From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Tue Sep  6 09:13:53 2005
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 10:13:53 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Fw: [epa-species] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
	Plants; Initiation
Message-ID: <OFA20315C9.77CBBC3A-ON85257074.004E2845-85257074.004DEDE9@fws.gov>

[Federal Register: August 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 51840-51841]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31au05-149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of a 5-
Year Review of Aleutian Shield Fern (Polystichum aleuticum)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of review.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces a 5-
year review of Aleutian shield fern (Polystichum aleuticum) under
section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). A 5-year review is a periodic process conducted
to ensure that the listing classification of a species is accurate. A
5-year review is based on the best scientific and commercial data
available at the time of the review; therefore, we are requesting
submission of any such information on Aleutian shield fern that has
become available since its original listing as an endangered species in
1988 (53 FR 4626). Based on the results of this 5-year review, we will
make the requisite finding under section 4(c)(2)(B) of the ESA.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we must
receive your information no later than September 15, 2005. However, we
will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any
time.

ADDRESSES: Submit information to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Alaska Regional Office, Endangered Species Division Chief, Attention:
5-Year Review, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6199.
Comments may also be faxed to 907-271-2786, or e-mailed to <A HREF="
mailto:charla_sterne at fws.gov">
charla_sterne at fws.gov</A>. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for file formats
and
other information about electronic filing. Information received in
response to this notice and review will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the above
address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Roy at the above address, or
at (907) 786-3925.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Act, the Service maintains a list
of endangered and threatened wildlife and plant species at 50 CFR 17.11
(for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act
requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every
5 years. Then, on the basis of such reviews under section 4(c)(2)(B),
we determine whether or not any species should be removed from the List
(delisted), or reclassified from endangered to threatened or from
threatened to endangered. Delisting a species must be supported by the
best scientific and commercial data available and only considered if
such data substantiates that the species is neither endangered nor
threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is
considered extinct; (2) the species is considered to be recovered; and/
or (3) the original data available when the species was listed, or the
interpretation of such data, were in error. Any change in Federal
classification would require a separate rulemaking process. The
regulations in 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the
Federal Register announcing those species currently under active
review. This notice announces our active review of the Aleutian shield
fern currently listed as endangered.
    The 5-year review considers the best scientific and commercial data
and all new information that has become available since the listing
determination or most recent status review. Categories of requested
information include: (A) Species biology, including, but not limited
to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and
genetics; (B) habitat conditions, including but not limited to, amount,
distribution, and suitability; (C) conservation measures that have been
implemented that benefit the species; (D) threat status and trends; and
(E) other new information, data, or corrections, including but not
limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of
erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical
methods.

Public Solicitation of New Information

    To ensure that the 5-year review is complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting new
information from the public, concerned governmental agencies, tribes,
the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, and any
other interested parties concerning the status of Aleutian shield fern.

[[Page 51841]]

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses

    You may submit comments by sending electronic mail to: <A HREF="
mailto:charla-sterne at fws.gov">
charla-sterne at fws.gov</A>.
    Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII file format, and
avoid the use of special characters and encryption. Identify all
comments in electronic form by including ``Aleutian shield fern 5-Year
Review Comments'' in the title line.
    If you wish to provide information for this 5-year review, you may
submit your comments and materials to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's Alaska Regional Office (see ADDRESSES section). Our practice
is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents,
available for public review during regular business hours. Respondents
may request that we withhold a respondent's identity, as allowable by
law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state
this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will not,
however, consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with
applicable law, 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. Comments and materials
received will be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours (see ADDRESSES section).

    Authority: This document is published under the authority of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: July 26, 2005.
Gary Edwards,
Acting Regional Director, Region 7, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05-17317 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

---




From plant at plantconservation.org  Tue Sep  6 14:16:45 2005
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:16:45 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] EVENT: Adkins Arboretum native plant sale Sept. 10 (Ridgely,
	MD)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0509061415500.6578-100000@bb5.betterbox.net>

Fall Native Plant Sale
Adkins Arboretum in Ridgely, MD, will host its annual Fall Native Plant
Sale on Saturday, September 10, 2005, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.  As the dog
days of summer begin to ebb, fall plants can brighten the landscape and
provide a colorful show to take us into the doldrums of winter.  The sale
benefits the Arboretum???s educational programs and provides the public with
an opportunity to become acquainted with Delmarva???s native flora.  Adkins
Arboretum is located at 12610 Eveland Road, Ridgely, MD, 21660.  For
further information, call them at 410-634-2847 or visit their website at
www.adkinsarboretum.org.


Sylvan Kaufman
Conservation Curator
Adkins Arboretum
12610 Eveland Road
Ridgely, MD  21660
phone: (410) 634-2847 x24
FAX: (410) 634-2878
e-mail: skaufman at adkinsarboretum.org
www.adkinsarboretum.org





From plant at plantconservation.org  Tue Sep  6 14:26:41 2005
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:26:41 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] JOB: NAJ Editor
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0509061415100.6578-101000@bb5.betterbox.net>

The Natural Areas Association (NAA) (www.naturalarea.org)is seeking a new
editor for its Natural Areas Journal (NAJ).  This part-time position will
commence on October 1, 2005.

The NAJ provides a forum for communication among persons involved in the
identification, preservation, protection, and management of natural areas
and elements of natural diversity.  We welcome articles focusing on nature
preserves, natural areas, state or national parks, rare and endangered
species, land preservation, and practical approaches to natural area work.
The journal is published quarterly.

Complete job description is attached and includes contact information for
questions.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Editor2005.JobDescFinal.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 27136 bytes
Desc: 
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20050906/39764b35/attachment.doc>

From plant at plantconservation.org  Tue Sep  6 15:40:52 2005
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:40:52 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] Florida Natural History Workshop Oct 21-23 (near Gainesville,
	FL)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0509061539410.10458-100000@bb5.betterbox.net>

EARTH HEALING:
FLORIDA NATURAL HISTORY WORKSHOP

Presented by The League of Environmental Educators in Florida
Attention environmentalists, nature lovers, and environmental educators:
LEEF's 5th Florida Natural History Workshop is holistic!

In addition to the usual fun and nature immersion, you will experience:
* A weekend of reverence for nature-lovers
* Rest and revitalization for environmentalists
* A holistic curriculum for environmental educators
* Healing yourself and the Earth; staying whole in troubled times

When?  Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, October 21-23, 2005

Where?  Set at beautiful Camp Crystal Lake, less than an hour northeast of
Gainesville, Florida, habitats include freshwater lake, sandhill, ravine,
steephead, creek, ephemeral pond, and woodland with abundant wildlife.

What?  Nature-immersion education alongside some of Florida's most esteemed
naturalists, including aquatic nature study and swimming in Crystal Lake.
In this workshop, nature study is augmented with discussions of Deep
Ecology, Despair to Empowerment Exercises, and therapies for body, mind and
spirit.  Healing therapies for self-care include hydrotherapy, Thai massage,
energy medicine, and acupressure.

Why?  This is a rare opportunity to spend time in the sandhills and ravines
around the lake with some of Florida's best loved naturalists, including
butterfly ecologist Marc Minno, Scrub Curriculum expert Nancy Deyrup, insect
ecologist Mark Deyrup, herpetologists George and Donna Heinrich, mycologist
Karen Garren, wildlife conservation biologist Tony Davanzo, and others.  And
this will be an ideal opportunity to socialize and network with kindred
spirits.

Accommodations?  Fresh, local, organic food is provided, cooked on-site in
traditional nutritional recipes.  Accommodations are communal cabins with
bathrooms, and campsites are also available.

How Much?  $100 per person includes all sessions, organic meals, drinks,
snacks, lodging Friday evening through Sunday breakfast, and LEEF
membership.  $20 LEEF member discount!.

More information is available online at the LEEF website
(http://leeflet.brinkster.net/) (look under "News and Events").   The
registration deadline is September 20, 2005.  If space is available after
the deadline, the cost is $125 per person.

To register, or if you have specific questions, contact Maria Minno in
Gainesville at (352) 375-3028, email mminno at bellsouth.net
.............

Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
From: Maria Minno, LEEF President Elect
Nonprofit Organization:  League of Environmental Educators in Florida
Contact Address:  600 NW 35th Terrace, Gainesville FL 32607-2441
Contact telephone:  (352)375-3028
E-mail:  mminno at bellsouth.net
Website:  http://leeflet.brinkster.net/





From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Tue Sep  6 10:06:04 2005
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:06:04 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Critical Habitat for Atriplex coronata var. notatior
Message-ID: <OFD7C23EE7.F887A890-ON85257074.0052CD6D-85257074.0052B4BB@fws.gov>

http://epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/2005/August/Day-31/
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: August 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 168)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51739-51742]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31au05-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AJ11

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for Atriplex coronata var. notatior
(San Jacinto Valley crownscale)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and notice of
availability of draft economic analysis.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period on the proposed designation of
critical habitat for Atriplex coronata var. notatior under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
(Act), and the availability of a draft economic analysis of the
proposed designation of critical habitat. We are reopening the comment
period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment
simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic
analysis. Comments previously submitted on this proposed rule need not
be resubmitted as they have already been incorporated into the public
record and will be fully considered in our final determination of
critical habitat for this taxon.

DATES: We will accept public comments and information until September
14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any
one of the following methods:
    1. You may submit written comments and information to Jim Bartel,
Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley
Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011;
    2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the above address, or fax your
comments to 760/431-9624; or
    3. You may send your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to <A HREF="
mailto:FW1CFWO_SJVC at fws.gov">
FW1CFWO_SJVC at fws.gov</A>. For directions on how to submit electronic
comments, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section. In the event
that our internet connection is not functional, please submit your
comments by the alternate methods mentioned above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone 760/431-9440;
facsimile 760/431-9624).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

    We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period. We solicit comments on the original proposed
critical habitat designation, published in the Federal Register on
October 6, 2004 (69 FR 59844), and on our draft economic analysis of
the proposed designation. We will consider information and
recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly
interested in 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 exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat;
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Atriplex
coronata var. notatior and its habitat, and habitat features and
geographic areas essential to the conservation of this species and why;
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (4) Information on how many of the State and local environmental
protection measures referenced in the draft economic analysis were
adopted largely as a result of the listing of Atriplex coronata var.
notatior, and how many were either already in place or enacted for
other reasons;
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, environmental, or other impacts
resulting from the proposed designation or coextensively from the
proposed listing;
    (6) Whether the draft economic analysis identifies all State and
local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation,
and information on any costs that have been inadvertently overlooked;
    (7) Whether the draft economic analysis makes appropriate
assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes
imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat;
    (8) Whether the draft economic analysis correctly assesses the
effect on regional costs associated with land use controls that derive
from the designation of critical habitat;
    (9) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all
costs that could result from the designation, in particular, any
impacts on small entities or families;
    (10) Whether the designation would result in disproportionate
economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for
possible exclusion under 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final designation;
    (11) Whether it is appropriate that the analysis does not include
the cost of project modifications that are the result of informal
consultation only;
    (12) Whether there is information about areas that could be used as
substitutes for the economic activities planned in critical habitat
areas that would offset the costs and allow for the conservation of
critical habitat areas; and
    (13) How our approach to critical habitat designation could be
improved or modified to provide for greater public participation and
understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concern and
comments.
    All previous comments and information submitted during the initial
comment period on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted. If you
wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning
the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule by any one of several
methods (see ADDRESSES section). Our final determination regarding
designation of critical habitat for Atriplex coronata var. notatior
will take into consideration all comments and any additional
information received during both comment periods. On the basis of
public comment on this analysis and on the critical habitat proposal,
and on the final economic analysis, we may during the development of
our final determination find that areas proposed are not essential, are
appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not
appropriate for exclusion.
    Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII file and avoid the
use of any special characters or any form of encryption. Also, please
include ``Attn: Atriplex coronata var. notatior'' and your name and
return address in your e-mail message regarding the Atriplex coronata
var. notatior proposed rule or the draft economic analysis. If you do
not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your
e-mail message, please submit your comments in writing using one of the
alternate methods described in the ADDRESSES section.
    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 address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by

[[Page 51740]]

law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold 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 comments. 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.
    Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical
habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Copies of the proposed critical
habitat rule for Atriplex coronata var. notatior and the draft economic
analysis are also available on the Internet at <A HREF="
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/carlsbad/SJVC.htm
">http://www.fws.gov/
pacific/carlsbad/SJVC.htm</A>. In the event that our internet
connection is not functional, please obtain copies of documents directly
from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.

Background

    On October 6, 2004, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (69 FR 59844) to designate critical habitat for Atriplex
coronata var. notatior pursuant to the Act. We proposed to designate no
lands as critical habitat. The entire range for this species is in
Western Riverside County, CA, and as such will be conserved by the
approved Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
Therefore, we proposed to exclude all 15,232 acres (ac) (6,164.4
hectares (ha)) of habitat with features essential to the conservation
of this species under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The initial public
comment period for the Atriplex coronata var. notatior proposed
critical habitat rule closed on December 6, 2004. For more information
on this species, refer to the final rule listing this species as
endangered, published in the Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63
FR 54975).
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as 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 essential to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management considerations or protection, and
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. If the proposed rule is made
final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions
affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on
the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of
the Act.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial
data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact,
impact to national security, and any other relevant impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a
draft economic analysis of the October 6, 2004 (69 FR 59844), proposed
designation of critical habitat for Atriplex coronata var. notatior.
    The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic
effects of actions relating to the conservation of Atriplex coronata
var. notatior, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of
the Act, and including those attributable to designating critical
habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective
measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that
aid habitat conservation for Atriplex coronata var. notatior in habitat
areas with features essential to the conservation of this taxon. The
analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects.
In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally
reflect the ``opportunity costs'' associated with the commitment of
resources to comply with habitat protection measures (e.g., lost
economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This
analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be
distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts
of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation
activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information
can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the
designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector.
Finally, this analysis looks retrospectively at costs that have been
incurred since the date the species was listed as an endangered species
and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following the
designation of critical habitat.
    Pre-designation costs include those Atriplex coronata var.
notatior-related conservation activities associated with sections 4, 7,
and 10 of the Act that have accrued since the time that Atriplex
coronata var. notatior was listed as endangered (63 FR 54975; October
13, 1998), but prior to the final designation of critical habitat.
These pre-designation costs are estimated at $3.9 million.
    Post-designation effects would include likely future costs
associated with Atriplex coronata var. notatior conservation efforts in
the 20-year period following the final designation of critical habitat
in October 2005 (effectively 2006 through 2025). In the event that no
land is designated as critical habitat, there will be no additional
costs associated with the designation. However, if all habitat with
features essential to the conservation of the taxon were designated
critical habitat in a final rule, total costs would be expected to
range between $16.8 and $58.8 million over the next 20 years (an
annualized cost of $1.6 to $5.5 million).

Required Determinations--Amended

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues.
However, because the draft economic analysis indicates that the
potential economic impact associated with designation as critical
habitat of all habitat with features essential to the conservation of
this species would total no more than $5.5 million per year, we do not
anticipate that this designation would have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material
way. Due to the time line for publication in the Federal Register, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not formally review the
proposed rule.

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule,
we withheld our determination of whether

[[Page 51741]]

this designation would result in a significant effect as defined under
SBREFA until we completed our draft economic analysis of the proposed
designation so that we would have the factual basis for our determination.
    According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a
typical small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if this proposed designation of critical habitat for
Atriplex coronata var. notatior would affect a substantial number of
small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected
within particular types of economic activities (e.g., residential and
commercial development). We considered each industry or category
individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so
will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal
activities are not affected by the designation. Typically, when
proposed critical habitat designations are made final, Federal agencies
must consult with us if their activities may affect that designated
critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the
existing consultation process. However, since no critical habitat is
being proposed for designation, no consultations would be necessary.
    In our economic analysis of this proposed designation, we evaluated
the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting
from conservation actions related to the listing of this species and
proposed designation of its critical habitat. Designation of critical
habitat on all lands with features essential to the conservation of the
taxon would be expected to result in some additional costs to real
estate development projects due to conservation that may be required.
The affected land is located within Riverside County, CA, and under
private ownership by individuals who will either undertake a
development project on their own or sell the land to developers for
development. However, the potential number of small businesses impacted
by development-related Atriplex coronata var. notatior conservation
efforts is considered to be minimal, since only 342 ac (138.4 ha) of
privately-owned developable land within the essential habitat
(approximately 8,100 ac (3,278 ha)) are forecast to be developed
between 2006 and 2025. This comprises less than one-hundredth of one
percent of the land area in Riverside County (1,780,220 ac (720,455
ha)). We have determined from our analysis that this rule would not
result in a ``significant effect'' for the small business entities in
Riverside County. As such, we are certifying that this proposed
designation of critical habitat would not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Please refer
to Appendix A of our draft economic analysis of this proposed
designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic
impacts to small business entities.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution,
and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is
considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it
raises novel legal and policy issues, but it is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant action, and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required. Please refer to Appendix A of our draft economic
analysis of this proposed designation for a more detailed discussion of
potential effects on energy supply.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C.
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally
binding

[[Page 51742]]

duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
on to State governments.
    (b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. As discussed in the draft economic analysis,
five small local governments, the City of Perris (population 36,189),
Lake Elsinore (population 28,928), Lakeview (population 1,619), Nuevo
(population 4,135), and Winchester (population 2,155), are located
adjacent to habitat that has features essential to the conservation of
this taxon. There is no record of consultations between the Service and
these cities since Atriplex coronata var. notatior was listed in 1998.
It is unlikely that these cities would be involved in a land
development project involving a section 7 consultation, although a city
may be involved in land use planning or permitting, and may play a role
as an interested party in infrastructure projects (such as the City of
Perris with the San Jacinto River Flood Control Project). Any cost
associated with this activity/involvement is anticipated to be a very
small portion of the city's budget. Consequently, we do not believe
that critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely
affect small government entities. As such, Small Government Agency Plan
is not required.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
proposing critical habitat for Atriplex coronata var. notatior.
Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do
not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude
development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental
take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or
permits to go forward. In conclusion, the designation of critical
habitat for Atriplex coronata var. notatior does not pose significant
takings implications.

