Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2004 0505 CC REG ITEM 09FTO: FROM: DATE: MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Honorable City Council ITEM 01 • F. Deborah S. Traffenstedt, ATCM /City Clerk �T April 28 2004 (CC Meeting of 5/5/04) SUBJECT: Consider Letter of Support to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a Critical Habitat Designation in Ventura County for California Gnatcatcher BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Councilmember Mikos has requested that an item be added to the agenda to allow the City Council to consider directing staff to prepare a letter of support from the City of Moorpark in favor of a critical habitat designation for the California gnatcatcher in Ventura County. Comments are due to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by May 10, 2004, on the proposed critical habitat and economic analysis. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Direct staff as deemed appropriate. 1111.• TEM °I . r. MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Manager n e- DATE: April 29, 2004 SUBJECT: Supplemental Information for Item 9F of City Council Agenda for May 5, 2004: Consider Letter of Support to U.S. fish and Wildlife Service for Critical Habitat Designation in Ventura County for California Gnatcatcher BACKGROUND Councilmember Mikos has requested an agenda item for the May 5, 2004 Council Meeting, to consider directing staff to prepare a letter of support to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a proposed Critical Habitat Rule for the California Gnatcatcher. Supplemental information is provided in this report to assist in the deliberation on this agenda item. DISCUSSION On October 24, 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated 513,650 acres of land in Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties as Critical Habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher, a bird listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Several lawsuits were filed on this designation, and the Fish and Wildlife Service has responded by offering to prepare a new economic analysis. On April 24, 2003, a revised proposed Critical Habitat Rule was released for public review. This new rule, currently under consideration, includes 495,795 acres of Critical Habitat. The boundaries of the new proposed Critical Habitat changed from the 2000 rule and included a new area (Unit 13) that encompasses 103,290 acres in portions of western Los Angeles County and eastern Ventura County, including land in Moorpark. This new area was included in recognition of the discovery of a breeding population of coastal California gnatcatchers in Moorpark, Simi Valley, and the western San Fernando Valley, that afe linked to a breeding population previously known in the Santa Clarita area. A new economic study was released on April 8, 2004, and comments on the critical habitat rule and economic analysis will be accepted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through May 10, 2004 The impact of the Critical Habitat designation is that projects involving federal lands or federal permits would require conferring with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to SACity Share \Community Development \ADMIN \FORMS\New\Corresp\MEMO.doc Honorable City Council April 29, 2004 Page 2 ensure that the project would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. Federal review for development projects in Moorpark typically only takes place when the project involves federally- designated wetlands or riparian areas recognized as 'Waters of the United States." It has already been the practice` of the City to ,identify _impacts on listed species, including habitat destruction, and mitigate it through the environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act. The adoption of this rule would not involve a substantial change to current practices. Additional information on the proposed critical habitat rule is attached: RECOMMENDATION Receive and file. Attachments: 1. April 8, 2004 News Release 2. Excerpts from April 24 2003 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule 3. Frequently Asked Questions C: Steven Kueny, City Manager Kim Chudoba, Senior Management Analyst Chron Department of the Interior U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92009 Phone: 760/431 -9440 Fax: 760/431 -9624 httn: / /carlsbad.fws.Eov (SC) News Release ENi OF us. a � p'. st :. 04 -032 Contact: Jane Hendron, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office — 760/431 -9440 ext. 205 For Release: April 8, 2004 PUBLIC COMMENTS REOUESTED ON TWO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIES PROTECTION PROPOSALS Public Hearing Scheduled in Carlsbad, California The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a notice today announcing the availability of draft economic analyses related to proposed critical habitat rules for the San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) and the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) A separate notice was published today by the Service seeking comments and information on the taxonomy of the coastal California gnatcatcher subspecies and whether the California gnatcatcher in the United States should be listed as a distinct population segment. Public comments on proposed critical habitat and the draft economic analyses for the San Diego fairy shrimp and coastal California gnatcatcher will be accepted until May 10, 2004. Written comments and materials related to the California gnatcatcher taxonomy issue and the Service's consideration to list the California gnatcatcher in the United States as a distinct population segment will be accepted until May 24, 2004. Public hearings on the proposed critical habitat rule, draft economic analyses and the coastal California gnatcatcher taxonomy issue are scheduled for April 29, 2004, at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California. Hearings will be held from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm and from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. The Service published a proposed rule on April 22, 2003, to designate approximately 6,098 acres of land in Orange and San Diego counties as critical habitat for the San Diego fairy shrimp. 1 of 3 ATTACMENT 1 Total economic impacts associated with the listing and proposed designation of critical habitat for the San Diego fairy shrimp are estimated to be up to $54.6 million, with an annualized impact of $5.2 million. This estimate includes areas proposed as critical habitat as well as essential habitat that the Service did not include in the proposed rule. On April 24 2003, the Service published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher on about 495,795 acres of land in southern California. The draft analysis estimates that if all areas proposed as critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher are designated, total impacts could range up to $915.3 million over the next 23 years. Annualized impacts would be approximately $113.4 million. Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Federal agencies are required to consult with the Service to ensure that projects they authorize, fund, or permit do not jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. The economic analyses for the coastal California gnatcatcher and San Diego fairy shrimp identify the combined impacts related to the listing of these species under the Act and the proposed designation of particular areas as critical habitat. "The Service has significantly refined its methodology for economic analyses," said Steve Thompson, Manager of the Service's California/Nevada Operations Office. "The analyses for the gnatcatcher and San Diego fairy shrimp include a comprehensive array of potential costs to Federal, State and local governments, and private entities related to the listing and critical habitat provisions of the Act." Based on a review of the economic impacts associated with designating a particular area as critical habitat, the Secretary of the Interior has the authority to exclude an area from designation if the benefit of exclusion is greater than including it as critical habitat. In the April 2003 proposed critical habitat rule for the coastal California gnatcatcher, the Service also considered whether and how the listing of the coastal California gnatcatcher should be amended. Consideration of possible listing of the California gnatcatcher in the United States as a distinct population segment is based on recent taxonomic research published by Robert M. Zink and other researchers. To improve the clarity of our rulemaking process, the Service will develop separate final rules to designate coastal California gnatcatcher critical habitat and address the species' taxonomy and distinct population segment issues. Written comments and materials on the proposed designation of critical habitat, the draft economic analysis, and information pertaining to the 2000 paper published by Zink et al., can be submitted in writing to the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments and materials may also be sent by facsimile to 760/431 -9618. Electronic comments may be submitted as follows: for comments related to the San Diego fairy shrimp, please send them to fwlsdfs @rl.fws.gov. Please send electronic comments 2 of 3 on the coastal California gnatcatcher proposed critical habitat, economic analysis, or proposed listing of a distinct population segment to fwlcfwocagn @rl.fws.gov. In the event our Internet service is not functioning, please submit your information using the alternate methods described above. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 95- million -acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses 544 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 69 national fish hatcheries, 63 Fish and Wildlife Management offices and 81 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance program, which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies. For more information about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, visit our home page at http: / /fws.gov -FWS- 3 of 3 sni.n M.xft /\ 7985 Thursday, April 24, 2003 Part H Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) and Determination of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment for the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica); Proposed Rule ATTACHMENT 2 20228 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 79 / Thursday, April 24, 2003 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018 —AI72 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) and Determination of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment for the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose designation of critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). A total of approximately 200,595 hectares (ha) (495,795 acres (ac)) of gnatcatcher habitat in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties, California are within the boundaries of proposed critical habitat. Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or adverse modification through required consultation under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other relevant impacts when specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We are also considering revising the table of endangered and threatened wildlife published under 50 CFR 17.11 with respect to the coastal California gnatcatcher. We originally identified the coastal California gnatcatcher as a subspecies of the California gnatcatcher. However, new genetic information raises questions about the distinctiveness of the subspecies. Accordingly, we are considering whether and how the listing of the coastal California gnatcatcher should be amended. We are soliciting data and comments from the public on all aspects of this proposal, including data on economic and other impacts of the designation. We may revise this proposal prior to final designation to incorporate or address new information received during the comment period. DATES: We will accept comments until June 23, 2003. Public hearing requests must be received by June 9, 2003. ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods: (1) You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California 92009. (2) You may also send comments by electronic mail (e -mail) to fwlcfwocagn@rl.fws.gov. Seethe "Public Comments Solicited" section below for file format and other information about electronic submission of comments. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (e- mail: fwlcfwocagn ®rl.fws.gov; telephone: 760/431 -9440; facsimile 760/ 431 - 9618). For information about Ventura and western Los Angeles counties, contact the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road Suite B, Ventura, California 93003 (telephone: 805/644 -1766; facsimile 805/644- 3958). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments Solicited It is our intent that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate 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. Based on public comment, the final rule could find areas not essential, appropriate for exclusion under either 3(5)(A) or 4(b)(2), or not appropriate for exclusion, in which case, they would be made part of the designation. We particularly seek comments concerning: (1) The reasons why any particular habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act; (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of coastal California gnatcatchers and what habitat is essential to the conservation of the species and why; (3) Whether habitat currently preserved in various conservation areas within the coastal California gnatcatcher range is sufficient for the conservation of the species; (4) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the subject areas and the possible impacts of the proposed critical habitat; (5) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on small entities or businesses; (6) We have considered, but have not proposed the following areas as critical habitat: mission - essential training areas on Camp Pendleton and lands on Marine Corps Air Station Miramar (MCAS, Miramar); reserve lands in the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) and the Orange County Central- Coastal Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP), and tribal lands of the Pala Band of Mission Indians because we believe that: (1) Their value for