seed and plant collection,
and fire suppression and associated activities. To a lesser extent, the
species is threatened by livestock grazing, road construction, and
timber harvesting and associated impacts including changes in surface
runoff in the small watersheds in which the plant occurs.

Previous Federal Action

Federal action on Sidalcea oregana var. calva began when we
published an updated Notice of Review for plants, published in the
Federal Register on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This notice
included Sidalcea oregana var. calva as a category 1 candidate species.
Category 1 candidates were defined as those taxa for which we had
sufficient information on the biological vulnerability and threats to
support preparation of listing rules. The Notice of Review published on
September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526), included Sidalcea oregana var. calva
as a category 2 candidate species. Category 2 candidates were defined
as taxa for which available information indicated that a proposal to
list as endangered or threatened was possibly appropriate, but for
which persuasive data on biological vulnerability and threats were not
sufficient to support a proposed rule.
Notices of review published on February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), and
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144), identified the plant as a category 1
candidate species. Upon publication of the February 28, 1996, Notice of
Review (61 FR 7596), we ceased using category designations and included
Sidalcea oregana var. calva as a candidate species. Candidate species
are those for which we have on file sufficient information on
biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list the
species as threatened or endangered.
On August 1, 1997, we published the proposed rule to list Sidalcea
oregana var. calva as an endangered species (62 FR 41328). The final
determination to list Sidalcea oregana var. calva as an endangered
species was published in the Federal Register on December 22, 1999 (64
FR 71680). In the final rule, we found that designation of critical
habitat for the species was prudent. Due to insufficient funding in our
listing budget at the time, critical habitat designation was deferred
in order to focus our limited resources on higher priority critical
habitat, including court-ordered designations, and other listing
actions (64 FR 71685), while still allowing us to put in place
protections needed for the protection of S. oregana var. calva through
the listing process.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations
or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are
necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point
at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.

[[Page 4785]]

Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. In our regulations at 50 CFR 402.02,
we define destruction or adverse modification as ``* * * the direct or
indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical
habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species. Such
alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations adversely
modifying any of those physical or biological features that were the
basis for determining the habitat to be critical.'' Aside from the
added protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not
provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical
habitat. Because consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply
to activities on private or other non-Federal lands that do not involve
a Federal nexus, critical habitat designation would not afford any
additional protections under the Act against such activities.
In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the
habitat must first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.''
Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the
best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that
provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which
are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR
424.12(b)).
Section 4 requires that we designate critical habitat at the time
of listing and based on what we know at the time of the designation.
When we designate critical habitat at the time of listing or under
short court-ordered deadlines, we will often not have sufficient
information to identify all areas of critical habitat. We are required,
nevertheless, to make a decision and thus must base our designations on
what, at the time of designation, we know to be critical habitat.
Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we will
designate only areas currently known to be essential. Essential areas
should already have the features and habitat characteristics that are
necessary to sustain the species. We will not speculate about what
areas might be found to be essential if better information became
available, or what areas may become essential over time. If the
information available at the time of designation does not show that an
area provides essential life cycle needs of the species, then the area
should not be included in the critical habitat designation. Within the
geographic area occupied by the species, we will not designate areas
that do not now have the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50
CFR 424.12(b), that provide essential life cycle needs of the species.
Our regulations state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as
critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied
by the species only when a designation limited to its present range
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.'' (50
CFR 424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific and
commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the
species require designation of critical habitat outside of occupied
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographic area occupied by the species.
The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (Vol.
59, p. 34271), provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides
guidance to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the
best scientific and commercial data available. It requires Service
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific and commercial data available, to use primary and
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to
designate critical habitat. When determining which areas are critical
habitat, a primary source of information should be the listing package
for the species. Additional information may be obtained from a recovery
plan, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed
by states and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, and
biological assessments or other unpublished materials (i.e. gray
literature).
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may
eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, all should understand that critical habitat
designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is
unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Areas outside the
critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to
conservation actions that may be implemented under Section 7(a)(1) and
to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard and the Section 9 take prohibition, as determined on the basis
of the best available information at the time of the action. We
specifically anticipate that federally funded or assisted projects
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly,
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