Author

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

    Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: August 23, 2005.
Paul Hoffman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-17451 Filed 8-29-05; 3:05 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

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




From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Tue Sep  6 10:19:59 2005
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:19:59 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Navarretia
 fossalis (spreading navarretia)
Message-ID: <OF0B68AD67.E091E4CE-ON85257074.00542501-85257074.0053FAF1@fws.gov>

http://epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/2005/August/Day-31/
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: August 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 168)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51742-51746]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31au05-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT86

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of
Critical Habitat for Navarretia fossalis (spreading navarretia)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and notice of
availability of draft economic analysis.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period on the proposed designation of
critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis, and the availability of a
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical
habitat. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested
parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule
and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously
submitted on this proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they have
already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully
considered in our final determination.

DATES: We will accept public comments and information until September
14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any
one of the following methods:
    1. You may submit written comments and information to Jim Bartel,
Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley
Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011;
    2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the above address, or fax your
comments to 760/431-9624; or
    3. You may send your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to <A HREF="
mailto:fw1cfwo_nafo at fws.gov">
fw1cfwo_nafo at fws.gov</A>. For directions on how to submit electronic
comments, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section. In the event
that our internet connection is not functional, please submit your
comments by the alternate methods mentioned above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone 760/431-9440;
facsimile 760/431-9624).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

    We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period. We solicit comments on the original proposed
critical habitat designation, published in the Federal Register on
October 7, 2004 (69 FR 60110), and on our draft economic analysis of
the proposed designation. We will consider information and
recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly
interested in 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 Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act),
including whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat;
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of
Navarretia fossalis and its habitat, and which habitat features and
geographic areas essential to the conservation of this species and why;
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (4) Information on how many of the State and local environmental
protection measures referenced in the draft economic analysis were
adopted largely as a result of the listing of Navarretia fossalis, and
how many were either already in place or enacted for other reasons;
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, environmental, or other impacts
resulting from the proposed designation or coextensively from the
proposed listing;
    (6) Whether the draft economic analysis identifies all State and
local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation,
and information on any costs that have been inadvertently overlooked;
    (7) Whether the draft economic analysis makes appropriate
assumptions regarding current practices and likely

[[Page 51743]]

regulatory changes imposed as a result of the designation of critical
habitat;
    (8) Whether the draft economic analysis correctly assesses the
effect on regional costs associated with land use controls that derive
from the designation of critical habitat;
    (9) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all
costs that could result from the designation, in particular, any
impacts on small entities or families;
    (10) Whether the designation would result in disproportionate
economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for
possible exclusion under 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final designation;
    (11) Whether it is appropriate that the analysis does not include
the costs of project modification that are the result of informal
consultation only;
    (12) Whether there is information about areas that could be used as
substitutes for the economic activities planned in critical habitat
areas that would offset the costs and allow for the conservation of
critical habitat areas; and
    (13) How our approach to critical habitat designation could be
improved or modified to provide for greater public participation and
understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concern and
comments.
    All previous comments and information submitted during the initial
comment period on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted. If you
wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning
the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule by any one of several
methods (see ADDRESSES section). Our final determination regarding
designation of critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis will take into
consideration all comments and any additional information received
during both comment periods. On the basis of public comment on this
analysis and on the critical habitat proposal, and on the final
economic analysis, we may, during the development of our final
determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are
appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not
appropriate for exclusion.
    Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII file and avoid the
use of any special characters or any form of encryption. Also, please
include ``Attn: Navarretia fossalis'' and your name and return address
in your e-mail message regarding the Navarretia fossalis proposed rule
or the draft economic analysis. If you do not receive a confirmation
from the system that we have received your e-mail message, please
submit your comments in writing using one of the alternate methods
described in the ADDRESSES section.
    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 address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law.
There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold 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 comments. 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.
    Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical
habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Copies of the proposed critical
habitat rule for Navarretia fossalis and the draft economic analysis
are also available on the Internet at <A HREF="
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/carlsbad/NAFO.htm
">http://www.fws.gov/pacific/
carlsbad/NAFO.htm</A>. In the event that our internet connection
is not functional, please obtain copies of documents directly from the
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.

Background

    On October 7, 2004, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (69 FR 60110) to designate critical habitat for Navarretia
fossalis pursuant to the Act. We proposed to designate a total of
approximately 4,301 acres (ac) (1,741 hectares (ha)) of critical
habitat in San Diego and Los Angeles Counties, California. The first
comment period for the Navarretia fossalis proposed critical habitat
rule closed on December 6, 2004. For more information on this species,
refer to the final rule listing this species as threatened, published
in the Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54975), and the
Recovery Plan for the Vernal Pools of Southern California (Recovery
Plan) finalized on September 3, 1998 (Service 1998).
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as 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 essential to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management considerations or protection, and
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. If the proposed rule is made
final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions
affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on
the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of
the Act.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial
data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact,
impact to national security, and any other relevant impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a
draft economic analysis of the October 7, 2004 (69 FR 60110), proposed
designation of critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis.
    The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic
effects of actions relating to the conservation of Navarretia fossalis,
including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and
including those attributable to designating critical habitat. It
further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as
a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat
conservation for Navarretia fossalis in habitat areas with features
essential to the conservation of this taxon. The analysis considers
both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of
habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the
``opportunity costs'' associated with the commitment of resources to
comply with habitat protection measures (e.g., lost economic
opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This analysis
also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be
distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts
of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation
activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information
can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the
designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector.
Finally, this analysis looks retrospectively at costs that have been
incurred since the date the species was listed as an endangered

[[Page 51744]]

species and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years
following the designation of critical habitat.
    This analysis determined that costs involving conservation measures
for Navarretia fossalis would be incurred for activities involving
residential, industrial, and commercial development; water supply;
flood control; transportation; agriculture; the development of HCPs;
and the management of military bases, other Federal lands, and other
public or conservation lands.
    Pre-designation costs include those Navarretia fossalis-related
conservation activities associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the
Act that have accrued since the time that Navarretia fossalis was
listed as threatened (63 FR 54975; October 13, 1998), but prior to the
final designation of critical habitat. The total pre-designation costs
are estimated at $7.9 million.
    Post-designation effects would include likely future costs
associated with Navarretia fossalis conservation efforts in the 20-year
period following the final designation of critical habitat in October
2005 (effectively 2006 through 2025). If critical habitat is designated
as proposed, total costs would be expected to range between $13.9 and
$32.1 million over the next 20 years (an annualized cost of $1.3 to
$3.0 million). However, if all habitat with features essential to the
conservation of the taxon were designated critical habitat in a final
rule, total costs would be expected to range between $48.6 and $129.0
million over the next 20 years (an annualized cost of $4.6 to $12.2
million).

Required Determinations--Amended

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues.
However, because the draft economic analysis indicates the potential
economic impact associated with a designation of all habitat with
features essential to the conservation of this species would total no
more than $12.2 million per year, we do not anticipate that this rule
would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
affect the economy in a material way. Due to the time line for
publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) did not formally review the proposed rule.

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule,
we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result
in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would
have the factual basis for our determination.
    According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a
typical small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if this proposed designation of critical habitat for
Navarretia fossalis would affect a substantial number of small
entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities (e.g., residential, industrial,
and commercial development). We considered each industry or category
individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so
will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal
activities are not affected by the designation.
    If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final,
Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may affect
designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the
existing consultation process. Our analysis determined that costs
involving conservation measures for Navarretia fossalis would be
incurred for activities involving residential, industrial, and
commercial development; water supply; flood control; transportation;
agriculture; the development of HCPs; and the management of military
bases, other Federal lands, and other public or conservation lands.
    In our economic analysis of this proposed designation, we evaluated
the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting
from conservation actions related to the listing of this species and
proposed designation of its critical habitat. Critical habitat
designation is expected to result in additional costs to real estate
development projects due to mitigation and other conservation costs
that may be required. The affected land is located within Riverside,
San Diego, and Los Angeles Counties (although the proposed designation
is contained in only Los Angeles and San Diego Counties), and under
private ownership by individuals who will either undertake a
development project on their own or sell the land to developers for
development. For businesses involved with land development, the
relevant threshold for ``small'' is annual revenues of $6 million or
less. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code
237210 is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in servicing
land (e.g., excavation, installing roads and utilities) and subdividing
real property into lots for subsequent sale to builders. Land
subdivision precedes actual construction, and typically includes
residential properties, but may also include industrial and commercial
properties.

[[Page 51745]]

    It is likely that development companies, the entities directly
impacted by the regulation, would not bear the additional cost of
Navarretia fossalis conservation (approximately $2.3 to $6.7 million
annualized) within the essential habitat, but pass these costs to the
landowner through a lower land purchase price. Considering
approximately 65 percent of the developable land within the essential
habitat is classified as agriculture land, it is likely that farmers
will bear some of the costs. The remaining 35 percent of the
potentially developable land is privately owned and classified as
vacant. To comply with the SBA recommendation that Federal agencies
consider impacts to entities that may be indirectly affected by the
proposed regulation, this screening level analysis presents information
on land subdivision and farming businesses for Riverside, San Diego,
and Los Angeles Counties as these are the businesses that would likely
be impacted directly or indirectly by the regulation. The majority of
the land subdivision and farming businesses within the counties are
considered small businesses.
    It is important to note that the identity and number of land
subdivision and farming businesses potentially impacted by the critical
habitat designation is not known. In addition, the identity and number
of affected businesses classified as ``small'' is also not known.
Nevertheless, the county-level information is the smallest region for
which data relevant to this analysis exist (see Table A-1 in the draft
economic analysis). This clearly over-represents the potential number
of small businesses impacted by development-related Navarretia fossalis
conservation efforts as the privately owned developable land within the
essential habitat (approximately 15,084 ac (6,104.5 ha)) comprises less
than two-tenths of one percent of the land area in the counties
(9,908,520 ac (4,009,978 ha)), and only 2,969 ac (1,201.6 ha) of this
private land is forecasted to be developed between 2006 and 2025. The
effects on small businesses in the land development sector would be
concentrated in San Diego County, where more than 65 percent of the
development is expected to take place. Within the proposed critical
habitat designation, the effects on small businesses in the land
development sector would be concentrated in Ramona, where approximately
30 percent of the development in the proposed critical habitat
designation is forecast to take place (Unit 4E).
    While the identity and number of land subdivision and farming
business impacted by the critical habitat designation is not known,
this analysis relates the economic impacts to real estate prices in the
three counties that encompass the essential habitat (see Table A-2 in
the draft economic analysis). Navarretia fossalis-related conservation
efforts are expected to cost between $390 and $11,300 per residential
dwelling unit developed, $0.81 to $5.90 per square foot of commercial
property developed, and $0.53 to $3.82 per square foot of industrial
property developed, depending on residential dwelling unit density, lot
coverage (i.e., the percent of the lot developed), and conservation and
mitigation activities required. The median sales price for single
family residences in the counties ranged from $315,000 to $460,000 in
2004, and the weighted average sales price of commercial and industrial
properties in 2004 ranged from $130 to $293 and $50 to $180 per square
foot, respectively. Thus, the economic impacts of Navarretia fossalis
conservation to the development industry are equal to 0.1 percent to
2.9 percent of the 2004 median price of a single family residence, 0.4
percent to 4.5 percent of the 2004 weighted average sales price of
commercial property, and 0.4 percent to 5.4 percent of the 2004
weighted average sales price of industrial property. These costs may be
borne by the developer or passed on to the landowner through a lower
land purchase price.
    Based on these data, we have determined that this proposed
designation would not result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, in particular to land developers
or farmers in Los Angeles, Riverside, or San Diego Counties. We may
also exclude areas from the final designation if it is determined that
these localized areas have an impact to a substantial number of
businesses and a significant proportion of their annual revenues. As
such, we are certifying that this proposed designation of critical
habitat would not result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Please refer to Appendix A of our
draft economic analysis of this designation for a more detailed
discussion of potential economic impacts to small business entities.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution,
and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is
considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it
raises novel legal and policy issues, but it is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant action, and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required. Please refer to Appendix A of our draft economic
analysis of this proposed designation for a more detailed discussion of
potential effects on energy supply.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C.
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''

[[Page 51746]]

    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above on to State governments.
    (b) As discussed in the draft economic analysis of the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis, there are 12
city governments are either adjacent to or bisect the essential
habitat: Moreno Valley (population 142,381), Perris (population
36,189), Lakeview (population 1,619), Nuevo (population 4,135),
Winchester (population 2,155), Hemet (population 58,812), Temecula
(population 57,716), San Marcos (population 54,977), Carlsbad
(population 78,247), Ramona (population 15,691), San Diego (population
1,223,400), and Chula Vista (population 173,556). Moreno Valley, Hemet,
Temecula, San Marcos, Carlsbad, San Diego, and Chula Vista exceed the
criteria (service population of 50,000 or less) for small entity.
However, there is no record of consultation between the Service and the
five remaining ``small'' governments, the City of Perris, Lakeview,
Nuevo, Winchester, and Ramona, since the Navarretia fossalis was listed
in 1998. Indeed, it is not likely that these cities would be involved
in a land development project involving a section 7 consultation,
although a city may be involved in land use planning or permitting, and
may play a role as an interested party in infrastructure projects (such
as the City of Perris with the San Jacinto River Flood Control
Project). Any cost associated with this activity/involvement is
anticipated to be a very small portion of the city's budget.
Consequently, we do not believe that the designation of critical
habitat for Navarretia fossalis will significantly or uniquely affect
these small governmental entities. As such, a Small Government Agency
Plan is not required.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
proposing critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis. Critical habitat
designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. In
conclusion, the designation of critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis
does not pose significant takings implications.

Author

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

    Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: August 23, 2005.
Paul Hoffman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-17452 Filed 8-29-05; 3:05 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P






From Olivia_Kwong at blm.gov  Wed Sep  7 10:13:13 2005
From: Olivia_Kwong at blm.gov (Olivia_Kwong at blm.gov)
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:13:13 -0400
Subject: [PCA] WEB: Internet Seminar on Jump-Starting Ecological Restoration
	(Sept. 8)
Message-ID: <OFAA7456F8.6BA4FFA9-ON85257075.00538374-85257075.00539BB9@blm.gov>





Sorry for the late notice, but it looks like you can still sign up for this
internet seminar.

Olivia Kwong
CPC/PCA
(202) 452-0392
(202) 452-7702 fax
http://www.nps.gov/plants/
----- Forwarded by Olivia Kwong/WO/BLM/DOI on 09/07/2005 11:12 AM -----
                                                                                                                                       
                      "Ravi, Sunitha"                                                                                                  
                      <Sunitha.Ravi at tte        To:       "Mary Cooke" <cooke.maryt at epa.gov>, "Julie Santiago"                          
                      mi.com>                   <santiago-ocasio.carmen at epa.gov>, "Mario Robles" <robles.mario at epa.gov>,               
                                                <olivia_kwong at blm.gov>, "Ellen Rubin" <Rubin.Ellen at epa.gov>,                           
                      09/01/2005 02:46          <fredericks.scott at epa.gov>, "Steven N. Handel" <handel at AESOP.Rutgers.edu>, "Harry      
                      PM                        Compton" <compton.harry at epa.gov>, <haroski.dale at epa.gov>,                              
                                                <Rasmussen.Sara at epamail.epa.gov>, <Allen.Catherine at epamail.epa.gov>, "Betsy Donovan"   
                                                <donovan.betsy at epa.gov>, "Gary Turner" <turner.gary at epa.gov>, "Howard Fribush"         
                                                <fribush.howard at epa.gov>, "Karen Mason-Smith" <mason-smith.karen at epa.gov>, "Matt       
                                                Charsky" <charsky.matthew at epa.gov>, "Patricia Bowlin" <bowlin.patricia at epa.gov>, "Rob  
                                                Stites" <stites.rob at epa.gov>, "Robert Pope" <pope.robert at epa.gov>                      
                                               cc:                                                                                     
                                               Subject:  Internet Seminar on Jump-Starting Ecological Restoration                      
                                                                                                                                       




Hi All:


Could you please pass the following message to as many people as you can.
I appreciate all your help on this.