conservation has been addressed by existing protective actions, or (2) they are appropriate for exclusion pursuant to the "other relevant impact" provisions of section 4(b)(2). We specifically solicit comment, however, on the inclusion or exclusion of such areas and: (a) Whether these areas are essential; (b) whether these areas warrant exclusion; and (c) the basis for not designating these areas as critical habitat (section 3(5)(A) or section 4(b)(2))• (7) Any economic or other impacts associated with designating critical habitat on reserve, preserve, or other conservation lands within the boundaries of approved HCPs that have been developed through cooperative, voluntary partnerships. (8) The benefits of including or excluding military lands covered by an adequate Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan and tribal lands, NCCP lands, HCP lands, or any other lands covered by an adequate management plan. (9) With respect to our consideration of listing of the coastal California gnatcatcher subspecies as a distinct vertebrate population segment (DPS) rather than a subspecies on the endangered species list, we are particularly soliciting comments on the following: (a) Do the recent genetic findings referenced in this report justify a review of the taxonomy of the subspecies of the coastal California gnatcatcher? (b) Is there any other new information that the Service should consider in this context? (10) In its consideration of the U.S. population of the California gnatcatcher as a DPS, the Service has presented a proposed five factor analysis of the status of the U.S. population. With respect to this analysis, the Service is Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 79 / Thursday, April 24, 2003 / Proposed Rules 20229 particularly soliciting information on the following: (a) Existing populations of the coastal California gnatcatcher within its range in the United States; (b) Existing populations of the California gnatcatcher in Mexico; (c) Information on the regulatory authorities available for the protection of the California gnatcatcher in Mexico; (d) Information on the adequacy of regulatory authorities available to protect coastal California gnatcatcher habitat in California absent the application of the Act; (e) Ways in which the coastal California gnatcatcher exists in an ecological setting that is unusual or unique compared to the California gnatcatcher generally; (f) Any other information that the Service should consider in its review of the taxonomy. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish 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. Background The coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) is a small (length 11 centimeters (cm) (4.5 inches (in)), weight 6 grams (g) (0.2 ounces (oz)), long - tailed member of the old -world warbler and gnatcatcher family Sylviidae (American Ornithologist Union 1998). The bird's plumage is dark blue -gray above and grayish -white below. The tail is mostly black above and below. The male has a distinctive black cap, which is absent during the winter. Both sexes have a distinctive white eye -ring. As its common name implies, the gnatcatcher preys upon arthropods, including insects such as leafhoppers and planthoppers (Homoptera), and spiders (Burger et al. 1999). The United States population of the coastal California gnatcatcher is restricted to coastal southern California from Ventura and San Bernardino counties, California south to the Mexican border (American Ornithologists' Union 1957; Atwood 1991; Banks and Gardner 1992; Garrett and Dunn 1981). An evaluation of the historic range of the coastal California gnatcatcher indicates that about 41 percent of its latitudinal distribution is within the United States and 59 percent is within Baja California, Mexico (Atwood 1990). An analysis based on elevational limits associated with gnatcatcher locality records reveals that a significant portion (65 to 70 percent) of the coastal California gnatcatcher's historic range may have been located in southern California rather than Baja California (Atwood 1992). The analysis suggested that the species occurs below about 912 meters (m) (3,000 feet (ft)) in elevation. The coastal California gnatcatcher was considered locally common in the mid - 1940s, although a decline in the extent of its habitat was noted (Grinnell and Miller 1944). By the 1960s, this species had apparently experienced a significant population decline in the United States that has been attributed to widespread destruction of its habitat (Pyle and Small 1961). Pyle and Small (1961) reported that "the California subspecies is very rare, and lack of recent records of this race compared with older records may indicate a drastic reduction in population." Atwood (1980) estimated that no more than 1,000 to 1,500 pairs remained in the United States. Atwood (1980) also noted that remnant portions of its habitat were highly fragmented, with nearly all being bordered on at least one side by rapidly expanding urban centers. Subsequent reviews of coastal California gnatcatcher status by Garrett and Dunn (1981) and Unitt (1984) paralleled the findings of Atwood (1980). The subspecies was listed as threatened on March 30, 1993, because of habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from urban and agricultural development and the synergistic effects of cowbird parasitism and predation (58 FR 16742). Subsequent studies showed that gnatcatcher populations undergo wide variations in numbers, depending on annual rainfall and climatic conditions, but that habitat loss in southern California has continued to restrict gnatcatcher populations in the United States (Erickson and Miner 1998; Preston et al. 1998; Atwood 2001). The coastal California gnatcatcher typically occurs in or near sage scrub habitat, which is a broad category of vegetation that includes the following plant communities: Venturan coastal sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, Riversidean sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan (areas created when sediments from the stream are deposited) scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, and coastal sage - chaparral scrub (Holland 1986; Kirkpatrick and Hutchinson 1977; Westman 1983). Based upon dominant species, these communities have been further divided into series such as black sage, brittlebush, California buckwheat, California buckwheat -white sage, California encelia, California sagebrush, California sagebrush -black sage, California sagebrush- California buckwheat, coast prickly -pear, mixed sage, purple sage, scalebroom, and white sage (Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf 1995). The majority of plant species found in sage scrub habitat are low- growing, drought- deciduous shrubs and sub - shrubs. Generally speaking, most types of sage scrub are dominated by one or more of the following: Artemisia colifornica (California sagebrush), Eriogonum fasciculatum and E. cinereum (buckwheat), Encelia californica (coast sunflower), Encelia farinoso (brittlebush), Salvia mellifera, S. apiana, and S. leucophylla (sage). Sage scrub often occurs in a patchy, or mosaic, distribution pattern throughout the range of the gnatcatcher. Coastal California