In determining areas that are essential to conserve Sidalcea
oregana var. calva, we used the best scientific information available
to us. This information included habitat suitability and site-specific
species information, as well as discussions with Wenatchee National
Forest and WDNR scientists about the management and conservation of
this species. We have emphasized areas of current and historical
Sidalcea oregana var. calva occurrences; maintenance of the genetic
interchange necessary for the viability of a regional metapopulation;
and maintenance of the integrity of the watershed hydrologic processes
on which the wetlands and moist meadows that support the species
depend. A metapopulation is a group of spatially separated populations
that can occasionally exchange genes. The populations in a
metapopulation are usually thought of as undergoing interdependent
extinction and colonization, where individual populations may go
extinct, but later recolonize from another population. Linking the
known populations provides pathways for gene flow as well as
opportunities for colonization by the species of areas where it may be
extirpated. We believe that the maintenance of a viable regional
metapopulation as well as the integrity of the hydrologic processes
that control the wetland and moist meadow habitat are essential to the
conservation of Sidalcea oregana var. calva.
We used data on known and historic locations and soil maps to
identify areas important to the species. We mapped critical habitat
based on orthoquads and aerial photos available from WDNR, and ground-
checked these areas. We included areas with wetland vegetation
communities dominated by native grasses and forbs and generally free of

[[Page 4786]]

woody shrubs, hardwood trees, or conifers that would produce shade and/
or compete with Sidalcea oregana var. calva. Seeps, springs and
riparian corridors that have clay loam and silt loam soils were
included because of their importance to maintaining the hydrologic
processes that are essential to the conservation of the species.
Inclusion of these areas also allows for the natural expansion of
Sidalcea oregana var. calva populations that is essential for the
conservation of the species.

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical
habitat, we must consider those physical and biological features
(primary constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation
of the species. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior;
food, water, air, light, minerals or nutrients, or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and habitats that
are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic
geographical and ecological distribution of a species.
The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for Sidalcea
oregana var. calva are those that are essential for the primary
biological needs of the species. The area we propose to designate as
critical habitat provides the primary constituent elements for the
species, which include: surface water or saturated upper soil profiles;
a wetland plant community dominated by native grasses and forbs, and
generally free of woody shrubs and conifers that would produce shade
and competition for Sidalcea oregana var. calva; seeps and springs on
fine textured soils (clay loams and silt loams), which contribute to
the maintenance of hydrologic processes necessary to support meadows
which remain moist into the early summer; and elevations of 488 m-1,000
m (1,600-3,300 ft).

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

In an effort to map areas that have the features essential to the
conservation of the species, we used data on known Sidalcea oregana
var. calva locations. We also considered the existing status of lands
in designating areas as critical habitat. Sidalcea oregana var. calva
is known to occur on Federal, State, and private lands. We are not
aware of any Tribal lands essential to the conservation of Sidalcea
oregana var. calva, or any in or near the proposed critical habitat
designation. However, should we learn of any Tribal lands in the
vicinity of the critical habitat designation subsequent to this
proposal, we will coordinate with the Tribes before making a final
determination as to whether any Tribal lands should be included as
critical habitat for Sidalcea oregana var. calva.
In defining critical habitat boundaries, we made an effort to avoid
developed areas, such as towns and other similar lands, that are
unlikely to contribute to Sidalcea oregana var. calva conservation.
However, limitations in our ability to map critical habitat for
Sidalcea oregana var. calva did not allow us to exclude all developed
areas, such as towns, or housing developments, or other lands unlikely
to contain the primary constituent elements essential for conservation
of Sidalcea oregana var. calva. Existing features and structures within
the boundaries of the mapped unit, such as buildings, roads, aqueducts,
railroads, airports, other paved areas, lawns, and other rural
residential landscaped areas will not contain one or more of the
primary constituent elements and are, therefore, not critical habitat.
Federal actions limited to those areas would not trigger a section 7
consultation, unless they affect the species and/or primary constituent
elements in adjacent critical habitat.