*************************************************************************


EPA's Office of Land Revitalization is pleased to offer an Internet Seminar
on Jump-Starting Ecological Restoration.  The Internet Seminar is being
offered on Thursday, September 8, 2005 from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. eastern
standard time.  To register for the Internet Seminar, please go to
http://clu-in.org/studio/seminar.cfm and register for the Jump-Starting
Ecological Restoration Internet Seminar.  The attached PDF file provides a
description of the Internet Seminar.


Please call me at (703) 390-0602 if you have any questions.


Thanks and have a nice day!!!!


Sunitha Ravi, PMP
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
1881 Campus Commons Drive, Suite 200
Reston, VA 20191
Phone: (703) 390-0602
Fax: (703) 391-5876
<<Internet Seminar.pdf>> (See attached file: Internet Seminar.pdf)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Internet Seminar.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 44831 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20050907/a41fa0a2/attachment.pdf>

From plant at plantconservation.org  Wed Sep  7 10:17:16 2005
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:17:16 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] FELLOWSHIP: Nat'l Parks Ecological Research Program Fellowship
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0509071016200.22848-100000@bb5.betterbox.net>

The National Park Service, National Park Foundation, and Ecological
Society of America are pleased to announce the 2005 National Parks
Ecological Research Fellowship Program. The program encourages and
supports outstanding post-doctoral research in ecological sciences related
to the flora of U.S. National Parks.  The program will award up to three
fellowships each year to researchers who have recently completed their
Ph.D. Awards are made for up to two years, with the possibility for
renewal for a third year determined at the end of the first year. Awards
support research in any area of ecology related to the flora of the
National Parks. Research topics can address any level of ecological
organization, ranging from populations, species interactions, and
community patterns, to landscape and ecosystem level processes associated
with plants.  Research should focus on questions that advance the science
of ecology independent of immediate Park needs.  Plants, fungi, mosses,
algae, cryptogamic crusts, lichens, or other flora must be the main focus
of the research.  Research that takes advantage of the range of
environments, conditions, and scales available in National Parks is of
particular interest. Additional information and application materials are
available at http://www.esa.org/nper . Completed applications must be
received at ESA Headquarters between September 1, 2005 and October 1,
2005. For more information on the NPER Fellowship Program, contact: NPER
Program Manager, Ecological Society of America, 202-833-8773 or
nper at esa.org





From plant at plantconservation.org  Wed Sep  7 10:25:26 2005
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:25:26 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] Save the date: Plant Conservation Alliance Conference
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0509071023040.22848-100000@bb5.betterbox.net>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 09:16:30 -0500
From: Mark.Barnett at mobot.org
To: plant at plantconservation.org
Subject: Save the date: Plant Conservation Alliance Conference

The Bureau of Land Management has partnered with the PCA and the Center for
Plant Conservation to energize PCA cooperators by hosting a Cooperators
Conference on Nov. 7-9, 2005, in St. Louis.

We request your presence at this conference so that a stronger profile can
be created for the PCA. We hope to gain a better understanding of the needs
of PCA cooperating organizations and how any weaknesses can be strengthened.
The conference will include a presentation by the Native Plant Materials
Program office, facilitated forums on NGO needs, potential improvements, and
general industry-wide discussions.

Details on registering and hotel accommodations will be finalized and
forthcoming by mid-September.


M.
Mark F. Barnett
Communications Coordinator
Center for Plant Conservation
Phone: 314.577.9541
Cell: 314.229.7907
 <http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/>
http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/






From eroberson at biologicaldiversity.org  Wed Sep  7 13:15:07 2005
From: eroberson at biologicaldiversity.org (Emily B. Roberson)
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:15:07 -0700
Subject: [PCA] FW: NPCC NEWS: California Native Plant Society Executive
 Director Job Announcement
Message-ID: <01LSQXFW3E469QZIVS@Opus1.COM>

  _____  

From: Emily B. Roberson [mailto:eroberson at biologicaldiversity.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:10 AM
Subject: NPCC NEWS: California Native Plant Society Executive Director Job
Announcement

 

 

***NATIVE PLANT CONSERVATION CAMPAIGN NEWS***

***************************

 

 

The California Native Plant Society (CNPS)  is searching for an Executive
Director. Job announcement attached. 

 

 

_____________________

Emily B. Roberson, Ph.D.

Director

Native Plant Conservation Campaign

 

PMB 151 (not p.o.b) 

1459 18th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107

Phone: 415 970 0394 

 

Email:  eroberson at biologicaldiversity.org 

Web:    www.plantsocieties.org  

 

The NPCC is a project of the Center for Biological Diversity and the
California Native Plant Society.

 

The mission of the NPCC is to promote appreciation and conservation of
native plant species and communities through collaboration, education, law,
policy, land use and management.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20050907/25611f2b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CNPS ED Job Announcement.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 28098 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20050907/25611f2b/attachment.pdf>

From plant at plantconservation.org  Mon Sep 12 11:15:43 2005
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:15:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] PCA: Bimonthly Meeting Agenda for Sept. 14, 2005 (Arlington,
	VA)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0509121112100.24687-100000@bb5.betterbox.net>


Anyone that is interested is invited to come to the meeting.  Currently
there is no speaker planned, so the meeting will probably run shorter than
usual.  (This message has been cross-posted to all PCA related lists, so
you might get more than one copy.)

Olivia Kwong
SER/PCA
http://www.nps.gov/plants/

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

      PLANT CONSERVATION ALLIANCE GENERAL MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT

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

                     Wednesday, September 14, 2005
                           9:30 - 11:30 AM

       LOCATION: Conference Room at Natureserve (ABI)
                 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor
                 Arlington, VA 22209

(Take the Orange or Blue Line to Rosslyn Station. Natureserve is
located in the same building as the old Newseum. Enter through the main
entrance, next to Riggs Bank and take the elevators up one level to the
"Mall" level. Then exit the elevator and find another set of elevators
(around the corner) that goes up to the 15th floor Natureserve reception
desk.)

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

   AGENDA

   9:30 Introductions
   9:35 Announcements/Communications
   9:55 Updates on Committee Activities

        - Alien Plant
        - Medicinal Plant
        - Native Plant Materials Development
        - Public Outreach
        - Restoration
        - NFWF
        - MOU

   10:30 TBD

   11:25 Closing Remarks
   11:30 Adjourn

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

                        UPCOMING COMMITTEE MEETINGS
                    [2nd Wednesday of alternate months]

     - Wednesday, November 9, 2005 at 9:30-11:30 AM
       Scott Lambert, BLM
       NatureServe Headquarters, Arlington, VA

     - Wednesday, January 11, 2006 at 9:30-11:30 AM
       TBD
       NatureServe Headquarters, Arlington, VA





From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Tue Sep 13 08:24:09 2005
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:24:09 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Public Comment and Draft Recovery Plan for the Spring Creek
 Bladderpod (LESQUERELLA PERFORATA)
Message-ID: <OFB4538A5A.E6B6E0A9-ON8525707B.00496291-8525707B.00493320@fws.gov>


----- Forwarded by Patricia De Angelis/ARL/R9/FWS/DOI on 09/13/2005 09:16
AM -----

http://epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/2005/September/Day-12/
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: September 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 53808-53809]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12se05-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service

Notice of Availability of a Technical Agency Draft Recovery Plan
for the Endangered Spring Creek Bladderpod (Lesquerella perforata) for
Review and Comment

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of document availability and opening of public comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability
of the technical agency draft recovery plan for the Spring Creek
bladderpod (Lesquerella perforata). This species is endemic to the
Central Basin in Tennessee. It is currently known from only three
watersheds (Spring Creek, Bartons Creek, and Cedar Creek) in Wilson
County, Tennessee. The technical agency draft recovery plan includes
specific recovery objectives and criteria to be met in order to
downlist this species to threatened status and delist it under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1533 et
seq.). We solicit review and comment on this technical agency draft
recovery plan from local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public.

DATES: In order to be considered, we must receive comments on the draft
recovery plan on or before November 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to review this technical agency draft recovery
plan, you may obtain a copy by contacting the Tennessee Field Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, Tennessee
38501 (telephone (931) 528-6481), or by visiting our recovery plan Web
site at <A HREF="http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/index.html#plans
">http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/index.html#plans</A>.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several
methods:
    1. You may submit written comments and materials to the Project
Leader, at the above address.
    2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Tennessee Field
Office, at the above address, or fax your comments to (931) 528-7075.
    3. You may send comments by e-mail to <A HREF="
mailto:timothy_merritt at fws.gov">timothy_merritt at fws.gov</A>. For
directions on how to submit electronic filing of comments, see the
``Public Comments Solicited'' section.
    Comments and materials received are available for public inspection
on request, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above
address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Merritt at the above address
(telephone (931) 528-6481, ext. 211).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    We listed the Spring Creek bladderpod under the Act, on January 22,
1997 (61 FR 67493). This rare plant, a winter annual, is restricted to
the floodplains of three creeks (Bartons, Spring and Cedar) in Wilson
County, Tennessee. It can be found in agricultural fields, flooded
pastures and glades, and disturbed areas. It requires some degree of
disturbance, such as scouring from natural flooding or plowing of the
soil, to complete its life cycle.
    Factors contributing to its endangered status are an extremely
limited range and loss of habitat. The primary threat is the loss of
habitat due to conversion of land to uses other than cultivation of
annual crops, such as the rapid commercial, residential, and industrial
development that is occurring throughout Wilson County.
    Restoring an endangered or threatened animal or plant to the point
where it is again a secure, self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is
a primary goal of the endangered species

[[Page 53809]]

program. To help guide the recovery effort, we are preparing recovery
plans for most listed species. Recovery plans describe actions
considered necessary for conservation of the species; establish
criteria for downlisting or delisting, and estimate time and cost for
implementing recovery measures.
    The Act requires the development of recovery plans for listed
species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a
particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act requires us to provide a
public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment be
provided during recovery plan development. We will consider all
information presented during a public comment period prior to approval
of each new or revised recovery plan. We and other Federal agencies
will take these comments into account in the course of implementing
approved recovery plans.
    The objective of this technical agency draft plan is to provide a
framework for the recovery of this species so that protection under the
Act is no longer necessary. Spring Creek bladderpod will be considered
for reclassification to threatened status when there are 15
occurrences: Five occurrences located within the floodplain of each of
the three creeks (Spring Creek, Bartons Creek, and Cedar Creek). These
occurrences either located on public or private land must be protected
by a permanent conservation easement with a management agreement. Each
occurrence must consist of an average of 500 plants over a five-year
period with no less than 100 plants in any given year.
    Spring Creek bladderpod will be considered for delisting when there
are 25 occurrences, with at minimum five occurrences located within the
floodplain of each of the three creeks (Spring Creek, Bartons Creek,
and Cedar Creek). Each occurrence either located on public or private
land must be protected by a permanent conservation easement with a
management agreement. Each occurrence must consist of an average of 500
plants over a ten-year period with no less than 100 plants in any given
year. As reclassification and recovery criteria are met, the status of
the species will be reviewed and it will be considered for
reclassification or removal from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

Public Comments Solicited

    We solicit written comments on the recovery plan described. We will
consider all comments received by the date specified above prior to
final approval of the draft recovery plan.
    Please submit electronic comments as an ASCII file format and avoid
the use of special characters and encryption. Please also include 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 Tennessee Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
    Our practice is to make all 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 address from the record, which we will honor to the extent
allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold also from
the 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 comments. 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.

Authority

    The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered
Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).

    Dated: August 17, 2005.
Cynthia K. Dohner,
Acting Regional Director, Southeast Region.
[FR Doc. 05-17977 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P





From Patricia_Ford at fws.gov  Wed Sep 14 15:41:38 2005
From: Patricia_Ford at fws.gov (Patricia_Ford at fws.gov)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:41:38 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Katrina Damages Science Collections
Message-ID: <OF33558D5F.A93DA981-ON8525707C.00716680-8525707C.00713FAA@fws.gov>


Katrina Damages Science Collections

Can you help ? The Herbarium at USM Gulf Coast Research Lab -- a 30 year,
5000+ specimen herbarium -- was completely flooded and mostly destroyed
5000+ by Katrina. Officials are in the process of determining if anything
can be
salvaged and how to best go about doing this. If you have any contacts that
could assist in this process, please contact Patrick Biber cell (228) 238
1606 or contact the lab director (Bill Hawkins) at 228 806-7717.

** Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden, Miami, FL (as of 9-1). Mike Maunder,
director, reported that the garden suffered damage to plant collections and
the garden landscape. Buildings and laboratories were undamaged, and
emergency generators are supporting the DNA archive during power outages.
The Arboretum and Rainforest were badly hit with a valuable plant specimens
lost. Clearing work is making good progress and the garden opened to the
public on August 31.

** LSU Herbarium, Baton Rouge, LA (as of 9-9). Diane Ferguson, collection
manager, reported no damage to the building or collections. Because of
conditions in Baton Rouge, they have suspended shipping of specimens at
least until the end of September. Fieldwork in the Jean Lafitte and Gulf
Island National Parks has been suspended.

** Tulane Museum of Natural History, New Orleans, LA (as of 9-8). Hank Bart
reported that the bunkers housing the collections are intact and have no
water around them. They stand about 4 1/2 feet above ground. The concern is
for the possibility of mildew, since there is no electricity for the
climate
control. There are lots of trees down so staff cannot access the bunkers.

** Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, MS (as of 8-31). The
Clarion-Ledger reported that the museum dodged major structural damage but
not a power outage and water leaks. Emergency personnel scrambled to find
diesel fuel for its generator to keep the 100,000-gallon aquarium system
operating. Electrical power came back on Tuesday afternoon. The museum
planned to reopen for visitors on Wednesday.

** ULL Ira Nelson Ornamental Horticulture Herbarium, Lafayette, LA (as of
9-12). Dennis Wollard, associate professor of horticulture, reported no
damage to the building or collection.

** UNA Herbarium, Tuscaloosa, AL (as of 9-12). Steven Ginzbarg reported
roof
leaks but no damage to collections.







From louisathompson at erols.com  Wed Sep 14 23:11:09 2005
From: louisathompson at erols.com (Louisa Rogoff Thompson)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:11:09 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Maryland Native Plant Society conference
Message-ID: <4328F45D.1090400@erols.com>

The MARYLAND NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY will hold its Annual Conference on 
Saturday, October 1st, 2005, with additional field trips on Sunday, Oct. 2.

The conference theme is ?BALTIMORE'S URBAN AND SUBURBAN FORESTS: PEOPLE 
AND PLANTS IN PARTNERSHIP.?

The conference will be of interest to anyone involved in planning, 
designing, or managing natural or planted landscapes, as well as those 
who love native plants or simply enjoy nature.

Talks will describe the role of native plant communities in ecosystem 
functioning, urban environmental effects on forest ecosystems, Baltimore 
County?s strategy for forest sustainability, and how development can be 
planned to minimize disruption of ecosystem services ? without 
sacrificing profits.

After these talks, guided tours and field trips to natural areas and 
designed or managed landscapes will show you how a healthy ecosystem 
works and how gardeners, landscape architects, and other designers have 
applied these models to create wildlife habitat, manage stormwater, and 
provide other ecosystem services.

Talks will be held at the Lodge at Oregon Ridge Park, 13555 Beaver Dam 
Rd., Cockeysville, MD from 9:30 am to 1:00 pm. Registration opens at 
8:30. Guided tours and field trips to natural areas, native plant 
gardens, and restoration sites (riparian buffer plantings, wetland 
mitigation, invasive plant management projects, etc.) will be held 
throughout the Baltimore region on Saturday afternoon, with additional 
field trips on Sunday.

A buffet dinner, social, and silent auction will be held at the Benjamin 
Banneker Historical Park and Museum, 300 Oella Ave., Catonsville, MD, 
from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on Saturday, October 1. To donate items to the 
silent auction, contact joyceholmz at juno.com.

The conference is open to the public. Registration is $65, which 
includes lunch for those who pre-register. Registration at the door does 
not include lunch. Dinner is an additional $25, available by 
pre-registration. For scholarship information, contact 
louisagardener at verizon.net.

For additional information and directions, see the conference website at 
www.MDFlora.org .