gnatcatchers also use chaparral (shrubby plants adapted to dry summers and moist winters), grassland, and riparian (areas near a source of water) habitats where they occur in proximity to sage scrub. These non -sage scrub habitats are used for dispersal and foraging (Atwood et al. 1998; Campbell et al. 1998). Availability of these non -sage scrub areas is essential during certain times of the year, particularly during drought conditions, for dispersal, foraging, or nesting. Several studies have also suggested that gnatcatchers avoid nesting on very steep slopes (greater than 40 percent) ( Bontrager 1991, Mock and Bolger 1992, Ogden 1992). However, steep slopes may still be suitable for foraging and dispersal. Several comprehensive overviews of the life history and ecology of the coastal California gnatcatcher have been prepared and are the basis for much of the discussion presented below (e.g., Atwood 1990; Atwood and Bontrager 2000; Western Birds 29(4) 1998). The coastal California gnatcatcher is nonmigratory and defends breeding territories ranging in size from 1 to 6 ha (2 to 14 ac). Reported home ranges vary in size from 5 to 15 ha (13 to 39 ac) for this species (Mock and Jones 1990). The breeding season of the coastal California 20230 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 79 / Thursday, April 24, 2003 / Proposed Rules gnatcatcher extends from late February through July, with the peak of nest initiations (startups) occurring from mid -March through mid -May. Nests are composed of grasses, bark strips, small leaves, spider webs, down, and other materials and are often located in California sagebrush about 1 m (3 ft) above the ground. Nests are constructed over a 4 to 10 day period. Clutch size averages four eggs. The incubation and nestling periods encompass about 14 and 16 days, respectively. Both sexes participate in all phases of the nesting cycle. Although the coastal California gnatcatcher may occasionally produce two broods in one nesting season, the frequency of this behavior is not known. Juveniles are dependent upon, or remain closely associated with, their parents for up to several months following departure from the nest and dispersal from their natal (place of birth) territory. Dispersal of juveniles generally requires a corridor of native vegetation providing certain foraging and shelter requisites to link larger patches of appropriate sage scrub vegetation (Soule 1991). These dispersal corridors facilitate the exchange of genetic material and provide a path for recolonization of areas from which the species has been extirpated (Soule 1991 and Galvin 1998). Galvin (1998) concluded that, "natal dispersal [through corridors] is therefore an important aspect of the biology of [a] * * nonrnigratory, territorial bird * * [such as] the California gnatcatcher * * *" While juvenile coastal California gnatcatchers are capable of dispersing long distances (up to 22 kilometers (km) (14 miles (mi)) as modeled by Bailey and Mock 1998) across fragmented and highly disturbed sage scrub habitat, such as found along highway and utility corridors or remnant mosaics of habitat adjacent to developed lands, generally the species disperses short distances through contiguous undisturbed habitat (Bailey and Mock 1998, Famolaro and Newman 1998, and Galvin 1998). Moreover, it is likely that populations will experience increased juvenile mortality in fragmented habitats where dispersal distances are greater than average (Atwood et a1.1998). This would be particularly likely if dispersal was across non- or suboptimal habitats (Soule 1991). California Gnatcatcher nomy The following d' ssion of the taxonomy of alifornia gnatcatcher expands on the discussion presented in otice of Determination to Retain e Threatened Status for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (60 FR 15693, March 27, 1995). The California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) w s first described in 1881 based on specimens from Riverside and Vent a counties (Brewster 1881). Grinnell (1926) then reduced it to a subspec es of the black - tailed gnatcatcher (Polio tila melanura). Subsequently, on the sis of differences in morphology, ec ogy, and behavior, Atwood (1988) co cluded that A californica was specifica y distinct from P. melanura. Atw od's finding has been recognized by e American Ornithologists' Uni Committee on Classification a d Nomenclature (American Ornithologists' Union 1998). The California gnatcatche consists of up to five subspecies (from orth to south): californica (Brewst ), atwoodi (Mellink), pontilis (van Ro sem), margaritae (Ridgway), an abbreviata (Grinnell). None of the to onomic treatments recognizing s regate taxa called into question the * tinctiveness or identity of subspecie californica. Although various auth s have proposed different no enclatures, several consistencies a evident in the subspecific treatment . Several characters, including ody plumage color, tail length, an amount of white on the retrices (tail athers), show an abrupt change or st p at approximately 301 N latitude, nea El Rosario, Baja California, Mexico (Grinnell 1926; van Ross em 1931; Phi ps 1991; Atwood 1991; Mellink an Rea 1994). This is the traditional boun ary between subspecies calif mica and pontilis. Mellink and Re (1994) also recognized this boundary, ut described a new subspecies at odi between 30° N latitude and t e international border (approximate 32'33'N). A second step is evident in ody plumage and tail length at 28° latitude, near Guerrero Negro, Baja alifornia Sur, Mexico (van Rossem 19 ; Philips 1991; Atwood 1991; Mell k and Rea 1994). This step represents a traditional boundary between bspecies pontilis and margarit e. Some investigators include a thirds pat approximately 24'N, near La Paz, aja California Sur, Mexico, on the bas' of tail length, bill width and depth, mount of white on the retrices, and w' g length (Grinnell 1926, Atwood 1991) South of this latitude subspecies abb iata has been described (Grinnell A Jecent scientific paper (Zink et al. lop) presents results of genetic s arch on the California gnatcatcher Lf calls into question the status of the stal California gnatcatcher as a tinct subspecies. This paper presents contradictory view to all previously published taxonomic reviews of the species (e.g., Atwood 1988,1991; Grinnell 1926; Mellink and Rea 1994; Philips 1991; van Rossem 1931; summarized in 60 FR 15693). Zink a al. (2000) analyzed the genetic structur of California gnatcatcher populatio ns throughout the range by looking fo variation in the mitochondria) DN (mtDNA) control region and three mtDNA genes. Their analysis fail d to reveal genetic structuring consis nt with geographically distinct su pecies. Patterns of nucleotide diversity howed a step at approximately 280 N 1 titude. The authors interpreted these nd other data as evidence that the spe es has expanded its range from a PI stocene era refugium south of 280 N. he authors argue that morphol ical variation previously descri ed in taxonomic treatments wer not genetically based, and the fore, subspecific divisions of t species are not supported. Zink et al. (2000) pres nt important new information concer ing genetic variability within the C lifornia