Proposed Critical Habitat

We are proposing critical habitat in one unit, comprised of 2,484
ha (6,135 ac). The approximate area, by land ownership, of this unit is
shown in Table 1; lands proposed are under private, State, and Federal
ownership. All of the proposed critical habitat for Sidalcea oregana
var. calva is in Chelan County, Washington, and includes Camas Creek
and the adjacent Pendleton Canyon sub-basin. The area proposed for
critical habitat includes all of the lands that have the primary
constituent elements below 1,000 m (3,300 ft) within the Camas Creek
watershed and in the small tributary within Pendleton Canyon before its
confluence with Peshastin Creek, and includes: (1) The entire area
encompassed by the Camas Meadow Natural Area Preserve, which is
administered by the WDNR; (2) two populations located on Forest Service
land; (3) the small drainage north of the Camas Land, administered by
the WDNR; and (4) the population on private property located in
Pendleton Canyon.
Portions of the designated critical habitat are presumably
unoccupied by Sidalcea oregana var. calva at present, although the
entire area has not been recently surveyed. Soil maps indicate that the
entire area provides suitable habitat for the species, and there may be
additional, but currently unknown, populations present here. Because
protection of the hydrological processes is necessary to ensure the
viability of the wetland habitat of the species, we consider the entire
area essential to the survival, eventual recovery, and delisting of
Sidalcea oregana var. calva.
Wetlands and moist meadow habitat (native grassland and forb-
dominated vegetation) suitable for Sidalcea oregana var. calva is
generally surrounded by upland conditions, which are dominated by
ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests. These upland conditions are
less suitable as habitat for the species and are not essential to the
conservation of the species. Moist meadow openings within sparse
ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests, however, are suitable habitat
and are included in this proposed critical habitat designation.
Pursuant to the definition of critical habitat in section 3 of the
Act, any area so designated must also require ``special managment
considerations or protections.'' Some areas essential to the
conservation of the species may not be designated critical habitat if
they already have adequate special management. Adequate special
management or protection is provided by a legally operative plan that
addresses the maintenance and improvement of the essential elements and
provides for the long-term conservation of the species. The Service
considers a plan adequate when it meets all of the following three
criteria: (1) The plan provides a conservation benefit to the species
(i.e., the plan must maintain or provide for an increase in the
species' population or the enhancement or restoration of its habitat
within the area covered by the plan); (2) the plan provides assurances
that the management plan will be implemented (i.e., those responsible
for implementing the plan are capable of accomplishing the objectives,
have an implementation schedule and/or have adequate funding to
implement the management plan); and, (3) the plan provides assurances
the conservation plan will be effective (i.e., it identifies biological
goals, has provisions for reporting progress, and is of a duration
sufficient to implement the plan and achieve the plan's goals and
objectives). If an area is covered by a plan that meets these criteria,
it does not

[[Page 4787]]

constitute critical habitat as defined by the Act.
The Camas Land NAP is managed by the WDNR, and a final Management
Plan (Plan) for the area was approved in June, 2000. The NAP was
established in 1989 to protect the large populations of Sidalcea
oregana var. calva and Delphinium viridescens (Wenatchee larkspur) that
occur at Camas Meadow. The general management policy described in the
Plan applies to all NAPs managed by the WDNR. These include: (1)
Protection of outstanding examples of rare or vanishing terrestrial or
aquatic ecosystems, rare plant and animal species and unique geologic
features; (2) the role of NAPs as a baseline to compare with similar
ecosystems that are under the influence of human activities; and (3)
areas that are important to preserving natural features of scientific
or educational value. However, the Plan does not provide a specific
management plan or prescription designed to conserve Sidalcea oregana
var. calva, beyond permitting natural ecological and physical processes
to continue (WDNR 2000). The Plan does call for management actions to
enhance wet meadow habitat, which will benefit Sidalcea oregana var.
calva by removing competing vegetation, including controlling noxious
weeds; thinning ponderosa pine in the uplands; and improving and
replacing culverts. However, these actions have not yet been
implemented, and it is too early to assess their effectiveness.
Although the species is listed as endangered by the WDNR's Natural
Heritage Program (1994), there is no State Endangered Species Act in
the State of Washington. The WDNR designation provides no legal
protection for Sidalcea oregana var. calva, and there are no State laws
that specifically protect plants on State lands. Therefore, we believe
that this management plan alone does not provide sufficient protection
for Sidalcea oregana var. calva, and have included the Camas Land NAP
within the proposed critical habitat designation.
Private residential properties on the periphery of the Camas Land
NAP and the Camas Meadow Bible Camp located on the south side of the
Camas Land, within the area designated as critical habitat, are not
included in the designation. Private residential properties in the
vicinity of the Camas Land NAP have been altered by the planting of
lawns, installation of septic systems, and horse pastures. These
properties are generally located in upland conditions that do not
provide the primary constituent elements of critical habitat necessary
for the long-term protection and conservation of Sidalcea oregana var.
calva.

Table 1.--Approximate Area of Proposed Critical Habitat in Hectares (ha) and Acres (ac) \1\ in Chelan County, Washington, by Land Ownership
[Area estimates reflect the proposed critical habitat unit boundaries; however, existing features and structures, such as buildings, roads, aqueducts,
railroads, airports, other paved areas, lawns, and other rural residential landscaped areas not containing one or more of the primary constituent
elements are not designated as critical habitat for Sidalcea oregana var. calva]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Local/state Private Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas Known to be Currently Occupied................ 0.5 ha (1 ac) 38 ha (94 ac) 0.5 ha (1 ac) 39 ha (96 ac)
Areas of Suitable Habitat of Unknown Occupancy...... 830 ha (2,050 ac) 540 ha (1,334 ac) 1,075 ha (2,655 ac) 2,445 ha (6,039 ac)
------------------------
Total......................................... 2,484 ha (6,135 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Approximate acres have been converted to hectares (1 ha = 2.47 ac). Hectares and acres greater than 1 have been rounded to the nearest 5, except for
totals which are sums of rows or columns.