From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Thu Sep 15 11:08:32 2005
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:08:32 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Availability of Final Recovery Plan for Pecos Sunflower
 (Helianthus paradoxus)
Message-ID: <OF416017B5.0E1B9FC0-ON8525707D.00587618-8525707D.00583FE2@fws.gov>


http://epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/2005/September/Day-15/
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: September 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 178)]
[Notices]
[Page 54567-54568]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15se05-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Notice of Availability of the Final Recovery Plan for the Pecos
Sunflower (Helianthus paradoxus)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

[[Page 54568]]

ACTION: Notice of document availability.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces the
availability of the Final Recovery Plan for the Pecos sunflower
(Helianthus paradoxus). The Pecos sunflower is a wetland annual plant
that grows on wet, alkaline soils at spring seeps, wet meadows and pond
margins. It occurs in seven widely spaced populations in west-central
and eastern New Mexico and west Texas. Loss and/or alteration of
wetland habitat is the primary threat to Pecos sunflower, primarily by
surface water diversion and wetland filling for agriculture and
recreational uses, and groundwater pumping and aquifer depletion for
municipal uses. The Recovery Plan outlines the necessary criteria,
objectives, and actions to reduce these threats and accomplish the goal
of delisting the Pecos sunflower.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Recovery Plan may be requested by contacting
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services
Field Office, 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87113. The
Recovery Plan can also be obtained from the Internet at
<A HREF="http://www.fws.gov/endangered/recovery/
">http://www.fws.gov/endangered/recovery/</A>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, New Mexico
Ecological Services Field Office, at the above address; telephone 505/
346-2525, facsimile 505/346-2542.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Pecos sunflower was listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, on October 20, 1999 (64 FR
56582-56590). The threats facing the survival and recovery of this
species are the loss and alteration of its wetland habitat due to
aquifer depletions, diversions of surface water, and filling wetlands
for conversion to dry land; competition from non-native plant species,
including Russian olive and tamarisk; excessive livestock grazing; and
highway maintenance and mowing. The Final Recovery Plan includes
scientific information about the species and provides the objectives,
criteria, and actions needed to delist the species. Recovery actions
designed to achieve the objectives and criteria include identifying and
securing core conservation habitats essential for the long-term
survival of this species, continuing life history, population, and
habitat studies, ensuring compliance with existing regulations, and
promoting opportunities for voluntary conservation of the species.
    Restoring an endangered or threatened animal or plant to the point
where it is again a secure, self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is
a primary goal of the Service's endangered species program. To help
guide the recovery effort, the Service is working to prepare recovery
plans for most of the listed species native to the United States.
Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation
of listed species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting
those species, and estimate time and costs for implementing the
recovery measures needed.
    The Act requires the development of recovery plans for listed
species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a
particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act, as amended in 1988,
requires that public notice and an opportunity for public review and
comment be provided during recovery plan development. The Service
considers all information presented during a public comment period
prior to approval of each new or revised recovery plan. The Service and
others also take these comments into account in the course of
implementing recovery plans.
    A Draft Recovery Plan for Pecos sunflower was available for a 30-
day public comment period beginning July 2, 2004 (69 FR 40409). The
Service also requested and received peer review from two independent
specialists with expertise regarding Pecos sunflower and closely
related species. During the comment period, we received letters from
seven individuals and organizations, including both peer reviewers. In
response to two requests to extend the public comment period, we re-
opened the comment period for an additional 30 days on September 14,
2004 (69 FR 55447). No additional comments were received during that
time. The recovery plan was modified to address many of the comments
and specific responses for substantive comments are summarized in
appendix A of the Final Recovery Plan.

Authority

    This document is published under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: August 17, 2005.
H. Dale Hall,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 05-18324 Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

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

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/




From plant at plantconservation.org  Thu Sep 15 16:25:07 2005
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:25:07 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] NOTES: Summary of Sept 14th PCA Meeting 
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0509151622110.1594-100000@bb5.betterbox.net>

The notes below will be added to the website sometime next week.

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


Notes from PCA General Meeting
14 September 2005
NatureServe, Rosslyn, Va.
(Notes taken by P. De Angelis)


PCA Chair, Peggy Olwell (BLM) was unable to attend.
Olivia Kwong (Center for Plant Conservation (CPC)) opened the meeting with
introductions.
Sign-up sheet passed around.

New (or recently returning) participants
Freddie Ann Hoffman (HeteroGeneity LLC)
Kelly Gravuer (NatureServe)

Events

Botanical Society of Washington - Tentative field trip to Pennsylvania
serpentines (Sept. 24-25, 2005).  Need not be a member to attend this
event.  Per: Larry Morse (NatureServe)

Maryland Native Plant Society Annual Meeting (October 1-2, 2005;
Cockeysville, MD); <http://www.mdflora.org/-  Per: Patricia De Angelis
(FWS)

PCA Cooperators Conference (Nov. 7-9, 2005; St. Louis, Missouri). See
Announcements, below.  Per: Olivia Kwong (CPC)

Sustainable Botanicals 2006, the 3rd Symposium on Industrial Leadership
for the Preservation of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (Feb. 9-11, 2006;
Salt Lake City, UT).  See Update on Committee Activities, Medicinal Plant
Working Group, below.  Per: Patricia De Angelis (FWS)

Annual Drug Information Association (DIA) Meeting (Jun. 18-22, 2006;
Philadelphia, PA.) - Deadline for abstracts extended.  See announcements,
below.  Per: Freddie Ann Hoffman (HeteroGeneity LLC)

Announcements

Plant-A-Tree Program - USDA-FS (per Larry Stritch)
Individuals or groups can make a donation to have trees planted.  A
minimum donation of $10 will support the planting of 8-12 trees.  The
donor may either send donations to national headquarters (to go to the
general reforestation funds) or may designate a specific forest by
contacting the forest directly.  Donors will receive a certificate of
acknowledgement.  For details, see: <www.fs.fed.us/faq/- (scroll to the
bottom).

The FS Native Plant Materials Policy should be published within the next
30 days.  There will be a 60 day public comment period.  When the Federal
Register (FR) notice is published, Larry Stritch will send announcement
over PCA listserve.

Automated Listserve to receive Federal Register notices.  The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has automated listserves that you
can sign up for to receive Federal Register notices about a variety of
environmental issues.  Go to: <www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/- and click on FR
Listserv (on the left-hand side of the screen) to select the categories
you are interested in.

Deadline extended for submitting abstracts for the Natural Health Products
(NHPs) track of the Drug Information Association (DIA) Meeting (June
18-22, 2006; Phila., PA) through the end of this week (Sept. 16).  The NHP
Track, which is being chaired by Freddie Ann Hoffman, will cover mostly
botanicals, but also oils, etc.  There will be at least ten sessions.  The
audience is pharmaceutical companies.  Each session is about 1.5 hours and
includes 2-3 speakers.  For more information or to submit an abstract, see
<www.diahome.org/docs/Events/Events_search_detail.cfm?EventID=06001>

A Coalition Congress on Plants is being considered to focus on issues
specific to plants used for natural health products, including the dietary
supplement-drug industry interface.  May include Canada and would bring
together groups of people who do not normally cross paths.  Possible
tracks include: Regulatory, sustainable production and efficacy issues.
More information will follow.  Per: Freddie Ann Hoffman

PCA Cooperators Conference (Nov. 7-9, 2005; St. Louis, Missouri). All
Cooperators are invited to attend this conference, hosted by the Center
for Plant Conservation, to energize the PCA cooperators.  The conference
aims to gain a better understanding of the needs of PCA cooperating
organizations and address weaknesses in order to create a stronger profile
for the PCA.  Features will include a presentation by the Native Plant
Materials Program office, facilitated forums on NGO needs, potential
improvements, and general industry-wide discussions.  Details on
registering and hotel accommodations should be made available over the PCA
listserves by mid-September.

Update on Committee Activities

-Alien Plant Working Group (Olivia Kwong (CPC) for Jil Swearingen (NPS))
   - More fact sheets will be available by the end of this year

   - QUESTION: Sara Tangren asked for recent publications that discuss the
issue or human history of plantings to "benefit the environment" that
result in the introduction of invasive species.

Such introductions have mainly been for erosion control, horticultural
purposes and habitat enhancement for wild animals. Several examples,
including kudzu, brown tree snake, Melaleuca, and sawtooth oaks (U.S.).
Recently, a country is suing the FAO for planting an invasive tree in
their country.

Suggested reading:
- Whittemore, A.T. 2004. Sawtooth Oak (Quercus Acutissima, Fagaceae) in
North America. Sida, Contributions to Botany. v:21, pp:447-454.
<www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=143169>

- Northeast Forest Experiment Station - publication in the 1970s that
stated that bluejays can advance an oak forest 200 yards/generation (per
Larry Stritch)

-Medicinal Plant Working Group (Patricia De Angelis - USFWS)
   - Planning continues on Sustainable Botanicals 2006, the 3rd Symposium
on Industrial Leadership for the Preservation of Medicinal and Aromatic
Plants, to be held in Salt Lake City, Utah, Feb. 9-11, 2006.  The emphasis
will be on wild-harvest issues, including exploring the realm of the
harvester, traditional collection practices vs. poaching, and public land
management strategies.  More information will soon be available at:
<www.plantconservation.org/mpwgconference/>.

-Native Plant Materials Development (Not in attendance)

-National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Ellen Lippincott - NFWF)

   - More than 200 pre-proposals were submitted under the Native Plant
Conservation Initiative grant program.  Full proposals will be requested
by mid-October and the recipients will be announced at the next PCA
meeting.
   - Executive Director, John Berry, will leave at the end of September to
head up the National Zoo.  A nationwide search for the new NFWF E.D. is
underway.

-Public Outreach (Not in attendance)

-Restoration Working Group (Not in attendance)

-MOU (Olivia)
   - USGS has almost completed the signature process


Chain Bridge Flats:  The Wildest Place in D.C.?
slide presentation by Larry Morse  (NatureServe)

Unique flora inhabits the flood-scoured riverbank bedrock terrace along
the Potomac River near (and under) the Chain Bridge between Virginia and
D.C., with highlights including:  wild indigo, big bluestem, fringe tree,
prairie redroot (at its type locality), rock grape, Coville's phacelia,
Steele's meadow-rue, and Carolina willow (or Ward's willow).

Next Meeting:  Due to the upcoming PCA Cooperators Conference in St.
Louis, the PCA bimonthly meeting at NatureServe Headquarters is being
rescheduled from November 9th to November 16th.





From Jane_Rodgers at nps.gov  Fri Sep 16 10:23:07 2005
From: Jane_Rodgers at nps.gov (Jane_Rodgers at nps.gov)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:23:07 -0700
Subject: [PCA] Point Reyes National Seashore Seeks Range Management
	Specialist
Message-ID: <OF603AF740.D2371AC6-ON8825707E.00525B7C-8825707E.005483A0@nps.gov>

Looking for the perfect range management job? Know someone who is? Then
read on!

Located an hour north of San Francisco, Point Reyes National Seashore is
known for its breathtaking views, variable terrain, high biodiversity, ...
and historic ranching! See http://www.nps.gov/pore/history_ranch.htm for
more information on the history of agriculture within a national park.

To apply for this position, please visit http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/
. Search under either of the following vacancy announcements:

      PORE 05-35 DEU  (open to all qualified applicants)
      PORE 05-34 MPP (open to all qualified merit promotion applicants)
                                                                                                
                                                                                                
                                                                                                

This position is being advertised as a range management specialist and
biologist for both federal merit promotion candidates and nonfederal
applicants.

Position Description:
Point Reyes National Seashore manages over 30,000 acres of agricultural
lands within 90,000 acres of park lands. The Seashore is a refuge for 27
federally listed threatened and endangered species, and park staff manages
a wide array of complex resource issues. The incumbent serves as the
principle contact and technical advisor for all rangeland resources,
preparing, revising and implementing multi-use rangeland management plans.
Additionally, the incumbent develops professional advice and
recommendations for the park superintendent regarding the balance of
natural and cultural resource issues pertaining to the 30 historic beef and
dairy ranch properties located within Point Reyes National Seashore. The
purpose of these recommendations is to ensure that the rangeland resources
and multiple uses that occur on these lands are managed in a manner that is
sustainable and consistent with park policy. Develops cooperative
partnerships with livestock operators, park staff, representatives from
other agencies, resource conservation organizations and environmental
groups, in order to resolve complex resource problems and enhance both the
viability of agriculture and environmental quality on rangelands. Maintains
and protects natural and cultural resources within the context of range
management; includes addressing water quality issues (non-point source
pollution and Total Maximum Daily Loads), Best Management Practices,
threatened and endangered species, and historic and pre-historic sites.
Conducts on-the-ground surveys to identify and evaluate rangelands where
the vegetation and soils have significantly departed from the natural
potential.


Jane Rodgers, Vegetation Management
Point Reyes National Seashore
Point Reyes Station, CA  94956
415.464.5190/FAX .5183
Visit the Seashore at http://www.nps.gov/pore/




From eroberson at biologicaldiversity.org  Sat Sep 24 14:42:27 2005
From: eroberson at biologicaldiversity.org (Emily B. Roberson)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:42:27 -0700
Subject: [PCA] FW: Join NPCC and Plant Societies in Opposing Anti-endangered
 species bill
Message-ID: <01LTERGHU5QW9TUELV@Opus1.COM>

 

 

Hello Plant Conservation Leaders:

 

Apologies for cross posting. 

 

This is an invitation to native plant science and conservation organizations
to formally join the Native Plant Conservation Campaign?s testimony to
Congress opposing HR 3824. Our comments are attached and pasted below. 

 

As you know, the Threatened and Endangered Species  Recovery Act of 2005
(H.R. 3824) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives this week.
The bill would remove most of the key protection for listed plants and
wildlife under the Endangered Species Act. 
It would also make listing imperiled species much more difficult. 

 

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the bill are its restrictions on the
types of science ? and scientists ? that would be considered eligible to
participate in decisions about listing and conserving imperiled plants and
other species. Congress is not qualified to legislate science, but HR 3824
would do just that. 

 

The bill is 74 pages long, but those who want to review it in detail can
find the text at: 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3824: 

 

Just in case some folks don?t wish to read 74 pages of legislative language,
a summary of the bill developed by Earthjustice, the Center for Biological
Diversity and the Endangered Species Coalition is also pasted below.

 

We are operating on a VERY SHORT TIMELINE. The bill is being fast tracked to
avoid public scrutiny and comment, because its authors know that it is both
flawed and unpopular. 

 

HR 3824 is scheduled for a full House vote THIS COMING WEEK!

 

So please review the NPCC comments and let me know if youR organization can
sign on by close of buisiness TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27.  

That way we can send it to Congress before the vote. Send me the full name
of your group and, if you wish, the name of the President/Chair. 

 

NOTE!!!!!!!!

If you do not sign the letter ? or even if you do - please consider sending
your own letter or making your own phone calls. 

 

Capitol Switchboard:  (202) 224-3121

Ask for your Member of Congress's office.

 

You can look up your Representative at:  www.house.gov
(http://www.house.gov/) You can look up your Senators at:  www.senate.gov
(http://www.senate.gov/)

 

More information on HR 3824 is available at the Endangered Species Coalition
website: www.stopextinction.org <http://www.stopextinction.org/>  

 

THANK YOU! 

 

Emily

 

Emily B. Roberson, Ph.D.

Director

Native Plant Conservation Campaign

 

PMB 151 (not p.o.b) 

1459 18th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107

Phone: 415 970 0394 

 

Email:  eroberson at biologicaldiversity.org

Web:   www.plantsocieties.org  

 

The NPCC is a project of the Center for Biological Diversity and the
California Native Plant Society.

 

The mission of the NPCC is to promote appreciation and conservation of
native plant species and communities through collaboration, education, law,
policy, land use and management.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Letter on HR 3824

 

Testimony of the Native Plant Conservation Campaign and Plant Science and
Conservation Organizations

Regarding

The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 (H.R. 3824)

 

September 22, 2005

 

Re:      Oppose HR 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act
of 2005

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

The Native Plant Conservation Campaign is a coalition of native plant
societies and other native plant science and conservation organizations,
representing more than 60,000 laypersons and professional botanists in all
50 states. The mission of the NPCC is to promote appreciation and
conservation of native plant species and communities through collaboration,
education, law, policy, land use and management. 

 

NPCC affiliate organizations and their members work closely with state and
federal agencies to manage and conserve native plants and ecosystems. We
frequently use the Endangered Species Act to protect imperiled plants that
would otherwise be lost to our children and grandchildren. We also work
closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies to provide
botanical and other scientific information to help land managers conserve
this nation?s unique flora. 

 

 

The Native Plant Conservation Campaign and the undersigned organizations
oppose H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of
2005. 

 

The Endangered Species Act is one this nation?s most effective and popular
environmental laws. For over thirty years, the Endangered Species Act has
been the safety net for wildlife, fish and plants on the brink of
extinction. It has been successful in preventing the extinction of 98% of
the species that have been listed, including the American Bald Eagle, the
Robbin?s Cinquefoil, Fremont?s Flannelbush, and countless other beautiful
and unique plants and animals. 

 

Instead of statutory changes, we recommend that Congress adequately fund and
staff the Act?s implementing agencies. Congress has never budgeted
sufficient resources for execution of the Endangered Species Act. Eighty to
90% of the public consistently express support for the Act in opinion polls;
these polls also show strong support for increased funding for species and
habitat protection. Before changes are made, the law should be given the
resources to work as it was designed to do. This is the only way its
effectiveness can be evaluated.