gnatcatcher. Given the certainty regarding California atcatcher taxonomy that this pa er introduces, we consider it appropria to propose a DPS. In light of this udy, we have initiated an evaluati n to determine whether the Califor is gnatcatcher (Polioptila californ ca) species in the United States mee the definition of a DPS pursuant to 1996 joint U.S. Fish and Wildlif Service and National Marine Fisheries ervice Policy Regarding the R cognition of Distinct Vertebrate Pop ations (61 FR 4722; DPS). We are c nsidering whether the California gna atcher meets the definition of PS based on the analysis sum arized below. If our analysis con rms that the requirements for a DPS ar met, we propose to list the U.S. popul ion of the California gnatcatche as a DPS and reevaluate the status of remaining California gnatcatch population in Mexico. This reevaluat' n could result in delisting the spec' s in Mexico or listing one or more se arate DPSs in Mexico. Distinc Vertebrate Population Segment We aluated the U.S. population of the C ifornia gnatcatcher according to the F ruary 7, 1996, joint U.S. Fish and Wild fe Service and National Marine Fish ries Service Policy Regarding the Rec gnition of Distinct Vertebrate Po lations (61 FR 4722; DPS). Three ale ants are considered in a decision re arding the status of a possible DPS as e dangered or threatened under the Act. T ese are applied similarly for ditions to the list of endangered and 20244 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 79 / Thursday, April 24, 2003 / Proposed Rules also incorporates high - quality coastal sage scrub south and east of Diamon Valley Reservoir that has been show to be resistant to type conversion to no - native grassland, probably due to prevalence of gabbro - basalt soils i this area (Minnich and Dezzani 1998). he coastal sage scrub in this region therefore has the highest probabi ty of resisting type conversion in the ture, and therefore has the greatest p ential to maintain diverse, high sage scrub vegetation thr unit also encompasses cc habitats in southern San County, including core p the Jurupa Hills, and the Mountain /Reche Canyon Santa Ana River appears important movement car area, connecting the Juru Loma Hills to population Springs Mountains, as w pairs known from the P Norco Hills. Though a f California gnatcatchers observed from the upp r tuali coastal igh me. This tig us er dino ?u ations in 1 e ion. The P e an or in this ` i and La in the Box Unit 12: East Los Angeles County Unit 12 encompasses approxim ely 1,570 ha (3,890 ac) in eastern Los Angeles County in Bonelli Regi al Park and along the San Jose Hi s to the west. This unit functions as a archipelago of persistent po lotions toward the northern end ratare e range of the species, and is a likeurce population for the pairs reported from the foot ' is of the San Gabriel mountains no of the Los Angeles basin. Dist ed and vacant areas within Bonell' egional Park and the BKK landfill a e western end of the San Jose Hill represent the last available vacan and for restoration of t to reco r the species in this solated abitat patches between nit an the East Los Angeles y -M ix NCCP Subregion of E) C my (Unit 9), are not habita unit. I this u 11 as to the few L ley Hills and ii I coastal c ave been a Santa Ana fc River wash in the vici ity of Highland, we do not yet have a dente that this area constitutes a cot population. Unit 11: San Berna4iino Valley MSHCP, San Bern ino County Unit 11 encamp sses approximately 6,065 ha (14,990 ) along the foothills of the San Gabrie Mountains in the Etiwanda Fan a Lytle and Cajon Washes. The co populations in these alluvial fans ut' ize a unique habitat type at the no ern extent of their inland range. he vegetation mosaic of the Etiwanda an is complex and consists of R' ersidian alluvial fan sage scrub in the ctive floodplains of the major wash s, and Riversidian sage scrub on th alluvial fan between major washes. T se habitats are interspersed with stan of Quercus dumosa (scrub oak), Cea othus leucodermis (white buckthor ), Cercocarpusbetuloides (mounta mahogany), Garrya ssp. (silktas 1), Rhamnus spp. (buckthorn), and Rh s ovata (sugarbush). The specie persistence in these unique habit types may be due to unique genet' or behavioral adaptations that may a important to the species as envi onmental conditions change thr gh time (Lesica and Allendorf 19 ). Linkages from these populations to ore southerly portions of the range in y include the foothills of the San G briel Mountains to the west and the n Bernardino Mountains to the east, owever these linkages have yet to be edl but may serve to maintain 4tivity. This unit does not include al movement corridor along the .Is of the San Gabriel Mountains Is the Etiwanda Fan (Unit 11) as not currently have evidence of vent through this area. Unit 13: Western Los Angeles and Ventura Counties Unit 13 encompasses approximately 41,795 ha (103,290 ac) in eastern Ventura and western Los Angeles counties along the southern and eastern slopes of the Santa Susana Mountains and a portion of the interior foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. It includes the only known breeding population of coastal California gnatcatchers in Ventura County and incorporates high quality coastal sage scrub in the Placerita, Box Springs Canyon, Plum Canyon, and Moorpark areas. Its primary function is as a regional source population for the species and as the east -west linkage of sage scrub habitat between the core population in Ventura county and the pairs documented in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. This unit encompasses the northern and western distributional extreme of the coastal California gnatcatcher's current range, and as such would act as a source population for any future recovery of gnatcatcher populations to the north and west. Peripheral populations are also important in that they may contain unique genetic or behavioral adaptations that may be important to the species as environmental conditions change through time (Lesica and Allendorf 1995). Effects of Critical Habitat Designation Section 7 Consultation Individuals, organizations, States, local governments, and other non- Federal entities are affected by the designation of critical habitat if their actions occur on Federal lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other authorization, or involve Federal funding. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act 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. 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. We may adopt the formal conference report as the biological opinion when the critical habitat is designated, if no significant new information or changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions 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 (action agency) must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation we would ensure that the permitted actions do not 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 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 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 79 / Thursday, April 24, 2003 / Proposed Rules 20245 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. 