We have determined that the habitat supporting the population found
at the Mountain Home Resort (Resort) is not essential to the
conservation of the species. This population is disjunct from the
remaining populations, and located in an area entirely surrounded with
private residences, private timberlands, and a road administered by
Chelan County. The habitat on this property that contains Sidalcea
oregana var. calva, and the former candidate species Delphinium
viridescens, is confined to a small linear area associated with a
drainage ditch adjacent to the Mountain Home road and is bordered on
the north and south by gravel access roads leading to residences. It is
likely that the habitat resulted from the construction of the road and
the creation of the drainage ditch. The habitat is now dominated by
non-native, sod-forming grasses and forbs mixed with native vegetation
(Dottie Knecht, Forest Service, pers. comm. 2000). The class-B
Washington State noxious weed, Potentilla recta (sulfur cinquefoil)
(Washington Administrative Code 16-750-011) is frequently encountered
in monitoring plots at this site, although at low cover (D. Knecht,
pers. comm. 2000). Moving out of the occupied habitat and up the hill
towards the Resort, the vegetation is also dominated by sod-forming
pasture and lawn grasses, including Agrostis alba (creeping bentgrass),
Alopecuris pratensis (meadow foxtail), Phleum pratense (timothy grass),
and Bromus inermis (smooth brome). These species are not consistent
with the primary constituent elements.
Through observation of the adjacent properties along the Mountain
Home road, it is evident that, if the Resort were not present and the
land had not been cleared to create a vista, the marginal habitat where
the small population is found at this site would be forested with
conifers mixed with hardwood trees and shrubs. Such habitat does not
contain the vegetative requirements and open conditions of the primary
constituent elements.
The population at the Resort is also disjunct from the other
populations of the species, which are more than 16 km (10 mi) distant.
Because of fragmentation and the patchy distribution of habitat between
this population and other populations of the species, the persistence
of this population cannot be assured. We believe that the most
appropriate conservation strategy for Sidalcea oregana var. calva is
one that focuses on the protection and expansion of the core habitat of
the species rather than the protection of isolated populations of
doubtful viability. Except through artificial means, there is no
opportunity for gene exchange between this population and the other
populations. Although no genetic testing has been conducted for this
species, a small population, such as that found at the Resort, is
likely to have reduced genetic diversity, which can result in decreased

[[Page 4788]]

population viability due to inbreeding (Schemske et al. 1994).
Although the ability to predict random environmental events
(stochastic events) is low, events such as forest fires (e.g., the 1994
Rat Creek and Hatchery Creek Fires) and rain-on-snow flooding do occur.
The effects of these stochastic events are most acute in small
populations (Schemske et al. 1994). As a result of an increased
importance of stochastic processes and changes in ecological
interactions in declining populations, the probability of a population
extirpation is expected to be negatively correlated with its size
(Schemske et al. 1994).
The population found at Pendleton Canyon is on privately-owned land
that has been included as critical habitat because it has the primary
constituent elements required by Sidalcea oregana var. calva. It is
located in a wildland setting with none of the modifications typically
associated with a residence, unlike the private residences near Camas
Meadow or the population of Sidalcea oregana var. calva at the Resort
which lack the primary constituent elements and have been excluded from
critical habitat designation.
The Recovery Team for Sidalcea oregana var. calva will be providing
guidance on recovery planning for this species. The Recovery Team may
provide additional guidance regarding the areas proposed for critical
habitat designation. We will evaluate any of the Recovery Team's
recommendations and re-examine our critical habitat designation, if
necessary, to provide for the conservation of the species.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a) of the Act requires that Federal agencies, including
the Service, must ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry
out do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat to the extent
that the action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical
habitat for the survival and recovery of the species. Individuals,
organizations, States, local governments, and other non-Federal
entities are affected by the designation of critical habitat only if
their actions occur on Federal lands, require a Federal permit,
license, or other authorization, or involve Federal funding.
Under section 7(a) of the Act, Federal agencies, including the
Service, evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is designated or proposed. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) and regulations at 50 CFR
402.10 requires Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that
is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species
or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical
habitat. Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to
assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the
proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a conference
report are advisory.
We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal
agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain
a biological opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if
critical habitat were designated. If such designation occurs, we may
adopt the formal conference report as a biological opinion, if no
significant new information or changes in the action alter the content
of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
When a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into
consultation with us. Through this consultation, we would advise the
agencies whether the permitted actions would likely jeopardize the
continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the
project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives
are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during
consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the
intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of
the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are
economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director
believes would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued
existence of listed species or resulting in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation or conferencing with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical
habitat.
Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit from a
Federal agency, such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or a section
10(a)(1)(B) permit from the Service, or some other Federal action,
including funding (e.g., from the Federal Highway Administration or
Federal Emergency Management Agency will also be subject to the section
7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or
critical habitat, and actions on non-Federal lands that are not
federally funded, authorized, or permitted do not require section 7
consultation. Not all of the areas within the unit is capable of
supporting Sidalcea oregana var. calva or its primary constituent
elements, and such areas would not be subject to section 7
consultation. However, in the interests of having a clear boundary that
is readily located on the ground, or because of mapping uncertainties,
we have included some areas that may not be critical habitat as
described below.
To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may
affect a listed species. Section 7 prohibits actions funded,
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the
continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely
modifying the listed species' critical habitat. Actions likely to
``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a species are those that
would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and
recovery. Actions likely to ``destroy or adversely modify'' critical
habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the value of critical
habitat for the survival and recovery of the listed species.
Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on
both