 

Protection of our remaining flora and natural heritage is essential to human
society and to our economy. Plants generate the oxygen we breathe, clean the
water we drink, provide the foundation of wetlands as well as the plant
communities which protect us from destructive and deadly floods and erosion.
Plants also provide us with foods, medicines and other indispensable
commodities; many yet to be discovered. The health of native vegetation
controls the quality and quantity of goods, services and enjoyment that
Americans derive from wildlands. Wildland enjoyment and wildlife watching
generate more than $100 billion in U.S. economic activity each year.
Butterflies, bears, eagles and all the wildlife that the public enjoys
requires healthy native plant communities for survival. Extinction leads to
loss of other plant, fish, and wildlife that are connected and
interdependent through the web of life. Each species lost to extinction also
represents the potential loss of life saving therapies, foods, jobs,
industries and economic growth. 

 

Given (i) the known and potential importance of plants and other species,
(ii) the rates at which we are losing irreplaceable fish, plants, wildlife
and their habitats in the U.S. and around the world, and (iii) the rate at
which we are discovering new uses and values for wild species, it would be
reckless and irresponsible to weaken the law that offers the most effective
protection for our natural heritage.

 

As Congress recognized when it first passed the ESA:

?From the most narrow possible point of view, it is in the best interests of
mankind to minimize the losses of genetic variations
Who knows, or can say,
what potential cures for cancer or other scourges, present or future, may
lie locked up in the structure of plants which may yet be undiscovered, much
less analyzed?  More to the point, who is prepared to risk those potential
cures by eliminating those plants for all times?  Sheer self-interest impels
us to be cautious.?

-U.S. House of Representatives Report regarding the enactment of the ESA in
the 93rd Congress (1973)  

 

H.R. 3824 would substantively weaken the ESA and impede our ability to
conserve our natural heritage in several critical ways. The bill would 

*        reduce opportunities for species recovery through elimination of
habitat protections

*        restrict both the type of science that can be used and which
scientists may participate in species listing and conservation 

*        introduce new bureaucratic hurdles to species listing and
post-listing conservation

*        introduce unrealistic time limits for conservation measures to be
developed before destructive projects can proceed 

 

As scientific organizations we are concerned about the provisions that
restrict protections for the habitat that supports endangered species. A
primary principle of conservation biology is that habitat protection is
fundamental to species conservation. We are also particularly disturbed by
provisions restricting the types of science employed in endangered species
conservation. Surely scientists with appropriate expertise, rather than
Congress, are best qualified to determine what and how scientific
information is used. 

 

We urge Congress to reject this legislation. Congress should instead fully
fund the existing Endangered Species Act and the agencies that implement it.


 

Thank you for your attention to these comments, 

 

Sincerely

 

YOUR NAME

YOUR ORGANIZATION

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

FACT SHEET

H.R. 3824 (Pombo)?An Analysis of Major Provisions

 

H.R. 3824, a bill introduced yesterday by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), would
drastically scale back this nation?s commitment to conserving its endangered
wildlife and habitat for future generations.  This analysis sets forth some
of its most damaging provisions.

 

Removes Prohibition Against Killing Threatened Species (Section 8) 

 

*         Unlike endangered species, species listed as ?threatened? under
the Endangered Species Act do not enjoy the prohibitions of the Act?s
statutory prohibition against killing or injuring them.  (ESA ? 9).
Instead, the Act requires that the Service issue regulations as necessary to
provide for the conservation of the species.  (ESA ? 4(d)).  In one of its
first acts after the law was passed, the Service issued a default regulation
pursuant to  this authority extending the Endangered Species Act?s
protections to all threatened species except those (a small handful) for
whom special rules have been crafted.  

 

*         HR 3824 removes these protections requiring that any regulation
issued to protect threatened species be issued on an individualized
species-by-species basis.  The Bill also removes language in the Act
requiring that such regulations be promulgated to further the overall
conservation of the species.  Considering the enormous cost that would be
entailed in issuing separate regulations for each threatened species (over
400 threatened species are currently protected by the Act), and the repeal
of the statutory mandate to do so, the Service is unlikely to restore the
necessary protections. 

 

Eliminates All Critical Habitat Protections (Section 5)

 

*         HR 3824 ignores the crucial role of protecting wildlife habitat,
repealing all of the critical habitat provisions of the Act. 

 

*         To justify this repeal, Rep. Pombo claims that he has replaced
critical habitat with a better habitat protection tool, set forth in the
bill?s recovery plan provisions.  However, the Pombo bill merely states that
recovery plans must identify areas of ?special value? to the conservation of
the species.  Moreover, the Bill provides that nothing in recovery plans
(including the identification of ?special value? habitat) shall be binding. 

 

Requires Fish and Wildlife Service to Either Allow Unfettered Habitat
Destruction or Make Big Payoffs to Developers (Sections 13 and 14)

 

*         The Endangered Species Act currently requires a destructive
project cannot proceed until it is reviewed and approved by government
scientists. HR 3824 would allow the majority of developers to proceed with
environmentally harmful projects without carrying out any of the offsetting
habitat conservation measures ordinarily required by the Endangered Species
Act.  Specifically, if the Fish and Wildlife Service cannot review permit
applications within 90 days, it is deemed to have consented to the permit.
Since the Services already cannot meet existing deadlines, the inevitable
result is that the agencies would be completely overwhelmed, allowing myriad
destructive projects to slip through unreviewed. (Section 13) 

 

*         In those cases where the Fish and Wildlife Service does review a
project within 90 days and request modifications or mitigation, the Service
would then become obligated to pay the developer for any foregone profits.
Thus, for example, if the Service allows a subdivision to be built on all of
a 2,000-acre tract except a 10-acre riparian habitat area used by an
endangered toad, the developer would be entitled to a federal government
check for any profits not earned on the last 10 acres - even if the overall
project is highly profitable. (Section 14) 

 

*         Furthermore, this provision requires that these payments (labeled
as ?aid? in the Bill) be paid from the budget of the Interior Department by
the end of the fiscal year.  ?If sufficient funds are not available to pay
an aid award in full, the Secretary shall pay any remaining balance when
funds next become available.?   The Bill also provides that ?the Secretary
shall pay the aid required by this section from any funds available to the
Secretary that are not mandated by law to be spent for other activities or
obligations.? These payments would take priority over all other programs not
just of the endangered species program, but the entire Department of
Interior. 

 

Allows Politicians To Define Best Available Scientific Data (Section 3)

 

*         The Endangered Species Act leaves the decision of what constitutes
the ?best available scientific data? to the scientific community.  HR 3824
requires a political appointee, the Secretary of the Interior, to issue
regulations predetermining the definition of best science.  The proposed new
definition of best science also gives greater weight to empirical data ?
ignoring the importance and integrity of scientific modeling. 

 

*         HR 3824 also includes a restrictive definition of ?best available
scientific data? (the standard by which decisions are made pursuant to the
Act) limiting it to the ?most? accurate, reliable, and relevant? science,
but does not define what ?most? means.  This is a significant departure from
current regulations, which defines ?best available science? to be all
relevant scientific information. 

 

*         Finally, HR 3824 removes the phrase ?commercial data? from the
?best available scientific and commercial data,? available for use in
scientific decisions. This could preclude the use of fishing haul data
(landings) in the assessments of fish populations. 

 

Other Damaging Provisions

 

*         Weakens recovery plans by allowing key decisions to be made by
?recovery teams? , which must include representatives from each
?constituency? with a direct interest in the species and its ?economic and
social impacts?; and removes the Act?s requirement that recovery plans be
prepared for the ?conservation and survival of endangered species and
threatened species
? (Section 10). 

 

*         Imposes a new, weaker, definition of ?distinct population
segments? that reduces the likelihood that species will be protected at the
population level, even when such a proactive measure would be the most
effective and least costly conservation strategy.  (Section 4). 

 

*         Codifies a damaging ?no surprises? rule, which limits the ability
to reopen permits for incidental take of listed species, without addressing
the widely-recognized need for monitoring and adaptive management to rescue
species declining toward extinction.  (Section 13). 

 

*         Weakens the consultation provisions by allowing the Secretary of
Interior to exempt any federal agency action or ?categories of actions? from
its requirements.   (Section 12). 

 

*         Exempts states from the Act?s consultation requirements and
authorizes habitat destruction pursuant to newly-created state conservation
agreements without mitigation requirements. (Section 11).  

 

*         Requires that numerous new bureaucratic hurdles be imposed on the
Services, despite the already severe shortage of resources and the
likelihood that substantial appropriations increases will not be
forthcoming. 

 

 

Contacts:

 

Susan Holmes, Earthjustice: (202) 667-4500

John Kostyack, National Wildlife Federation: (202) 797-6879

Brian Nowicki, Center for Biological Diversity: (520) 623-5252 x311

Andrew Wetzler, Natural Resources Defense Council: (614) 840-0891

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20050924/fc0bed72/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Pombo NPS Testimony 9.05.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 95744 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20050924/fc0bed72/attachment.doc>

From plant at plantconservation.org  Mon Sep 26 11:13:39 2005
From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong)
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:13:39 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [PCA] JOB: Smithsonian Research Biologist - ITIS Liaison
	(Washington, DC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0509261112440.12384-100000@bb5.betterbox.net>

For the full announcement go to
http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/getjob.asp?JobID=34462815

Vacancy Announcement
Smithsonian Institution
Vacancy Announcement Number: 05AD-1262

Opening Date: Friday, September 16, 2005
Closing Date: Friday, September 30, 2005

Position: RESEARCH BIOLOGIST
Series & Grade: GS-0401-13/

Salary: 74,782.00 - 97,213.00 USD Annually

Duty Locations: 1 vacancy - WASHINGTON, DC

Remarks: NOTE: TERM APPOINTMENT NOT-TO-EXCEED 2YEARS. POSITION MAY BE
EXTENDED WITHOUT FURTHER COMPETITION.

Who May Apply

Public

All candidates may apply including disabled individuals with eligibility
under a special appointing authority and veterans who are preference
eligibles or who have been separated from the armed forces under honorable
conditions after 3 years or more of continuous active service. (If a
competitive list of eligibles is requested, the applications of non-status
candidates who meet the minimum qualifications for the position will be
referred to the Delegated Examining Unit (DEU) for consideration. Status
candidates and candidates eligible under a special appointing authority,
who wish to be rated under both merit placement and DEU's competitive
procedures, must submit two complete applications. If only one application
is received, it will be considered under the merit placement program.) The
Smithsonian provides reasonable accommodations to applicants with
disabilities. If you need a reasonable accommodation for the
application/hiring process, please call (202) 275-1102 (voice) or (202)
275-1110 (TTY).

Under Executive Order 11935, only United States citizens and nationals
(residents of American Samoa and Swains Island) may compete for civil
service jobs.

Additional Duty Location Info

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR RESEARCH
AND COLLECTIONS (ADS-0525)

Major Duties

Incumbent serves as the Smithsonian Institution liaison to ITIS
(Integrated Taxonomic Information System) and as an authoritative advisor
on taxonomic problems to the ITIS program. Serves as the point of contact
and expert advisor on professional matters in this area to Smithsonian
colleagues, Federal agencies, other governments, institutions,
organizations, and the general public. Coordinates the participation and
contributions (funding and staffing resources) of the ITIS partner
agencies and organizations in order to effectively achieve short and
long-term program goals. Assists with efforts to negotiate with and
formalize agreements with prospective ITIS partner organizations,
including Federal and State government agencies, scientific and
professional societies, non-government organizations, and international
organizations. Drafts and submits required reports to ITIS partner
agencies and organizations. Serves as supervisor to Smithsonian Federal
and Trust Fund staff, contractors and advisor to interns, students,
fellows, short-term scholars, and to scientific institutions and museums.
Makes and reviews work assignments. Publishes scholarly reports on
systematics based on own research conducted in the laboratory, and on
existing scholarly publications. Reviews research proposals, manuscripts,
and publications as requested by scientific colleagues and outside
institutions. Lectures to professional associations and other
organizations. Attends and participates in national and international
scientific conferences, seminars, and societies. Responds to requests for
television, radio, and newspaper interviews regarding
research. Serves on advisory committees for other institutions.

For the full announcement go to
http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/getjob.asp?JobID=34462815





From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Mon Sep 26 12:05:41 2005
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:05:41 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Fw: CQ story on Resources Reconciliation Draft - Includes
	MMPA amendments
Message-ID: <OF91DD1B78.50F61B2B-ON85257088.005CD8D7-85257088.005DCEE4@fws.gov>


This article is from Congressional Quarterly (www.cq.com).

- - - - - -

 CQ GREEN SHEETS
 COASTS; FOSSIL FUELS; MINING AND MINERALS; PUBLIC LANDS
 Sept. 23, 2005
 Land Sales, Oil Drilling Among Elements of Resources Reconciliation Draft
 By Adam Satariano and Leslie Ann Duncan, CQ Staff


 Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in protected coastal
 waters as well as the sale of units from the national park system would be
 authorized under budget reconciliation language being drafted by Rep.
 Richard W. Pombo , R-Calif.


 As chairman of the House Resources Committee, Pombo has been charged with
 producing new revenue streams for the government ? proposals that would
 eventually be rolled into the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation
 package.


 "This is a draft," said committee spokesman Brian Kennedy. "It's a
 brainstorm of ways to save the federal government money."


 The draft drew a sharp response from Rep. Nick J. Rahall II of West
 Virginia, ranking Democrat on the Resources Committee.


 "Congress must find ways to save money, but I am having a hard time
 believing that selling our national parks to the highest bidder and
 drilling along our coastlines would even be brought to the table," he said
 in a written statement.


 Leasing Revenue


 The government would collect money on the leases sold to energy companies
 that want to drill in the protected areas of the Arctic National Wildlife
 Refuge (ANWR) and the outer continental shelf.


 Language authorizing drilling in ANWR has long been expected in the budget
 reconciliation package. Drilling on the outer continental shelf, however,
 is an idea that has gained momentum since Hurricane Katrina.


 Supporters of offshore drilling have said recent hurricanes in the Gulf of
 Mexico show that oil and gas production should not be consolidated in one
 region of the country.


 Environmentalists have opposed such efforts, arguing the move would put
 areas at risk of oil spills and other ecological damage.


 Offshore oil and gas leasing is currently banned by federal moratoriums
 except for the western and central Gulf of Mexico and parts of the Alaskan
 coast.


 Land Sales


 The draft also directs the National Park Service to remove the 15 least
 visited units from the national park system, including seven parks and
 preserves totaling 17.3 million acres in Alaska. The agency would have to
 sell the land parcels, or make them available for energy or commercial
 development.


 The draft also would direct the Park Service to sell commercial
 sponsorships of park visitor centers, museums, trails and auditoriums, and
 sell advertising space on all public transport vehicles in the system.


 And the draft would direct the agency to sell various parcels in
 Washington, D.C., and sell Theodore Roosevelt Island, in the Potomac
 River, for residential and commercial development.


 Mining Provisions


 On the mining front, the draft would repeal a longstanding moratorium on
 patenting of mining claims, charge $1,000 per claim (until the moratorium,
 enacted in successive Department of the Interior funding bills, the patent
 fee was $5), and would not charge miners a royalty for minerals produced
 on patented land.


 The draft also would convey several large parcels to mining companies in
 Nevada, Alaska and Idaho; and would recoup some of the revenue from sales
 of Bureau of Land Management land in Nevada. Under PL 105-263 , that money
 had been earmarked for state and local conservation and other uses, but
 the revenue has vastly exceeded expectations.


 The draft includes language to change the way Abandoned Mine Reclamation
 Fund monies are distributed, using a formula favored by Reps. Barbara
 Cubin , R-Wyo., and Rahall, who have introduced free-standing legislation
 on the matter ( HR 1600 ). A Senate Energy and Natural Resources
 subcommittee is holding a hearing on the abandoned mine reclamation issue
 next week.


 And the draft includes a package of amendments to the Marine Mammal
 Protection Act ( PL 95-522 ).


 Resources Committee Reconciliation Draft (pdf) :
 http://www.cq.com/flatfiles/editorialFiles/greenSheets/reference/20050923hres_recondraft.pdf





From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Mon Sep 26 13:54:31 2005
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:54:31 -0400
Subject: [PCA] PESP (Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program) Bulletin -
	Sept. 2005
Message-ID: <OF9DEA3456.2FE65BCC-ON85257088.006659A6-85257088.0067C59D@fws.gov>


This message has been cross-posted.