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. Activities on Federal lands that may affect the coastal California gnatcatcher or its critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. 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 (Army Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or some other Federal action, including funding (e.g., Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Authority, or Federal Emergency Management Agency) will also continue to 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 or permitted do not require section 7 consultation. 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) of the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded by the jeopardy standard in section 7(a)(2) of the Act and the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act. 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, HCPs, or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome. Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to evaluate briefly and describe, 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. Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, may directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify critical habitat of the coastal California gnatcatcher include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Removing, thinning, or destroying gnatcatcher habitat (as defined in the primary constituent elements discussion), whether by burning or mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g., woodcutting, grubbing, grading, overgrazing, construction, road building, mining, herbicide application, etc.); and (2) Activities that cause indirect effects that appreciably decrease habitat value or quality (e.g., activities that create or foster noise, edge effects, invasion of exotic plants or animals, or fragmentation such that it appreciably decreases habitat value or quality). Designation of critical habitat could affect the following agencies and /or actions: development on private lands requiring permits from Federal agencies, such as authorization from the Corps, pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the Service, or some other Federal action that includes Federal funding that will subject the action to the section 7 consultation process (e.g., from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, or the Department of Housing and Urban Development); military activities of the DoD on its lands or lands under its jurisdiction; the release or authorization of release of, biological control agents by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; regulation of activities affecting point source pollution discharges into waters of the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency under section 402 of the Clean Water Act; construction of communication sites licensed by the Federal Communications Commission; and authorization of Federal grants or loans. Where Federally listed wildlife species occur on private lands proposed for development, any HCPs submitted by the applicant to secure an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act would be subject to the section 7 consultation process, a process that would consider all Federally - listed species affected by the HCP, including plants. If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will likely constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 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, Portland Regional Office, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232 -11181 (503/231 -6131, FAX 503/231 - 6243). Relationship to the 4(d) Special Rule f the Gnatcatcher On December 10, 1993, a final spe al rule concerning take of the coastal California gnatcatcher was publish pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act 8 FR 63088). Under the 4(d) special le, incidental take of the species is n t considered to be a violation of s .ion 9 of the Act if: (1) Take results m activities conducted pursuant the NCCP and in accordance with n approved NCCP plan for the otection of coastal sage scrub, prepar consistent with the State of alifornia's Conservation and Process idelines (Guidelines) dated Novem er 1993; and (2) the Service issues wri en concurrence that the pla meets the standards for issuance o an incidental take permit under 50 C 17.32(b)(2). Within enrolled subre ons actively engaged in the prepar tion of an NCCP plan, the take of gnat atchers will not be a violation of sectio 9 of the Act if such take results from ac vities conducted in accordance with Guidelines. The Guidelines limit bitat loss during the interim planning eriod to no more than 5 percent of coa al sage scrub with lower long -ter conservation potential in existence at a time of adoption of the 4(d) speci rule. The Guide nes specify criteria to evaluate the ong -term conservation potential of age scrub that is proposed for loss du ng the period that NCCP plans are ing developed to assist participa ng jurisdictions in providing interim otection for areas that support habitat at is likely to be important to conser tion of the gnatcatcher. These Ij isd' tions are: the Southern and Matri subregions of Orange County; the citie of Rancho Palos Verdes and San Dim s in Los Angeles County; MSCP sub eas in the cities of Santee, El Ca' n, Chula Vista, and Coronado; the CP Subregion of northwestern San ego County; the North County ubarea of San Diego's MSCP; San Frequently Asked Questions About the New Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the coastal California Gnatcatcher Q. What is critical habitat? A term defined in the Endangered Species Act, critical habitat refers to specific areas that are essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management consideration or protection. Critical habitat areas are determined using the best available scientific and commercial information about the physical and biological needs of the species. These needs include: P space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; P food, water, light, air, minerals or other nutritional or physiological needs; P cover or shelter; P sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and P habitat that is protected from disturbance or is representative of the historical geographic and ecological distribution of a species. Q. What are the primary habitat components essential to the conservation of the coastal California gnatcatcher? In the United States, the coastal California gnatcatcher is found in areas that are 3,000 feet or less in elevation, and that contain suitable habitat. The habitat primarily used by the coastal California gnatcatcher is broadly defined as sage scrub. There are various types of sage scrub habitats, including Riversidean, Diegan, maritime succulent, Riversidian alluvial fan, southern coastal blur and coastal sage - chapparal scrub. California gnatcatchers rely on these vegetation communities for breeding, feeding, nesting, rearing their young, and genetic exchange. Types of plants that are found in these various sage scrub communities include: Vi uiera lacinata (San Diego sunflower), Mimulus aurantiacus (bush monkeyflower), Rhus integrifolia (lemonadeberry), Euphorbia misera (cliff spurge), Baccharis iln ularis (coyote bush), and Lotus scoparius (deerweed). Coastal