[[Page 4789]]

survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of
these definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species
concerned, particularly when the area of the proposed action is
occupied by the species concerned. Designation of critical habitat in
areas known to be occupied by Sidalcea oregana var. calva, and areas
where the species is detected in surveys at the time of the action, is
not likely to result in a significant regulatory burden above that
already in place due to the presence of the listed species. For some
previously reviewed actions, in instances where critical habitat is
subsequently designated, and in those cases where activities occur on
designated critical habitat where Sidalcea oregana var. calva is not
found at the time of the action, an additional section 7 consultation
with the Service not previously required may be necessary for actions
funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly describe and
evaluate in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely
modify such habitat or that may be affected by such designation. When
determining whether any of these activities may adversely modify
critical habitat, we base our analysis on the effects of the action on
the entire critical habitat area and not just on the portion where the
activity will occur. Adverse effects on constituent elements or
segments of critical habitat generally do not result in an adverse
modification determination unless that loss, when added to the
environmental baseline, is likely to appreciably diminish the
capability of the critical habitat to satisfy essential requirements of
the species. In other words, activities that may destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat include those that alter the primary
constituent elements (defined above) to an extent that the value of
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of the Sidalcea
oregana var. calva is appreciably diminished.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and require that a section
7 consultation be conducted include, but are not limited to:
(1) Damming, water diversion, channelization, excess groundwater
pumping, repair and replacement of culverts, or other actions that
appreciably reduce the hydrologic function and surface area of rivers,
streams, seeps or springs;
(2) Timber harvesting and road construction that directly or
indirectly effects the hydrology of sites harboring the species;
(3) Rural residential construction that include concrete pads for
foundations and the installation of septic systems where a permit under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.) would be
required from the Corps;
(4) Activities that alter watershed characteristics in ways that
would appreciably reduce groundwater recharge or alter natural flooding
regimes to alter natural, dynamic wetland communities. Such activities
may include manipulation of vegetation such as timber harvesting, road
construction, maintaining an unnatural fire regime either through fire
suppression, or too frequent or poorly-timed prescribed fires,
residential and commercial development, and grazing of livestock or
horses that reduces fire frequency or otherwise degrades watershed
values;
(5) Activities that appreciably degrade or destroy native wetland
communities, such as livestock or horse grazing, land clearing,
harvesting of trees or other forest products, introducing or
encouraging the spread of non-native plant species; and
(6) Activities that appreciably alter stream channel morphology
such as sand and gravel mining, road construction, channelization,
impoundment, watershed disturbances, off-road vehicle use, heavy or
poorly planned recreational uses, and possibly other uses.
Any of the above activities that appreciably diminish the value of
critical habitat to the degree that they affect the survival and
recovery of Sidalcea oregana var. calva may be considered an adverse
modification or destruction of critical habitat. We note that such
activities may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will
constitute destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
resulting from a Federal action, contact Gerry Jackson, Manager,
Western Washington Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies
of the regulations on listed wildlife, and inquiries about prohibitions
and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Branch of Endangered Species, 911 N.E. 11th Ave, Portland, Oregon 97232
(telephone 503/231-2063; facsimile 503/231-6243).

Available Conservation Measures

Activities by the landowners of the Mountain Home Resort have
resulted in positive conservation measures for the species. The
landowners have cooperated and supported the monitoring of this
population by the Forest Service since 1994 when, during the Rat Creek
and Hatchery Creek fires, approximately one-half of the area occupied
by Sidalcea oregana var. calva and Delphinium viridescens was bulldozed
and leveled to create a fire safety zone. After the fires, the
landowners permitted the Forest Service and volunteers to restore and
plant grass seed on their land to reduce erosion in the small drainage
area where these two species occur. Within about 2 years, the
hydrologic processes had returned to normal and Delphinium viridescens
resprouted from rhizomes. Sidalcea oregana var. calva recolonized by
seed from neighboring parent plants and the soil seed bank stored in
soils not disturbed by bulldozers.