This newsletter includes information on:
AGRICULTURAL NEWS
-FY06 AGRICULTURE FUNDING BILL
-MYCOGEN GETS PATENT GRANT ON TRANSGENIC BT IN PLANTS
-CHANGES IN BT COTTON INVESTIGATED
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAM NEWS
-NEW PESTICIDE REGISTRATION FEES BECOME EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2005
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
-IPM Partnership Grants Program
-2006 BIOPESTICIDE GRANT PROGRAM
-GRANT OPPORTUNITIES FROM GRANTS.GOV
MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
-FIFTH NATIONAL IPM SYMPOSIUM
-2006 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIP SUMMIT

More info on Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP) is
available at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP/publications/vol6se/IVA-esb-communications.htm

Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D.
Botanist - Division of Scientific Authority
Chair - Plant Conservation Alliance - Medicinal Plant Working Group
US Fish & Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 750
Arlington, VA  22203
703-358-1708 x1753
FAX: 703-358-2276
Working for the conservation and sustainable use of our green natural
resources.
<www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal>

----- Forwarded by Patricia De Angelis/ARL/R9/FWS/DOI on 09/26/2005 02:36
PM -----


PESP (Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program) EXCHANGE
September 2005

AGRICULTURAL NEWS

FY06 AGRICULTURE FUNDING BILL
The US Senate has approved its version of the Agriculture/FDA FY 2006
Funding Bill:  The Senate passed a $100 billion spending bill for
agriculture, food and drug programs, averting debate over emergency
contraception and other controversies ... The vote for the bill was 97-2,
with Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., voting no.
Now,
congressional negotiators must work out differences in House and Senate
versions of the spending bill, which funds the Agriculture Department, FDA
and related agencies. Absent from the bill is a $3.1 billion spending cut
for farm programs that Congress ordered earlier this year. Agriculture
committees plan to decide next month how to make the cut. The Senate did
pass several amendments ..." as noted below - The bill is reportedly silent

on a provision in the House bill concerning a delay in mandatory
country-of-origin food labeling.  The complete text of the AP story is
posted at
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8CPD9T01.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db


MYCOGEN GETS PATENT GRANT ON TRANSGENIC BT IN PLANTS
The United States Patent Office has granted patent rights to transgenic
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in plants to Mycogen Plant Seeds, Inc., an
affiliate of Dow AgroSciences LLC. The newly granted patent for Bt in
plants
gives Dow broad and exclusive U.S. rights to this technology. The patent
was
originally filed in 1988, but a decision by the U.S. Patent Office was
delayed by interference proceedings by another company. The case was
eventually resolved in Dow's favor. Dow's patent on transgenic Bt in plants

(United States Patent Number 6,943,282) will be in effect until 2021.  For
more information about Dow AgroSciences, visit http://www.dowagro.com or
email Garry Hamlin of Dow AgroSciences at garryhamlin at dow.com.

CHANGES IN BT COTTON INVESTIGATED
Bt cotton plants with the Cry1Ac protein have shown varying efficacy
against
field populations of the insect Helicoverpa armigera. This may cause H.
armigera to evolve resistance to the Cry1Ac toxin.   The entire abstract,
http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0022-0493&volume=098&issue=04&page=1382
.

OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAM NEWS

New Pesticide Registration Fees Become Effective October 1, 2005: On June
14, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency published a revised list of
pesticide registration service fees for specified pesticide applications
and
tolerance actions.  Under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act
(PRIA),
the registration service fees for covered pesticide registration
applications received on or after October 1, 2005, will increase by 5
percent.  The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 established a new
section in the federal pesticide law, which authorized a service fee system

for applicants for specified pesticide registration, amended registration
and associated tolerance actions.  Under this system, applications must pay

service fees for covered applications, and EPA is required to make a
determination on the application within specified decision times.  To view
the list of pesticide registration fees, please visit
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/June/Day-02/a10998.htm.  More
information about PRIA can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/fees

*************************************************************
For general questions on pesticides and pesticide poisoning prevention,
contact the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC), toll free, at:
1-800-858-7378, by E-mail at npic at ace.orst.edu, or by visiting their
website
at: http://npic.orst.edu/

For information about EPA's pesticide program, visit our homepage at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/

*************************************************************
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

IPM PARTNERSHIP GRANTS PROGRAM
The Northeastern Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Center is pleased to
announce the availability of funding through its IPM Partnership Grants
Program for 2006 (FY 2005 federal funds). A Request for Applications (RFA)
is posted on the Center's website at http://northeastipm.org/abou_fund.cfm

Approximately $465,000 is available to support projects that will address
or
develop regional IPM priorities and will further the mission of the
Northeastern IPM Center. The Center is seeking applications for six project

types:   (1) IPM Working Groups; (2) State Network Projects; (3) IPM
Working
Group Priorities;  (4) Regional IPM Publications; (5) Critical and Emerging

Issues; (6) IPM Tactics Surveys, Crop Profiles, and Pest Management
Strategic Plans

ELIGIBILITY: Private individuals, public and private institutions or
organizations, businesses, and commodity groups are encouraged to apply.
The
primary project director must be from the northeastern region.

DEADLINE: The original and fourteen (14) copies of each proposal must be
received by the Northeastern IPM Center by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December
16,
2005. See the complete RFA for full submission instructions. If you have
questions or need paper copies of the RFA,  please contact grants manager
John Ayers, Co-director of the Northeastern IPM Center, Pennsylvania State
University (phone 814-865-7776; fax: 814-863-8175; email jea at psu.edu).

2006 BIOPESTICIDE GRANT PROGRAM
The IR-4 Biopesticide Research Program
announces a request for grant proposals for funding of efficacy research in

2006. With newer targeted conventional chemicals there is interest in
resistance management to maintain the utility of those products. Therefore,

IR-4 is especially interested in proposals containing biopesticides as
resistance management tools, rotated with conventional products. While
resistance management is an important interest, the proposal must still
have
a majority focus on biopesticides. Selection of treatments and experimental

design should be considered to elucidate the contribution of each component

to the pest control system. Project proposals will be accepted in three
different stage categories. The three project stages are Early, Advanced
and
Demonstration. The total amount of funding available will be around $
400,000. Most successful grants have generally ranged from $5,000 to
$10,000
with the largest grants generally around $20,000. The primary objective of
the IR-4 Biopesticides Research Program is to further the development and
registration of biopesticides for use in pest management systems for
specialty crops or for minor uses on major crops. NOTE: The three project
stages: Early, Advanced and Demonstration have specific proposal forms. If
you are submitting a proposal for the Early or Advanced stage project,
please use the forms on pages 13-24. If you are submitting a proposal for a

Demonstration project, please use the forms on pages 25-34. Proposals will
be due November 18, 2005.  You can download Grant Procedure and Application

in Word format HERE
http://ir4.rutgers.edu/Docs/Early,%20Advanced%20&amp;%20Demo.%20Guidelines%20&amp;%20Forms-2006.doc


GRANT OPPORTUNITIES FROM GRANTS.GOV
The grants listed below are from the Federal Grants Website at
http://www.grants.gov.  Grants.gov is a single Federal website where users
can find and apply for over 900 grant programs awarding more than 400
billion annually. Through a streamlined electronic process, Federal
grant-making agencies can leverage a cross-government service model, while
maintaining their autonomy and flexibility to efficiently manage their
grant
programs. The editor of PESP Exchange regularly filters new grant
opportunities that may be relevant for our PESP members.  You may find out
more information on these grants by going to the site and entering the Fund

number.

Fund number : USDA-GRANTS-080905-001
Title : Fiscal Year 2006 Regional Integrated Pest Management Competitive
Grants Program - North Central Region

Fund number : USDA-GRANTS-080905-002
Title : Fiscal Year 2006 Regional Integrated Pest Management Competitive
Grants Program - Northeastern Region

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS

FIFTH NATIONAL IPM SYMPOSIUM
"Delivering on a Promise," will be held in St. Louis, MO on
April 4-6, 2006 at the Adams Mark Hotel. Symposium sessions
will address state of the art strategies and technologies to successfully
solve pest problems in agricultural, recreational, natural and community
settings in a way that makes sense.  To receive future notices about the
symposium, send your e-mail address to ipmsymposium at ad.uiuc.edu    For
information on lodging and accommodations, visit the Adams Mark Hotel
website at http://www.adamsmark.com/stlouis/index.asp:

2006 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIP SUMMIT
"Stewardship in Action: Our Responsibility ? Our Environment";
May 8-11, 2006; Sheraton Atlanta Hotel - Atlanta, Georgia
During four days of interactive sessions, workshops and site visits,
environmental assistance policy-makers, providers and recipients will
explore stewardship activities in pollution prevention, compliance
assistance, and performance based environmental leadership. Attendees will
examine partnering, science and systems-based approaches, multi-media and
'whole toolbox' strategies, measurement, transferability, sustainability
and
more in the context of a vision of stewardship.
Join your colleagues for the third annual National Environmental
Partnership
Summit - dedicated to and created by individuals who inspire, lead, fund,
create, deliver, and receive environmental assistance. Be inspired as you
renew and create relationships with as many as 800 environmental leaders
and
innovators from all over the country.
For More Information: http://www.environmentalSummit.org/  Phone:
303-690-4245

***********************************************************************************************


The PESP Exchange is a monthly electronic update of activities and
available
funding opportunities.  If you have something you would like mentioned in
the Exchange, or have questions or comments regarding its contents, please
contact the editor, Sherry Glick  at glick.sherry at epa.gov or call her at
702-784-8276.

From Krupnick.Gary at NMNH.SI.EDU  Tue Sep 27 09:13:50 2005
From: Krupnick.Gary at NMNH.SI.EDU (Gary Krupnick)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:13:50 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Botanical Partners Lecture Series: Dr. Bruce Stein - 6
	October	at 4:00pm
Message-ID: <s3391c69.037@mnhgwia.si.edu>

Please join the United States Botanic Garden and the Smithsonian
Institution's Department of Botany for a new talk in the Botanical Partners
Lecture Series:

"Plant Extinctions: What Do We Really Know?"
Dr. Bruce A. Stein, Vice President for Programs at NatureServe

Date: Thursday, October 6, 2005
Time: 4:00 p.m. with reception to follow

Location: USBG Conservatory, 100 Maryland Avenue SW

RSVP to Katie at (202) 226-8038 or kpalm at aoc.gov; space is limited.

The Botanical Partners Lecture Series is designed to bring together the
Washington scientific community interested in botanical studies.  Invited
speakers have been chosen to attract participants from a broad spectrum of
the local community who are interested in the botanical sciences.  An
informal reception after the talk will be hosted to promote discussion and
exchange of ideas.  Please share this announcement with colleagues in your
department or office.

Gary Krupnick, Ph.D.
Head of the Plant Conservation Unit
Department of Botany
Smithsonian Institution
PO Box 37012
NMNH, MRC-166
Washington, DC 20013-7012 USA
Tel: 202-633-0940
Fax: 202-786-2563
Email: krupnick at si.edu



From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Tue Sep 27 13:11:36 2005
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:11:36 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Public Comment/Economic analysis: Critical Habitat for
 ASTRAGALUS LENTIGINOSUS var. coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-vetch)
Message-ID: <OFCC67B35E.98046E2E-ON85257089.006396E7-85257089.0063D7D6@fws.gov>


----- Forwarded by Patricia De Angelis/ARL/R9/FWS/DOI on 09/27/2005 02:06
PM -----


From:
http://epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/2005/September/Day-27/
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: September 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 186)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56434-56439]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27se05-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT74

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-vetch)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and notice of
availability of draft economic analysis.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period on the proposed designation of
critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella
Valley milk-vetch), and the availability of a draft economic analysis
of the proposed designation of critical habitat. We are reopening the
comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to
comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft
economic analysis. Comments previously submitted on this proposed rule
need not be resubmitted as they have already been incorporated into the

[[Page 56435]]

public record and will be fully considered in our final determination.

DATES: We will accept public comments and information until October 27,
2005.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any
one of the following methods:
    1. You may submit written comments and information to Jim Bartel,
Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley
Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011;
    2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the above address, or fax your
comments to 760/431-9624; or
    3. You may send your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to <A HREF="
mailto:fw1cfwocvmv at fws.gov">
fw1cfwocvmv at fws.gov</A>. For directions on how to submit electronic
comments, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section. In the event
that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit your
comments by the alternate methods mentioned above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone 760/431-9440;
facsimile 760/431-9624).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

    We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period. We intend that any final action resulting from
our critical habitat proposal be as accurate and effective as possible.
Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community,
industry, or any other interested party concerning the proposed rule
and the associated draft economic analysis. 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 Endangered
Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
including whether the benefits of designation would outweigh any
threats to the species resulting from designation;
    (2) Specific information on the distribution of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae, the amount and distribution of the
species' habitat, and which habitat is essential to the conservation of
the species, and why;
    (3) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject area and their possible impacts on the species or proposed
critical habitat;
    (4) Whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating
public concerns and comments;
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, environmental, or other impacts
resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat or
coextensively from the listing, and in particular, any impacts on small
entities or families;
    (6) Whether the economic analysis identifies all State and local
costs. If not, what other costs should be included;
    (7) Whether the economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions
regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a
result of the listing of the species or the designation of critical
habitat;
    (8) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on
regional costs associated with land- and water-use controls that derive
from the designation;
    (9) Whether the designation will result in disproportionate
economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for
possible exclusion from any final designation;
    (10) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all
costs that could result from the designation or coextensively from the
listing; and
    (11) Whether there is information about areas that could be used as
substitutes for the economic activities planned in critical habitat
areas that would offset the costs and allow for the conservation of
critical habitat areas.
    All previous comments and information submitted during the initial
comment period on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted. If you
wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning
the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule by any one of several
methods (see ADDRESSES section). Our final determination concerning
designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae will take into consideration all comments and any additional
information received during both comment periods. On the basis of
public comment on the critical habitat proposal, the draft economic
analysis, and the final economic analysis, we may during the
development of our final determination find that areas proposed are not
essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
    Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII file and avoid the
use of any special characters or any form of encryption. Also, please
include ``Attn: Coachella Valley milk-vetch'' and your name and return
address in your e-mail message regarding the Astragalus lentiginosus
var. coachellae proposed rule or the draft economic analysis. If you do
not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your
e-mail message, please submit your comments in writing using one of the
alternate methods described above in the ADDRESSES section.
    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 address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law.
There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold 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 comments. 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.
    Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical
habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Copies of the proposed critical
habitat rule for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and the draft
economic analysis are also available on the Internet at <A HREF="
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/carlsbad/CVMV.htm
">
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/carlsbad/CVMV.htm</A>. In the event that
our Internet connection is not functional, please obtain copies of
documents directly from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.

Background

    On December 14, 2004, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (69 FR 74468) to designate critical habitat for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae pursuant to the Act. We identified
approximately 20,559 acres (ac) (8,320 hectares (ha)) of essential
habitat for this species. Of the essential habitat, we proposed to
designate approximately 3,583 ac (1,450 ha) of critical habitat in
three units in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California.
Approximately 16,976 ac (6,870 ha) of essential habitat covered under
the pending Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation

[[Page 56436]]

Plan in Riverside County was excluded from proposed critical habitat
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The first comment period for the A.
l. var. coachellae proposed critical habitat rule closed on February
14, 2005. For more information on this species, refer to the final rule
listing this species as endangered, published in the Federal Register
on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596).
    The proposed critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae, published on December 14, 2004 (69 FR 74475), was intended
to include only Federal and State lands. Although the descriptions of
the proposed critical habitat units describe those units as Federal or
State lands, due to using a 100 meter Universal Transverse Mercator
grid in our mapping process, some acres associated with private lands
were inadvertently included in the total acreage figures. Because the
draft economic analysis looks at the costs associated with all of the
acreage included in the proposed rule, the development costs on private
lands were included. If this proposed critical habitat designation is
made final, the Service intends to explicitly remove the private lands
in the final determination.
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as 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 essential to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management considerations or protection, and
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. If the proposed rule is made
final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions
affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on
the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of
the Act.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial
data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact,
impact to national security, and any other relevant impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a
draft economic analysis of the December 14, 2004 (69 FR 74468),
proposed designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus
var. coachellae.
    The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic
effects of actions relating to the conservation of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae, including costs associated with sections
4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to
designating critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects
of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and
local laws that aid habitat conservation for A. l. var. coachellae in
essential habitat areas. The analysis considers both economic
efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat
conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the ``opportunity
costs'' associated with the commitment of resources to comply with
habitat protection measures (e.g., lost economic opportunities
associated with restrictions on land use). This analysis also addresses
how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including
an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation
and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities
and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision-
makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly
burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, this analysis
looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred since the date
the species was listed as an endangered species and considers those
costs that may occur in the 20 years following the designation of
critical habitat.
    Pre-designation costs include those Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae-related conservation activities associated with sections 4,
7, and 10 of the Act that have accrued since the time that A. l. var.
coachellae was listed as endangered (October 6, 1998), but prior to the
final designation of critical habitat. The pre-designation costs in the
proposed critical habitat are estimated at $2.5 million.
    Post-designation effects include likely future costs associated
with Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae conservation efforts
following the final designation of critical habitat in December 2005
(effectively 2006 through 2025). The total costs associated with the
designation of critical habitat are expected to be $7.8 million in
constant dollars, or $5.8 million and $4.2 million when using a three
percent or seven percent discount rate, respectively, over the next 20
years (an annualized cost of $0.4 million at either rate). As mentioned
above, private lands were not meant to be included in the proposed
designation. The costs associated with development on private lands are
$1.5 million in constant dollars, or $1.1 million and $0.8 million when
using a three percent or seven percent discount rate, respectively,
over the next 20 years (an annualized cost of $0.07 million at either
rate). Therefore, the net costs associated with the designation of
critical habitat are expected to be $6.2 million in constant dollars,
or $4.7 million or $3.4 million when using a three percent or seven
percent discount rate, respectively over the next 20 years (an
annualized cost of $0.03 million at either rate).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues.
However, because the draft economic analysis indicates the potential
economic impact associated with a designation of all habitat with
features essential to the conservation of this species would total no
more than $0.4 million per year, we do not anticipate that this final
rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the time line for
publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) did not formally review the proposed rule.