California gnatcatchers may also use chaparral, grassland, and riparian habitats that are in proximity to sage scrub habitats. The species uses non -sage scrub habitats for dispersal and foraging. During times of drought, these areas may be essential for dispersal, foraging and nesting. Although some juvenile coastal California gnatcatchers have been documented dispersing from a nest site to another location up to 14 miles away, the species generally disperses shorter distances across contiguous, undisturbed habitat (approximately 2 miles). In some cases, the species does rely on open space and weedy areas that provide a suitable corridor for movement between areas of sage scrub habitats, and some of these areas may be used for foraging during the summer drought when sage scrub dries out. Examples of vegetation found in open space or weedy areas include: Brassica sp. (wild mustard), Salix sp. (willow), Tama rix sp. (salt cedar), and annual grasses. ATTAMMENT 3 Q. What about the recent scientific study that questions the validity of the coastal California gnatcatcher subspecies? A recent scientific paper by Roger Zink, George Barrowclough, Jonathan Atwood, and Rachelle Blackwell-Rago presents results of genetic research on the California gnatcatcher based on mitochondrial DNA analysis, which appears to question the validity of the coastal California gnatcatcher subspecies. We are considering whether to list the U.S. population of the California gnatcatcher species (Polioptila californica) as a District Population Segment (DPS) and are seeking public review and comment on this proposal. Our proposal would not alter the protections that are currently in place for the coastal California gnatcatcher subspecies. Q. Why is the Service re proposing critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher? In compliance with a Court order, the Service published a final rule in the Federal Register on Oct. 24, 2000, designating approximately 513,650 acres of land as critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Following publication of the final rule, several lawsuits were filed challenging various aspects of the designation, including the adequacy of the economic analysis. The Service subsequently requested permission to prepare a new economic analysis. The Court granted its request and established a new deadline by a new, final designation of critical habitat and accompanying economic analysis must be published. The Service is now proposing to designate critical habitat on approximately 495,795 acres in the California counties of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside and San Bernardino. Areas proposed as critical habitat are considered essential to the conservation of the coastal California gnatcatcher because they support populations of the species, or provide one or more of the primary constituent elements necessary for the species' life cycle needs. Additionally, some areas may be included in the proposal that temporarily lack one or more of the primary constituent elements because of fire. But these areas are expected to provide habitat elements in the future. Areas that were designated as critical habitat in the Service's 2000 final rule will retain their designation until a new, revised final critical habitat designation becomes effective. Q. Why are some lands in Ventura County are now being proposed as critical habitat when no such lands were proposed or designated previously? Following the first critical habitat designation for the coastal California gnatcatcher, new data shows that an important breeding population is present in the Moorpark area in Ventura County. Additional coastal California gnatcatcher observations from Moorpark east into Simi Valley and the San Fernando Valley now link the breeding population in Moorpark with a breeding population within the original critical habitat area in Santa Clarita. Connecting these observations and including all suitable habitat within that area, we believe we have proposed for critical habitat an area that supports the northernmost population of breeding coastal California gnatcatchers. Peripheral populations have exceptional importance in a species' recovery, and by adding this new area, we can provide for the conservation of essential habitat for populations at the periphery of the species' range. Q. Is critical habitat being proposed on lands that are covered by approved Habitat Conservation Plans? No. We considered but are not proposing critical habitat on lands within the boundaries of approved Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) that provide coverage for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Q. Are military lands being proposed as critical habitat? Yes, some lands managed by the Department of Defense (DoD) are included as proposed critical habitat. Lands within the boundaries of Fallbrook Naval Weapons Annex, and non - training areas and lands leased to the State or private entities on Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton are being proposed as critical habitat. Q. What about Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton and Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar? For reasons relating to national security, the Service is not proposing any critical habitat within mission - essential training areas on Camp Pendleton. We also considered but are not proposing critical habitat on lands within the Marine Corps Air Station at Miramar because these lands are covered by an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) that addresses the conservation needs of the coastal California gnatcatcher. Q. Is critical habitat being proposed on Tribal lands? No. The Service considered but is not proposing to designate critical habitat on lands of the Pala Band of Mission Indians. Q. Will the public be given an opportunity to comment on areas that were not proposed as critical habitat (i e., military lands, Tribal lands, lands within HCPs)? Yes. Maps showing areas essential to the conservation of the coastal California gnatcatcher overlaid with Tribal lands, mission- essential training areas on Camp Pendleton, and lands within the boundaries of approved regional HCPs will be available for public review and comment. The maps may be viewed on our website at http: / /carlsbad.fws.gov. Q. How did the Service determine what areas qualify as critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher? To identify areas essential to the conservation of the coastal California gnatcatcher, the Service used a variety of commercial and scientific resources, as follows: (1) data from research and survey observations published in peer reviewed articles; (2) regional Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages; (3) lands identified as essential to the California gnatcatcher that are in reserve, preserve, or other conservation areas with the San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), the North San Diego County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), and the North County Subarea of the MSCP for Unincorporated San Diego County; (4) data collected from reports submitted by permitted biologists; and (5) a spatial habitat model developed by the Service and tested in Orange