Economic Analysis

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of the
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying the areas as critical
habitat. We cannot exclude the areas from critical habitat when the
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. We will conduct
an analysis of the economic impacts of designating these areas as
critical habitat prior to making a final determination. When completed,
we will announce the availability of this economic analysis with a
notice in the Federal Register; if necessary, we will reopen the
comment period at that time.

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal be as
accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments
or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies,
the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined
to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including
whether the benefits of designation will outweigh any benefits of
exclusion;

[[Page 4790]]

(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Sidalcea
oregana var. calva and its habitat, and what habitat is essential to
the conservation of the species and why;
(3) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
(4) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the
proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on
small entities or families; and
(5) Economic and other values associated with designating critical
habitat for Sidalcea oregana var. calva such as those derived from
nonconsumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, birdwatching, enhanced
watershed protection, improved air quality, increased soil retention,
and ``existence values.'').
If you submit comments by e-mail, please submit them as an ASCII
file and avoid the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Please also include ``Attn: [RIN number]'' and your name
and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a
confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message,
contact us directly by calling our Western Washington Office at
telephone number 360/753-9440.
Our practice is to make comments available for public review during
regular business hours, including names and home addresses of
respondents. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their
home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the
extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold from
the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If
you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state
this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not
consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

Peer Review

In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate
and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose
of this review is to ensure listing decisions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send
these peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following
publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer
reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of
critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information received during the
60-day comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a
final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.

Clarity of the Rule

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to
make this proposed rule easier to understand including answers to
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain
technical language or jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does
the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the
description of the proposed rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule?
What else could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand?
Send any comments that concern how we could make this proposed rule
easier to understand to the Gerry Jackson, Manager, Western Washington
Office (see ADDRESSES section of this rule).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule and was reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). We are preparing a draft analysis of this proposed
action, which will be available for public comment, to determine the
economic consequences of designating the specific areas as critical
habitat. The availability of the draft economic analysis will be
announced in the Federal Register and in local newspapers so that it is
available for public review and comments.
(a) This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100
million or more or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity,
jobs, the environment, or other units of government. Sidalcea oregana
var. calva was listed as an endangered species in 1999. In fiscal years
1999 through 2000, we conducted 1 formal section 7 consultation with a
Federal agency to ensure that their actions would not jeopardize the
continued existence of the species.
Under the Act, critical habitat may not be adversely modified by a
Federal agency action; critical habitat does not impose any
restrictions on non-Federal persons unless they are conducting
activities funded or otherwise sponsored, authorized, or permitted by a
Federal agency (see Table 2 below). Section 7 requires Federal agencies
to ensure that they do not jeopardize the continued existence of the
species. Based upon our experience with the species and its needs, we
conclude that any Federal action or authorized action that could
potentially cause an adverse modification of the proposed critical
habitat would currently be considered as ``jeopardy'' under the Act in
areas occupied by Sidalcea oregana var. calva. Accordingly, the
designation of currently occupied areas as critical habitat does not
have any incremental impacts on what actions may or may not be
conducted by Federal agencies or non-Federal persons that receive
Federal authorization or funding. Designation of unoccupied areas as
critical habitat may have impacts on what actions may or may not be
conducted by Federal agencies or non-Federal persons who receive
Federal authorization or funding. We will evaluate any impact through
our economic analysis (under section 4 of the Act; see Economic
Analysis section of this rule). Non-Federal persons that do not have a
Federal ``sponsorship'' of their actions are not restricted by the
designation of critical habitat (however, they continue to be bound by
the provisions of the Act concerning ``take'' of the species).

[[Page 4791]]

Table 2. Impacts of Sidalcea Oregana var. Calva Listing and Critical Habitat Designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional activities
Activities potentially affected by species potentially affected by
Categories of activities listing only critical habitat
designation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal activities potentially Activities conducted by the Army Corps of Activities by these
affected \2\. Engineers, U.S. Forest Service, Environmental Federal Agencies in any
Protection Agency, Federal Highway unoccupied critical
Administration. habitat areas.
Private or other non-Federal Activities that require a Federal action Funding, authorization, or
activities potentially affected (permit, authorization, or funding) and may permitting such actions
\3\. remove or destroy Sidalcea oregana var. calva by Federal Agencies in
habitat by mechanical, chemical, or other any unoccupied critical
means (e.g., grading, discing, ripping, and habitat areas.
tilling, water diversion, impounding,
groundwater pumping, irrigation, construction,
road building, herbicide application,
recreational use, etc.) or appreciably
decrease habitat value or quality through
indirect effects (e.g., edge effects, invasion
of exotic plants or animals, fragmentation of
habitat).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This column represents activities potentially affected by the critical habitat designation in addition to
those activities potentially affected by listing the species.
\2\ Activities initiated by a Federal agency.
\3\ Activities initiated by a private or other non-Federal entity that may need Federal authorization or
funding.