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule,
we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result
in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would
have the factual basis for our determination.
    According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations,

[[Page 56437]]

and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city
and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as
small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we considered the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation
as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if this proposed designation of critical habitat for
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae would affect a substantial
number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g.,
residential, industrial, and commercial development). We considered
each industry or category individually to determine if certification is
appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially
affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal
involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal
involvement and so will not be affected by the designation of critical
habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities
conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-
Federal activities are not affected by the designation.
    If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final,
Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may affect
designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the
existing consultation process. Our analysis determined that costs
involving conservation measures for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae would be incurred for activities involving residential,
commercial, and industrial development (land subdivision companies);
transportation (California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans),
Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), or Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC)); Federal land (Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service)); other public (California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG) and California Department of Parks and Recreation
(CDPR)) or conservation (The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Center for
Natural Lands Management (CNLM)) land management, water supply (Mission
Springs Water District (MSWD) and Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD)), and flood control (CVWD and Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District (RCFC) agencies); implementation of the
draft Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP); and wind energy projects (private businesses and individuals).
    In our economic analysis of this proposed designation, we evaluated
the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting
from conservation actions related to the listing of this species and
proposed designation of its critical habitat. Critical habitat
designation is expected to result in additional costs to real estate
development projects through a Local Development Mitigation Fee. This
fee will be imposed by local jurisdictions on residential, commercial,
and industrial development occurring on private land containing habitat
for covered species (species included in the MSHCP permit) within the
Coachella Valley MSHCP Plan Area. The affected land is located within
Riverside County and under private ownership by individuals who will
either undertake a development project on their own or sell the land to
developers for development. However, as previously mentioned, due to
using a 100 meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid in our mapping
process, private lands were inadvertently included in the proposed
critical habitat designation. If the proposed rule is made final, the
Service intends to explicitly remove private lands, and therefore the
additional costs to real estate development projects mentioned above
will likely not materialize. For businesses involved with land
development, the relevant threshold for ``small'' is annual revenues of
$6 million or less. The North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code 237210 is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in
servicing land (e.g., excavation, installing roads and utilities) and
subdividing real property into lots for subsequent sale to builders.
Land subdivision precedes actual construction, and typically includes
residential but may also include industrial and commercial properties.
    It is likely that development companies in Riverside County, the
entities directly impacted by the regulation, would not bear the
additional costs of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
conservation within the essential habitat, but pass these costs to the
landowners through a lower land purchase price. Of the 8,598 acres of
developable land in Units 1 and 2, 8,559 acres are under private
ownership and ``vacant''; the remaining 39 acres are under private
ownership and in agriculture.
    To comply with the SBA recommendation that Federal agencies
consider impacts to entities that may be indirectly affected by the
proposed regulation, this screening level analysis presents information
on land subdivision and farming businesses for Riverside County as
these are the businesses that would likely be impacted directly or
indirectly by the regulation (see Table A-1 in the draft economic
analysis). As highlighted in Table A-1, the majority of the land
subdivision and farming businesses within Riverside County are
considered small businesses.
    It is important to note that the identity and number of land
subdivision and farming businesses impacted by the critical habitat
designation is not known. In addition, the identity and number of
affected businesses classified as ``small'' is also not known.
Nevertheless, the county-level information provided in Table A-1
reflects the smallest region for which data relevant to this analysis
exist. This county-level information clearly over-represents the
potential number of small businesses impacted by development-related
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae conservation efforts as the
privately owned developable land within the essential habitat
(approximately 8,598 acres) comprises less than two-tenths of one
percent of the total land area in the County (4,612,480 acres), and
only 265.2 acres of this private land is forecasted to be developed
between 2006 and 2025. Furthermore, the 39 acres of agriculture land
represent less than one-half of one percent of the developable land
(approximately 8,598 acres) within the essential habitat.
    While the identity and number of land subdivision and farming
businesses impacted by the critical habitat designation is not known,
considering that low density residential

[[Page 56438]]

development is expected to comprise 79 percent of the forecasted acres
of land development between 2006 and 2025, this analysis relates the
economic impacts to the median home price in the County. The mitigation
cost per acre of development is $1,975 for this species, and the build-
out density for residential low development is fewer than eight
dwelling units per acre. Thus, Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae-
related conservation efforts are expected to cost between $247 and
$1,975 per residential dwelling unit (one to eight dwelling units per
acre) developed. Considering the median sales price for single family
residences in the County was $315,000 in 2004, the economic impacts are
equal to 0.08 percent to 0.63 percent of the median home price in
Riverside County. These costs may be borne by the developer or passed
on to the landowner through a lower land purchase price.
    Based on this data, we have determined that this proposed
designation would not result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, in particular to land developers
or farmers in Riverside County since no private lands are actually
being proposed for critical habitat as stated earlier in the Background
section. We may also exclude areas from the final designation if it is
determined that these localized areas have an impact to a substantial
number of businesses and a significant proportion of their annual
revenues. As such, we are certifying that this proposed designation of
critical habitat would not result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Please refer to Appendix A of our
draft economic analysis of this proposed designation for a more
detailed discussion of potential economic impacts to small business
entities.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution,
and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is
considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it
raises novel legal and policy issues. On the basis of our draft
economic analysis, the proposed critical habitat designation is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required. Please refer to Appendix A of our draft
economic analysis of the proposed designation for a more detailed
discussion of potential effects on energy supply.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C.
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above on to State governments.
    (b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. As discussed in the draft economic analysis,
nine small local governments are located adjacent to or bisect the
areas subject to this analysis: Palm Springs (population 42,807);
Cathedral City (population 42,647); Banning (population 23,562); Yucca
Valley (population 16,865); Desert Hot Springs (population 16,582);
Cherry Valley (population 5,891); Thousand Palms (population 5,120);
Cabazon (population 2,229); and Morongo Valley (population 1,929). All
nine of the local governments have populations that fall within the
criteria (fewer than 50,000 residents) for ``small entity.'' However,
there is no record of consultations between the Service and these
cities since Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae was listed in
1998. Indeed, it is not likely that these cities would be involved in a
land development project involving a section 7 consultation, although a
city may be involved in land use planning or permitting, and may play a
role as an interested party in infrastructure projects. Any cost
associated with this activity/involvement is anticipated to be a very
small portion of the city's budget. Consequently, we do not believe
that critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely
affect small government entities. As such, Small Government Agency Plan
is not required.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
proposing critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae.
Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do
not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude
development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental
take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or
permits to go

[[Page 56439]]

forward. In conclusion, the designation of critical habitat for
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae does not pose significant
takings implications.

Author

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

    Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: September 16, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-19098 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

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


http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/






From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov  Tue Sep 27 13:17:24 2005
From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:17:24 -0400
Subject: [PCA] 12-Month Finding on Petition To List the Gentry Indigo Bush
 as Endangered: Not warranted
Message-ID: <OFDC7E0F70.43E7FF71-ON85257089.0064591B-85257089.00645F93@fws.gov>


----- Forwarded by Patricia De Angelis/ARL/R9/FWS/DOI on 09/27/2005 02:15
PM -----

From: http://epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/2005/September/Day-27/

ly to increase in the future
and cause detrimental effects to Gentry indigo bush and its habitat.
Undocumented immigrants may also set fires. Although these fires are
usually accidental (e.g., an escaped campfire), they may be the
ignition source for a future grassland fire in the watershed.
    The border fence in Sycamore Canyon has remained intact since 1998.
Border activity ebbs and flows, and it is difficult to predict where
increased activity will take place. Currently, the level of border
activity is not threatening the continued existence of the plant in
Sycamore Canyon.
Invasive Plants
    The invasive buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) is used throughout
Sonora, Mexico, as a pasture grass, and large natural grassland areas
have been converted to buffelgrass. Buffelgrass lines the major highway
in Sonora to the U.S. border. Noxious weed seeds can be spread by the
wind, on the soles of shoes, and in the tire treads of vehicles.
Riparian areas can also function as dispersal corridors for the
movement of invasive plant species (Stohlgren et al. 1998; Parendes and
Jones 2000). With the increase in border activity, it is probably only
a matter of time before this highly invasive grass species is found in
Sycamore Canyon. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural
Research Service has developed and released a cold-tolerant variety of
buffelgrass, ``Frio'', which is intended to be used at higher
elevations and in regions where current buffelgrass cultivars
experience winter damage (Hussey et al. 2005). These cultivars will
increase the potential area of invasion.
    Buffelgrass grows very quickly and out-competes native grass for
water and nutrients. Once stabilized, it rapidly becomes the dominant
plant cover. Should it become the dominant plant species on floodplain
terraces, it could replace Gentry indigo bush along with other native
riparian species in Sycamore Canyon, but it is not known to occur there
at this time. We do not know if buffelgrass is found near the
populations of Gentry indigo bush in Mexico, but it may be a potential
threat to these populations in the future since so much planting of the
grass has taken place in Sonora, Mexico. As of 1997, over one million
ha (2,471,000 ac) of desert and thorn scrub in central Sonora had been
cleared to plant bufflegrass (Van Devender and Felger 1997), but we do
not know how close it is to invading canyons occupied by Gentry indigo
bush.
    Baker (2005) found at least one, and possibly two, species of
Pyracantha in Atascosa and Sycamore canyons. This nonnative, aggressive
species, should it become established and spread in Sycamore Canyon,
could potentially reduce suitable habitat for Gentry indigo bush.
    Many areas of Sonoran desert grasslands in southeast Arizona have
been colonized by Lehman lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana), an
invasive species from South Africa. This grass has become so firmly
established in southern Arizona that there may be no feasible control
for it. Lehman lovegrass produces more fine fuel than native grass
species (Cable 1971; Cox et al. 1984), leading to increased fire
spread. Lehman lovegrass also increases after fire (Ruyle et al. 1988;
Sumrall et al. 1991). Currently, the Bear Valley allotment does not
seem to have continuous patches of Lehman lovegrass, so the effects
from an altered fire regime due to its presence may not pose a threat
to Gentry indigo bush. If the density and distribution of Lehman
lovegrass were to increase on the allotment, then more frequent and
higher intensity fires would be expected. This could potentially result
in increased erosion and precipitation run-off, possibly leading to
more frequent flood events in Sycamore Canyon. More frequent and
greater intensity flooding may not allow for the recolonization of
habitat and reestablishment of sub-populations in Sycamore Canyon
during flood-free intervals, resulting in overall habitat and
population reduction.
    Establishment of these nonnative grasses in Sycamore Canyon or other

[[Page 56431]]

occupied habitat could compromise habitat quality and possibly endanger
the long-term survival of metapopulations because the change in fire
frequency and intensity could increase the frequency and intensity of
flood events, placing sub-populations at increased risk. However, the
threats from invasive species are considered to be only potential at

this time, as there are no populations of the grass species present in
Sycamore Canyon. We do not know if the populations in Mexico or on the
Tohono O'odham Nation are threatened by invasive species.
    In summary, there are ongoing and potential threats to the habitat
of Gentry indigo bush in Sycamore Canyon. Many of the threats
identified have been minimized (e.g., protection from livestock
grazing, reduction in livestock numbers, overall improvement in
watershed health) and while other threats are possible in the future,
there is no evidence that they are currently affecting the population,
and certainly not at a level that threatens the species (e.g., invasive
species, recreation impacts, undocumented immigrant traffic, U.S.
Border Patrol activities, and wildfire). Because they occupy similar
habitat (i.e., canyon bottom), the populations in Mexico may be
affected by the threats discussed in this section; however, due to a
lack of detailed information regarding these sites, there is no direct
evidence of threats to Mexican populations. The status of the
populations in Mexico and on the Tohono O'odham Nation are not known,
but some of the populations have persisted over time.

Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes

    There are no known threats to Gentry indigo bush from over-utilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

Factor C: Disease or Predation

Grazing Effects on Plants
    This section discusses the threat from cows directly eating the
plant. Gentry indigo bush plants are palatable, as are most Dalea
species. Gori et al. (1992) concluded, ``Our surveys of Sycamore and
Mendoza Canyons lead us to believe that grazing constitutes a threat to
D. tentaculoides. We observed direct evidence of livestock browsing on,
and even uprooting, the species in lower Sycamore Canyon where trespass
cows from Mexico enter the canyon up to an impassable narrows.''
    As discussed above, Sycamore Canyon is found within the Goodding
RNA and the Pajarita Wilderness within the boundaries of the Coronodo
National Forest, Nogales Ranger District. Livestock grazing is not
permitted within the boundaries of the RNA, but trespass cattle use has
been a sporadic problem (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1998). Trespass
cattle can enter the canyon from the mouth of the canyon at the
northern end, and also from the southern end on U.S.-Mexico border. The
sides of the canyon are generally too steep for livestock. Cattle have
been observed in the northern reaches of the canyon (Brooks 1999), and
Brooks noted heavy cattle use in the southern end of the canyon (i.e.,
below ``the narrows'') most likely attributable to trespass livestock
from Mexico. In 1997, the U.S. Forest Service proposed a set of actions
in Sycamore Canyon to protect the federally threatened Sonora chub
(Gila ditaenia). One of those actions included building a fence at the
northern portion of the canyon to restrict livestock access to the
riparian areas. As long as this fence is maintained and remains
effective, no direct threat of cattle in the upper reaches of Sycamore
Canyon exists.
    In the lower reaches of Sycamore Canyon, trespass cattle from
Mexico may present another problem. Although the U.S.-Mexican border
fence had been in a state of disrepair,in the fall of 1998, 2.4 km (1.5
mi) of fence was repaired and information provided to us during our
status review of the species indicates that the fence is currently
functional in preventing livestock trespass and has not been recently
cut (Parker 2005). Thus, while sporadic grazing was historically
considered a potential threat to Gentry indigo bush, we do not believe
that trespass cattle from Mexico pose a threat at this time in Sycamore
Canyon. This determination is based on the protective status of the
area as an RNA and the measures taken by the U.S. Forest Service to
construct and maintain a fence preventing cattle from entering the
canyon from Mexico.
    We know that livestock grazing occurs on Tohono O'odham Nation in
the general area where the plants were known to be in the southern
Baboquivari Mountains, but have no recent information on plant numbers.
We are currently working with the Nation to gather information on this
population. We anticipate that, if livestock grazing is determined to
be a concern, we can work cooperatively with the Nation to resolve
those issues.
    We do not know if the populations in Mexico are affected by
livestock grazing; nothing was reported on the grazing regime in the
areas surveyed. Van Devender (2005) noted that the populations he found
were in areas not accessible to livestock.
    Gentry indigo bush is palatable to other species beside livestock.
Brooks (1999) provided one observation of a plant being almost totally
eaten by a rabbit. Schmalzel (2005) also noted one Gentry indigo bush
that had evidently been clipped at the base by a valley pocket gopher
(Thomomys bottae), but we do not consider this to be a major threat. We
acknowledge that rabbits, gophers, and other herbivores may eat plants,
but we do not think this constitutes a major threat to the species
because of the size of mature plants and the abundance of other
herbaceous plants in the canyon available for food.
    We know of no diseases threatening this species.

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The population in Sycamore Canyon is on the Coronado National
Forest and subject to the general Federal regulations of the National
Forest System. Gentry indigo bush is on the Coronado National Forest's
Sensitive Species List. Populations that may be present on the Tohono
O'odham Nation are not protected by any regulation of which we are
aware. Mexican populations have no protection because they are on
private land and are afforded no protection under Mexican laws. The
Arizona Native Plant Law (State of Arizona) does consider this species
as highly safeguarded, and thus a permit is required from the Arizona
Department of Agriculture to salvage the plant; however, no other
protection is afforded to the species or its habitat.
U.S. Forest Service (Sycamore Canyon, AZ)
    The metapopulation of Gentry indigo bush in Sycamore Canyon is
within the Goodding RNA and the Pajarita Wilderness. There are no other
locations on U.S. Forest Service land. The U.S. Forest Service has
stated that Gentry indigo bush is afforded a high level of protection
because it shares its habitat with critical habitat of the federally
listed Sonora chub. The U.S. Forest Service has done much work to
improve the habitat of Sonora chub, including removal of a road at the
mouth of Sycamore Canyon, protection of riparian areas at the northern
end of Sycamore Canyon, and the expansion of the Goodding RNA. These
actions have contributed to improvement of Sonora chub habitat and are
likely to improve Gentry indigo bush habitat, as discussed above. Many
activities are prohibited within the RNA; livestock grazing,

[[Page 56432]]

timber harvest, and overnight camping are examples. A mining withdrawal
has also been completed for lands within the RNA, for a period of 25
years. In addition to the Sonora chub, the canyon also supports
populations of the federally listed Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana
chiricahuensis) and Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida).
    The surrounding watersheds are also under U.S. Forest Service
management. A multiple-use policy allows for grazing, recreation, and
other activities that may be affecting the habitat of Gentry indigo
bush. These issues were discussed under Factors A and C above.
    In summary, the U.S. Forest Service has completed a number of
conservation actions in Sycamore Canyon that have improved habitat for
Gentry indigo bush. Road closures and the protection of riparian areas
at the canyon mouth have undoubtedly increased the overall health of
the riparian ecosystem in the canyon. We believe that U.S. Forest
Service actions and the amount of protection the canyon receives by
virtue of its wilderness and RNA designation will promote the long-term
conservation of Gentry indigo bush in Sycamore Canyon.
The Tohono O'odham Nation
    The Tohono O'odham Nation has not drafted specific regulations to
address sensitive species on their sovereign lands. We have a Statement
of Relationship with the Nation, and provide technical assistance with
wildlife and plant issues at their request. The Nation is currently
working with us on allowing us access to the Baboquivari Mountains so
that we may assist them in survey and assessment of their Gentry indigo
bush populations.
Mexico
    Three locations of Gentry indigo bush have been documented in
Mexico. We have basic information (e.g., plant community, associated
plant species, elevation, and substrate) and population estimates for
these sites. We are not aware of any protection for these areas, but
Van Devender observed during his 2005 survey work that the sites do not
have obvious direct threats. Furthermore, all of the sites are in remote
locations and in canyons with no livestock access (Van Devender 2005).