and San Diego counties to determine the likelihood of gnatcatcher occurrences in a variety of habitats. The Service also evaluated areas where ongoing HCP planning efforts have identified habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher, and used this information in conjunction with data regarding the species' occurrences, sage scrub vegetation, elevation, and connectivity to identify lands essential for the conservation of the species within planning area boundaries. In mapping the proposed critical habitat boundaries, the Service tried to avoid developed areas, such as towns and other similar lands, that are unlikely to contribute to coastal California gnatcatcher conservation. However, the Service was unable to exclude all developed areas that do not contain one or more of the habitat components essential to the conservation of the coastal California gnatcatcher. If you would hke to find out if your property is included in the proposed critical habitat boundaries, please contact the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the address below to schedule an appointment to view a detailed GIS map. Q. Does the designation of critical habitat create preserves? No. A critical habitat designation does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. It does not allow government or public access to private lands and will not result in closure of the area to all access or use. Q. My private property is included in the proposed critical habitat boundaries, what happens now? The proposed designation of critical habitat does not affect private, local, county, or State landowners unless they are undertaking a project on their land that requires Federal funding, permits, or authorization. Critical habitat does not require landowners to carry out any special management actions, nor does it restrict the use of their land. However, because the coastal California gnatcatcher is listed as a threatened species under the Act, individuals are prohibited from engaging in unauthorized activities that will harm the species. If a project that requires Federal funding, permitting, or authorization is planned in an area proposed as critical habitat, and if the agency determines that the project may affect the coastal California gnatcatcher or its proposed critical habitat, then the agency responsible for providing the funds or permit would have to conference with the Service. Q. What is a conference? If an action being undertaken, funded, or permitted by a Federal agency may affect the proposed critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher the agency would have to conference with the Service to ensure the action will not adversely modify proposed critical habitat. At the conclusion of a conference, the Service issues a conference report or a conference opinion. A conference report contains recommendations the Federal action agency should take to reduce adverse effects on the species' proposed critical habitat. A conference opinion includes recommendations to avoid adverse modification of proposed critical habitat, but does not provide incidental take coverage. Once critical habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted by the Service as a biological opinion if it is determined that action will not adversely modify critical habitat. Although conference reports and conference opinions are only advisory, the implementation of the recommendations can avert potential future conflicts once critical habitat is actually designated. Q. What if my land was included in the final designation of critical habitat in 2000, but is not in the current proposal? Lands that were designated as critical habitat on Oct. 24, 2000 (65 FR 63680) are still in effect. If a project that requires Federal funding, permitting, or authorization is being planned in an area previously designated as critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher, then a consultation 4 with the Service will be required to ensure the action will not jeopardize the species or adversely modify critical habitat. When a final designation of critical habitat becomes effective, the previously identified critical habitat areas will be superceded by the new, final designation. Q. Will the public be given an opportunity to comment on proposed critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher? Yes. The Service wants to ensure that any final action resulting from this proposal is as accurate and as effective as possible. The Service is actively soliciting comments or suggestions from the public, other government agencies, the scientific community, industry representatives, and any other interested party. In particular, The Service are seeking comments regarding: (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 threats to the species due to designation; (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of coastal California gnatcatcher 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) The Service's determination to not propose critical habitat on mission- essential training areas on Camp Pendleton, Tribal lands, or reserve lands within the boundaries of the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program and the Orange County Central- Coastal Natural Communities Conservation Program; and (a) whether or not these lands are essential, (b) if these areas warrant exclusion, and (c) the basis for not proposing these areas as critical habitat; (5) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on small entities or families; and (6) Economic and other values associated with designating critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher, such as those derived from non - consumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, enhanced watershed protection, improved air quality, increased soil retention, "existence values," and reductions in administrative costs); (7) The benefits of including or excluding military lands covered by an adequate INRMP; (8) Whether the California gnatcatcher qualifies as a DPS north of the U.S./Mexico border; (9) Threats to the continued existence of the coastal California gnatcatcher; and (10) Information regarding the status of existing populations in the United States and Mexico. Written comments and information on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher will be accepted through June 23, 2003, and should be sent to Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California 92009. Requests for a public hearing must be submitted to the Carlsbad office and received by June 9, 2003. Comments may also be submitted by electronic mail (e- mail). You may e-mail comments on the proposed rule to fwlcfwocagn@,rl.fws.gov. Please submit e-mail comments in ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters or encryption. Please also include "Attn: RIN 1018 -AI72" in the subject line of your message and your name and address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we received your message, contact the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office directly at 760/431 -9440. All comments received, either written or oral, are given equal weight and will be considered during the decision - making process. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. 0