(b) This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies'
actions. As discussed above, Federal agencies have been required to
ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of
Sidalcea oregana var. calva since the listing in 1999. The prohibition
against adverse modification of critical habitat is not expected to
impose any additional restrictions to those that currently exist in
areas of occupied habitat. We will evaluate any impact of designating
unoccupied habitat areas through our economic analysis. Because of the
potential for impacts on other Federal agency activities, we will
continue to review this proposed action for any inconsistencies with
other Federal agency actions.
(c) This proposed rule, if made final, will not materially affect
entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients. Federal agencies are currently
required to ensure that their activities do not jeopardize the
continued existence of the species, and, as discussed above, we do not
anticipate that the adverse modification prohibition (resulting from
critical habitat designation) will have any incremental effects in
areas of occupied habitat.
(d) This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. The
proposed rule follows the requirements for determining critical habitat
contained in the Act.

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

In the economic analysis (required under section 4 of the Act), we
will determine whether designation of critical habitat will have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. Many of
these activities sponsored by Federal agencies within the proposed
critical habitat areas are carried out by small entities (as defined by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act) through contract, grant, permit, or
other Federal authorization. As discussed under Regulatory Planning and
Review above, this rule is not expected to result in any restrictions
in addition to those currently in existence for areas of occupied
critical habitat. We will also evaluate whether critical habitat
designation of unoccupied areas will significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities. As indicated on Table 1 (see Proposed
Critical Habitat Designation section), we designated property owned by
State and Federal governments, and private property.
Within these areas, the types of Federal actions or authorized
activities that we have identified as potential concerns are:
(1) Activities such as damming, water diversion, channelization,
excess groundwater pumping, repair and replacement of culverts, or
other actions that appreciably reduce the hydrologic function and
surface area of rivers, streams, seeps or springs;
(2) Activities such as timber harvesting and road construction that
directly or indirectly effects the hydrology of sites harboring the
species; and
(3) Activities such as rural residential construction that include
concrete pads for foundations and the installation of septic systems
where a permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344
et seq.) would be required from the Corps.
(4) Activities that alter watershed characteristics in ways that
would appreciably reduce groundwater recharge or alter natural flooding
regimes to alter natural, dynamic wetland communities. Such activities
may include manipulation of vegetation such as timber harvesting, road
construction, maintaining an unnatural fire regime either through fire
suppression, or too frequent or poorly-timed prescribed fires,
residential and commercial development, and grazing of livestock or
horses that reduces fire frequency or otherwise degrades watershed
values;
(5) Activities that appreciably degrade or destroy native wetland
communities, such as livestock or horse grazing, land clearing,
harvesting of trees or other forest products, introducing or
encouraging the spread of non-native plant species; and
(6) Activities that appreciably alter stream channel morphology
such as sand and gravel mining, road construction, channelization,
impoundment, watershed disturbances, off-road vehicle use, heavy or
poorly planned recreational uses, and possibly other uses.

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

In the economic analysis, we will determine whether designation of
critical habitat will cause (a) any effect on the economy of $100
million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or
geographic regions; or (c) any significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. As discussed above, we anticipate that the designation of
critical habitat will not have any additional effects on these
activities in areas of critical habitat occupied by the species.
Designation of unoccupied areas as critical habitat may have
impacts on what actions may or may not be

[[Page 4792]]

conducted, or how they will be conducted, by Federal agencies or non-
Federal persons who receive Federal authorization or funding. We will
evaluate any impact through our economic analysis.

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

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.):
(a) We believe this rule will not ``significantly or uniquely''
affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not
required. Small governments will be affected only to the extent that
any programs having Federal funds, permits, or other authorized
activities must ensure that their actions will not adversely affect the
critical habitat. However, as discussed above, these actions are
currently subject to equivalent restrictions through the listing
protections of the species, and no further restrictions are anticipated
to result from critical habitat designation of occupied areas. In our
economic analysis, we will evaluate whether designation of unoccupied
areas has any significant effect on small governments.
(b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year; that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of
critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is
not required. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat
affects only Federal agency actions. The rule will not increase or
decrease the current restrictions on private property concerning take
of Sidalcea oregana var. calva. Due to current public knowledge of the
species' protection under the Act, the prohibition against take of the
species both within and outside of the designated areas, and the fact
that critical habitat provides no incremental restrictions in areas of
occupied critical habitat, we do not anticipate that property values
will be affected by the critical habitat designation. Additionally,
critical habitat designation does not preclude development of habitat
conservation plans and issuance of incidental take permits.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of
Commerce policy, we requested information from and coordinated
development of this critical habitat proposal with appropriate State
resource agencies in Washington. The designation of critical habitat in
areas currently occupied by Sidalcea oregana var. calva imposes no
additional restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has
little incremental impact on State and local governments and their
activities. The designation may have some benefit to these governments
in that the areas essential to the conservation of the species are more
clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat
necessary to the survival of the species are specifically identified.
While making this definition and identification does not alter where
and what federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these
local governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-
by-case section 7 consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We propose to designate critical habitat in accordance
with the provisions of the Act and plan a public hearing on the
proposed designation during the comment period. The rule uses standard
property descriptions and identifies the primary constituent elements
within the designated areas to assist the public in understanding the
habitat needs of Sidalcea oregana var. calva.