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species

    The known extant Gentry indigo bush populations are small,
isolated, and threatened by unpredictable variation in demographic and
environmental characters (i.e. flooding). Genetic factors, such as
reduced genetic variation due to small population size, may also
contribute to this species' overall status. Inbreeding depression and
loss of genetic diversity may occur in small populations of less than a
few hundred individuals; such loss may reduce the fitness of
individuals and the ability of the population to adapt to change
(Frankel and Soule 1981). Both of these genetic considerations result
in an increased likelihood of extirpation (Lande and Barrowclough
1987). Climate change may influence precipitation patterns in ways that
could affect the long-term persistence of the metapopulations.
Flooding
    The past movement of water and sediment in Sycamore Canyon has
affected the plants and their habitat. After the 1993 El Ni[ntilde]o
winter rains, most of the monitoring plot was washed away, and the
then-known overall plant population declined dramatically, with more
than 90 percent of the known individuals washed away or covered with
sediment. Recolonization has slowly occurred; at last count there were
450 to 922 plants recorded in Sycamore Canyon (Darling 2005), fewer
than the estimated 1,400 that were documented in 1992.
    Lefevre, a U.S. Forest Service hydrologist (1999), notes that the
changes observed in Sycamore Canyon after the 1993 flood were, in his
professional opinion, geologic in nature. Large flood events (e.g.,
greater than the 25-year event) and their effects on channel morphology
will likely overshadow any management activity of the U.S. Forest Service.
    In summary, above-average flood events (greater than the 25-year
event) will likely affect the dynamics of the metapopulation in
Sycamore Canyon, but U.S. Forest Service actions are not likely to
influence or minimize the effects from such events. The species does
have the ability to recolonize after flood events, and plants located
out of the floodplain and on associated talus slopes (i.e., the sides
of the canyon) may provide the source for the recolonization of the
plants in stream habitat.
Population Size and Stochastic Events
    Estimated numbers of the metapopulation in Sycamore Canyon have
fluctuated dramatically since the early 1990s. The sub-populations had
seemingly been reduced to very low numbers in 1993, after the canyon
was subjected to a large flood event. Since that time, overall numbers
and patches have been increasing. In 2005, we observed many seedlings
and resprouts, alleviating some of our concern regarding the plant's
seemingly low reproductive output. We still do not know the
environmental factors that allow for successful seed germination, and
do not know how many seedlings will survive. We observed no seedlings
away from patches, although some patches contained only a few larger
plants and were dominated by seedlings.
    This species could potentially be negatively affected by
environmental stochasticity (variations over time in the population's
operational environment) and natural catastrophes (Menges 1991). The
minimum viable metapopulation (MVM) size is an important estimate of
the minimum number of interacting local sub-populations necessary for
the long-term persistence of a metapopulation (Hanski 1999). In
general, 15 `` 20 well-connected patches are required for MVM
(Maschinski, in press). Baker (2005) found 12 patches in Sycamore
Canyon, but that is only an estimate from one of the five known
populations. There were likely more patches than he detected. More
consistent monitoring could help us determine the patch dynamics of
Gentry indigo bush more accurately. A decrease in the overall number
and size of patches, and a lack of recolonization of extirpated
patches, could indicate that the metapopulation is not at equilibrium.
    The most likely adverse scenario in Sycamore Canyon is that of
catastrophic flooding. Increased rainfall combined with an altered
hydrograph in Sycamore Canyon may result in many patches being washed
out. Long-term drought, such as the one the region is experiencing
currently, may affect the species' ability to recolonize vacant
patches. In Sycamore Canyon, the combination of small patch size,
uncertain persistence of the patches, highly variable overall number of
patches, and a highly dynamic and uncertain environment due to flooding
and drought could make this population vulnerable to extirpation,
although it has continued to persist despite such climatic events.
    The species is located in at least five locations, reducing the
risk of stochastic events affecting all of the known populations
simultaneously. The population in Sycamore Canyon, despite a severe
reduction in overall numbers, still persists and is recolonizing the
canyon. Recent observations of seedling recruitment and resprouting
indicate that the metapopulation can recover from

[[Page 56433]]

environmental stochastic events. Given the population's persistence in
Sycamore Canyon, we do not believe that its continued existence is
threatened now or in the foreseeable future.
Genetic Factors
    Harmful genetic effects, such as genetic bottlenecks and founder
effects, are often associated with small plant populations (Hedrick and
Miller 1992). A genetic bottleneck is a significant reduction in the
genetic diversity of a population resulting from a significant
reduction of the number of individuals of a species in a specific place
or time. It is often associated with a stochastic event and can result
in a loss of genetic diversity. The founder effect (Mayr 1963) refers
to the establishment of a new population from only a few colonizing
individuals, which may represent only a small portion of the overall
genetic variation of the original population. Reductions in genetic
diversity from these and other causes can have profound effects on both
short- and long-term population survival, as genetic variation is
related to a population's ability to survive stochastic events
(Huenneke 1991; Rogers and Montalvo 2004; Falk et al. in press). In
Sycamore Canyon, the small number of individuals, small size of the
metapopulation, and the type and severity of environmental factors to
which the metapopulation is exposed could influence the genetic
diversity of the metapopulation.
    The ability of a species to persist over time is related, in part,
to genetic variation in a population, which provides the basis of
adaptation to changing environments. The greater the heterozygosity
(number of different types of alleles) present, the higher the
probability that at least some plants in a population will be able to
adapt to changing circumstances (Huenneke 1991; Reed and Frankham
2003). As populations become depauperate (less variation) in their
genetic make-up, the ability of the populations to adapt to changing
environmental factors, like climate change or changes in the local
environment, may decrease.
    The long-term persistence of a population is also related to the
fitness of the individuals within the population, where fitness is
typically measured in terms of survival and reproduction. Inbreeding
depression is a relative decrease in fitness of offspring resulting
from either selfing (pollination within the same plant as opposed to
between two different plants) or mating between closely-related
individuals compared with outcrossed individuals (Barrett and Kohn
1991). The reduction in fitness is associated with a higher rate of
expression of recessive and often lethal alleles (parts of genes that
control certain characters, i.e., flower color) in a population. This
condition leads to an overall reduction of fitness in a population
until the population cannot produce viable offspring. We do not know if
this is a factor for Gentry indigo bush because we have not identified
the type of breeding system (e.g., obligate outcrosser, selfing, or
combination). Thus, we have no information to indicate that genetic
factors and small population size are a threat to Gentry indigo bush
now or in the foreseeable future. Further, we have no documentation
that this species historically persisted in significantly higher
numbers than it does today, so its rarity is not necessarily an
indication of excessive vulnerability to extinction.
Climate Change
    Mean annual temperatures rose 1.1-1.7 degrees Celsius (C) (2.0-3.1
degrees Fahrenheit (F)) in the American Southwest in the 20th century,
and are predicted to rise 4.5-6.1 degrees C (8.1-11.0 degrees F) in the
21st century. Predictions of changes in precipitation are less certain;
however, some models predict as much as a doubling of annual
precipitation, with the largest increases in winter precipitation
(Southwest Regional Assessment Group 2000). But these predictions
contrast with current trends of a warming North Atlantic and cooling
tropical Pacific, with associated changes from a relatively wet period
to drought, insect outbreaks in Southwestern forests, and increasing
wildfires (Patterson 1997; Betancourt 2004). Some models predict
dramatic changes in Southwestern vegetation communities as a result of
climate change (Thompson et al. 1997). Climate change can occur
abruptly, with associated major changes in the environment (National
Academy of Sciences, Committee on Abrupt Climate Change 2002). Climate
change could affect metapopulations of Gentry indigo bush in
unpredictable ways. For example, changes in precipitation may increase
the frequency and magnitude of flood events, possibly affecting the
distribution and persistence of patches in occupied habitat. Rainfall
patterns may shift towards more summer precipitation and less winter
precipitation. The germination of seeds may be linked to seasonal
rainfall events, and changes in rainfall patterns may affect the
population dynamics of this species. We have no information to indicate
that climate change constitutes a threat to Gentry indigo bush now or
in the foreseeable future.
    In summary, Gentry indigo bush remains a rare, narrowly distributed
endemic plant species throughout its range in southern Arizona and in
Mexico. Extensive survey work in the United States and Mexico has
increased the documentation of populations by one and reconfirmed the
existence of two populations in Mexico. In total, there are
approximately 1,400 individuals, distributed among 5 sites. There are 2
confirmed populations in the United States, containing over 66 percent
of the known individuals. At this time, the majority of Gentry indigo
bush in the United States is located within Sycamore Canyon; we do not
have an accurate assessment of the numbers of Gentry indigo bush on the
Tohono O'odham Nation. We have no information indicating that
populations in Mexico or on the Tohono O'odham Nation are experiencing
any direct threats. The populations, based on observations of the
Sycamore Canyon metapopulation, have the ability to recover from floods
and drought. We have seen seedlings and plants resprout, alleviating
our concern regarding the plant's ability to reproduce and recover from
flood events and sediment deposition. Threats to the Sycamore Canyon
population have been minimized by U.S. Forest Service actions, and
ongoing activities are not immediately threatening the population.

Finding

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding past, present, and future threats faced
by the species. We reviewed the petition, available published and
unpublished scientific and commercial information, and information
submitted to us during the public comment periods on our 90-day
finding. This finding reflects and incorporates information we received
during the public comment periods. We also consulted with recognized
plant experts, including those most familiar with this species, and
other Federal resource agencies. On the basis of our review, we find
that the petitioned action of listing the Gentry indigo bush is not
warranted.
    In making this finding, we recognize that one historical population
in the United States has been extirpated and is presumed lost. We also
recognize that populations are still present on the Tohono O'odham
Nation, but that those populations are under the management of a
sovereign nation and subject to their laws. The same is true for
populations in Sonora, Mexico. There are ongoing

[[Page 56434]]

activities and natural events that may be affecting the habitat and
reestablishment of the species. Other threats, like undocumented
immigrant traffic, are larger than one agency's jurisdiction. However,
we believe that existing regulatory mechanisms are sufficient to
protect the species. The overall existing management of the U.S. Forest
Service is protecting much of the habitat in Sycamore Canyon. We also
acknowledge that, due to small population size, demographic or genetic
factors may apply to each of the locations in Arizona and Sonora,
Mexico, but we have no genetic information to determine whether this is
indeed the case.
    We conclude that the Gentry indigo bush does not warrant listing at
this time. In order to make a warranted finding, the species must, at a
minimum, meet the definition of a threatened species. In accordance
with section 3(19) of the Act, a threatened species is one which is
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. Based on all the information
we have gathered and reviewed, we do not conclude this to be the case
for the following reasons.
    Populations have persisted in all but one of the known locations
over time. A new population was located in Mexico and offers hope that
there may be more populations located with additional surveys. Areas
that were previously overlooked as suitable habitat outside of the
floodplain appear to support Gentry indigo bush. Thus, populations may
not be as vulnerable to extirpation from flood events as previously
thought since the species does have the ability to recolonize after
flood events, and plants located out of the floodplain and on the sides
of the canyon could provide a source for the recolonization of plants
in stream habitat. The largest known population occurs in Sycamore
Canyon within the Goodding RNA, where mining, roads, and grazing are
prohibited and where the U.S. Forest Service has completed a number of
conservation actions that have improved the habitat for Gentry indigo
bush. Additionally, as noted above, the actions of the U.S. Forest
Service and the protection that the canyon receives by virtue of its
wilderness and RNA designations will continue to provide for the long-
term conservation of Gentry indigo bush in Sycamore Canyon. The
metapopulation in Sycamore Canyon has persisted through some dramatic
environmental events, and its numbers have increased; thus, we believe
it will continue to persist into the future. Other factors (e.g.,
watershed degradation, invasive species, undocumented immigrant and
U.S. Border Patrol activities, recreation, fire, climate change, and
genetic factors associated with small population size) discussed above
have not been documented as more than low magnitude or potential
threats, and therefore it is not reasonably foreseeable that these
factors pose threats over a significant portion of the species' range.
We anticipate that we will have the opportunity to work cooperatively
with the Tohono O'odham Nation, as we have in the past, to census their
populations and address potential concerns, if necessary. We also plan
to emphasize the need for and participation in future monitoring
efforts, surveys, and genetic studies.
    The Service does not believe the Gentry indigo bush is likely to
become a threatened species throughout either all or a significant
portion of its range in the foreseeable future. The only population for
which we have a thorough threats assessment is the one on U.S. Forest
Service land in Sycamore Canyon. While the Sycamore Canyon population
is not entirely devoid of potential threats, we believe that U.S.
Forest Service management (e.g., RNA and Wilderness designations,
exclusion of both domestic and Mexican cattle from the habitat)
sufficiently ameliorates human-influenced threats, while its
persistence over time through droughts and floods, and its discovery
outside the floodplain, render it unlikely to be extirpated from the
canyon as a result of natural factors.
    Threats facing the other populations are less well known. Three
populations are known from Mexico. One population in Mexico has been
present since its original discovery in 1995, another one was relocated
in 2005 after it was initially detected in 2004, and the remaining
population was only detected in 2005. Based on this information, two of
the populations are known to have persisted. In addition, according to
information received during the public comment period, the Mexico
populations are in areas not accessible to cattle. We can verify that
plants still exist on the Tohono O'odham Nation. The fact that the
Mexican and Tohono O'odham Nation populations have persisted under
current management and through various climatic conditions provides
evidence that whatever threats may exist, if any, are not significant.
In summary, we have no evidence to indicate that any portion, let alone
a significant portion, of the species' range is threatened to the
extent that listing under the Act is warranted.
    We will continue to monitor the status of this species and will
accept additional information and comments at any time from all
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry,
and any other interested party concerning this finding. This
information will help us monitor and encourage beneficial measures for
this species.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Field Supervisor at the Arizona Ecological Services
Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author

    The primary author of this document is the Arizona Ecological
Services Office (see ADDRESSES section).

    Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: September 14, 2005.
Marshall Jones,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05-18881 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

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


http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/




From Edward.Toth at parks.nyc.gov  Wed Sep 28 11:17:29 2005
From: Edward.Toth at parks.nyc.gov (Edward Toth)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:17:29 -0400
Subject: [PCA] Native Plant Nursery Manager- City of New York Parks
Message-ID: <s33a89e3.014@gw.parks.nyc.gov>

NURSERY MANAGER
The City of New York/Parks & Recreation seeks an experienced Nursery
Manager for the Greenbelt Native Plant Center on Staten Island. Manage
the day to day operations of an 11-acre greenhouse/nursery complex with
19,000 square feet of greenhouse production space and 156,000 square
feet of irrigated containerized nursery operation. Assist the Nursery
Director in implementing operational policies and preparing budgets.
Direct staff in nursery and greenhouse production and oversee bulk seed
production program. Oversee environmental controls for nursery yard and
greenhouses including irrigation, heating, and ventilation systems.
Control the inventory of about 350,000 plants and allocate stock to
projects. Plan and manage short and long-term production schedules.
Oversee collection, processing, and seed banking of wild seed from 250+
species from all five boroughs. Coordinate all purchasing of Nursery
production materials. A bachelor's degree with major study in
horticulture, arboriculture or landscape architecture and four years of
full-time, paid experience in horticultural work of which two years must
have been in a supervisory, administrative, consultative, managerial or
executive capacity; or a satisfactory equivalent required. Bachelor's
degree in Nursery, Greenhouse Management, Horticulture or related field,
and at least 5 years experience managing Nursery and Greenhouse
operations of a Native Plant Nursery preferred. Computer proficiency in
Microsoft Word, Excel and Access, valid New York State driver license
and New York State Certified Pesticide Applicators license preferred.
New York City residency required within 90 days of hire. Salary: $41,257
- $60,000. For more information go to www.nyc.gov/parks. Send cover
letter with resume by 10/7 to: Nursery Manager/11402, Personnel, City of
New York/Parks & Recreation, 24 W. 61st Street, 2nd fl, New York, NY
10023. We are an Equal Opportunity Employer.