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

This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
that requires Office of Management and Budget approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we understand that federally
recognized Tribes must be related to on a Government-to-Government
basis.
We are not aware of any Tribal lands essential for the conservation
of Sidalcea oregana. var calva. therefore, we are not proposing to
designate critical habitat for Sidalcea oregana var. calva on Tribal
lands.

References Cited

Gamon, J. G. 1987. Report on the status of Sidalcea oregana (Nutt.)
Gray var. calva C.L. Hitchcock. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Olympia Washington. 41 pp.
Schemske, D.W., B.C. Husband, M.H. Ruckleshaus, C. Goodwillie, I.M.
Parker, and J.G. Bishop. 1994. Evaluating approaches to the
Conservation of Rare and Endangered Plants. Ecology, 75(3). Pp. 584-
606.
Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1961.
Part 3. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. University of
Washington Press, Seattle. 614 pp.
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2000. Management plan
for Camas Meadows Natural Area Preserve. Unpublished report. 52 pp +
appendices.
Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1994. Endangered, threatened,
and sensitive vascular plants of Washington, Department of Natural
Resources, Olympia, Washington. 52 pp.

Author

The primary author of this proposed rule is Ted Thomas (see
ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Rule Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

[[Page 4793]]

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

2. In Sec. 17.12(h) revise the entry for Sidalcea oregana var.
calva under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' to read as follows:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants

* * * * * * *
Sidalcea oregana var. calva...... Wenatchee Mountains U.S.A. (WA)........ Malvaceae--(Mallow) E 673 17.96(a) N/A
checker-mallow.

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

3. In Sec. 17.96, as proposed to be amended at 65 FR 66865,
November 7, 2000, amend paragraph (b) by adding an entry for Sidalcea
oregana var. calva after the entry for Kokia drynarioides under the
family Malvaceae to read as follows:

Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat-plants.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
Family Malvaceae: Sidalcea oregana var. calva (Wenatchee Mountains
checker-mallow).
Washington, Chelan County. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle maps Peshastin
and Tip Top, Washington. T. 23 N., R 18 E., beginning at a point on
Camas Creek in the NW\1/4\ of NW\1/4\ of section 35 at approximately
47 deg.26'52"N latitude and 120 deg.38'57" W longitude proceeding
downstream (northwesterly), expanding in all directions to include the
entire wetland complex that comprises the Camas Meadow Natural Area
Preserve, to a point approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi) from the confluence
of Pendleton Creek and Peshastin Creek, located at 47 deg.31'06" and
120 deg.37'18" W longitude. From this last point, the western boundary
of the designated critical habitat parallels Peshastin Creek to a point
at the southwest of the designated area located at 47 deg.28'46" N
latitude and 120 deg.38'57" W longitude. The maximum elevation of the
designated critical habitat is 1,000 m (3,300 ft) and the lowest
elevation is 488 m (1,600 ft).
Within this area, critical habitat includes water courses and
wetland habitat out to the beginning of upland habitat. Critical
habitat does not include existing features and structures, such as
buildings, roads, aqueducts, railroads, airports, other paved areas,
lawns, and other rural residential landscaped areas not containing one
or more of the primary constituent elements.
Known primary constituent elements of critical habitat for Sidalcea
oregana var. calva include: surface water or saturated upper soil
profiles; a wetland plant community dominated by native grasses and
forbs, and generally free of woody shrubs and conifers that would
produce shade and competition for Sidalcea oregana var. calva; seeps
and springs on fine textured soils (clay loams and silt loams), which
contribute to the maintenance of hydrologic processes necessary to
support meadows which remain moist into the early summer; and
elevations of 488 m-1,000 m (1,600-3,300 ft).

Note: Map follows:

* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 4794]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JA01.070

Dated: December 27, 2000.
Kenneth L. Smith,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 01-1333 Filed 1-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C