Rule: Endangered and Threatened Species: Critical Habitat Designations&#8212 Buena Vista Lake Shrew

Monday,
January 24, 2005
Part II
Department of the
Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Final Rule To Designate Critical
Habitat for the Buena Vista Lake Shrew
(Sorex ornatus relictus); Final Rule
VerDate jul<14>2003 15:26 Jan 21, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\24JAR2.SGM 24JAR2
3438 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 14 / Monday, January 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR costs. The Service believes that The consequence of the critical
additional agency discretion would habitat litigation activity is that limited
Fish and Wildlife Service allow our focus to return to those listing funds are used to defend active
actions that provide the greatest benefit lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent
50 CFR Part 17 to the species most in need of (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat,
RIN 1018–AT66 protection. and to comply with the growing number
of adverse court orders. As a result of
Role of Critical Habitat in Actual this consequence, listing petition
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Practice of Administering and
and Plants; Final Rule To Designate responses, the Service’s own proposals
Implementing the Act to list critically imperiled species and
Critical Habitat for the Buena Vista
Lake Shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) While attention to and protection of final listing determinations on existing
habitat is paramount to successful proposals are all significantly delayed.
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, conservation actions, we have The accelerated schedules of court
Interior. consistently found that, in most ordered designations have left the
ACTION: Final rule. circumstances, the designation of Service with almost no ability to
critical habitat is of little additional provide for adequate public
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and participation or to ensure a defect-free
value for most listed species, yet it
Wildlife Service (Service), designate rulemaking process before making
consumes large amounts of conservation
critical habitat for the Buena Vista Lake decisions on listing and critical habitat
resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ‘‘Because
shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) (referred proposals due to the risks associated
the Act can protect species with and
to here as the shrew) pursuant to the with noncompliance with judicially
without critical habitat designation,
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as imposed deadlines. This situation in
critical habitat designation may be
amended (Act). In total, approximately turn fosters a second round of litigation
redundant to the other consultation
84 acres (ac) (34 hectares (ha)) occur in which those who fear adverse
requirements of section 7.’’ Currently,
within the boundaries of the critical impacts from critical habitat
only 468 species or 37 percent of the
habitat designation. The critical habitat designations challenge those
1,256 listed species in the United States
is located in the Central Valley floor of designations. The cycle of litigation
under our jurisdiction have designated
Kern County, California. appears endless, is very expensive, and
critical habitat. We address the habitat
DATES: This final rule is effective needs of all 1,256 listed species through in the final analysis provides relatively
February 23, 2005. conservation mechanisms such as little additional protection to listed
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials listing, section 7 consultations, the species.
received, as well as supporting Section 4 recovery planning process, the The costs associated with the critical
documentation used in the preparation Section 9 protective prohibitions of habitat designation process include
of this final rule, will be available for unauthorized take, Section 6 funding to legal costs, the costs of preparation and
public inspection, by appointment, the States, and the Section 10 incidental publication of the designation, the
during normal business hours at the take permit process. We believe that it analysis of the economic effects and the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, is these measures that may make the costs of requesting and responding to
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 difference between extinction and public comments, and, in some cases,
Cottage Way, W–2605, Sacramento, survival for many species. the costs of compliance with National
California 95825 (telephone 916–414– Environmental Policy Act. None of
We note, however, that a recent 9th these costs result in any benefit to the
6600). Circuit judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot species that is not already afforded by
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Task Force v. United States Fish and the protections of the Act enumerated
Shannon Holbrook or Arnold Roessler, Wildlife Service, has invalidated the earlier, and these associated costs
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Service’s regulation defining destruction directly reduce the scarce funds
2800 Cottage Way, W–2605 Sacramento, or adverse modification of critical available for direct and tangible
California, (telephone 916–414–6600; habitat. We are currently reviewing the conservation actions.
facsimile 916–414–6712). decision to determine what effect it may
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: have on the outcome of consultations Background
pursuant to Section 7 of the Act. For background information, please
Designation of Critical Habitat Provides
Little Additional Protection to the Procedural and Resource Difficulties in see the proposed designation of critical
Species Designating Critical Habitat habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew
published on August 19, 2004 (69 FR
In 30 years of implementing the Act, We have been inundated with 51417). That information is
the Service has found that the lawsuits for our failure to designate incorporated by reference into this final
designation of statutory critical habitat critical habitat, and we face a growing rule.
provides little additional protection to number of lawsuits challenging critical
most listed species, while consuming habitat determinations once they are Previous Federal Actions
significant amounts of available made. These lawsuits have subjected the A final rule listing the shrew as
conservation resources. The Service’s Service to an ever-increasing series of endangered was published in the
present system for designating critical court orders and court-approved Federal Register on March 6, 2002 (67
habitat has evolved since its original settlement agreements, compliance with FR 10101). Please refer to the final rule
statutory prescription into a process that which now consumes nearly the entire listing the shrew for information on
provides little real conservation benefit, listing program budget. This leaves the previous Federal actions prior to March
is driven by litigation and the courts Service with little ability to prioritize its 6, 2002. On January 12, 2004, the United
rather than biology, limits our ability to activities to direct scarce listing States District Court for the Eastern
fully evaluate the science involved, resources to the listing program actions District of California issued a
consumes enormous agency resources, with the most biologically urgent Memorandum Opinion and Order (Kern
and imposes huge social and economic species conservation needs. County Farm Bureau et al. v. Anne
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 14 / Monday, January 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 3439
Badgley, Regional Director of the United This was accomplished through letters reviewer questioned whether
States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region and news releases mailed to affected connectivity of habitat fragments had
1 et al., CV F 02–5376 AWIDLB). The elected officials, media outlets, local been considered in preparation of the
order required the Service to publish a jurisdictions, interest groups, and other proposed rule. Both reviewers stated
proposed critical habitat determination interested individuals. In addition, we that shrews, that were possibly the
(also known as a proposed rule) for the invited public comment through the Buena Vista Lake shrew, have been
shrew no later than July 12, 2004, and publication of legal notices in captured at the Atwell Island Land
a final determination no later than newspapers throughout Kern County. Retirement Demonstration project site:
January 12, 2005. On July 8, 2004, the We provided notification of the draft both reviewers questioned why this area
court extended the deadline for economic analysis (DEA) through was not included in the proposed
submitting the proposed rule to the postcards, letters, and news releases critical habitat designation.
Federal Register to August 13, 2004. faxed and/or mailed to affected elected
On August 19, 2004 (69 FR 51417), we officials, media outlets, local Our Response (1): Although we agree
published a proposed critical habitat jurisdictions, and interest groups. We that preserving connectivity between
designation for the Buena Vista Lake published a notice of its availability in known occupied locations is important
shrew. Publication of this proposed rule the Federal Register and made the DEA for the conservation of the Buena Vista
opened a 60-day public comment and associated material available on our Lake shrew, we do not believe that
period, which closed on October 18, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office unoccupied and historical locations are
2004. On September 16, 2004, we Internet site on November 30, 2004 (69 essential for the conservation of the
announced via local news media and FR 69578). species. The Recovery Plan for Upland
publications that a public hearing was We received a total of 16 comment Species of the San Joaquin Valley
to be held on September 30, 2004, in letters and electronic mail (Recovery Plan) determined that the
Bakersfield, California. At the public correspondences (e-mails) during the Buena Vista Lake shrew could be
hearing, approximately 10 members of comment periods. We reviewed all conserved by protection of habitat in
the public provided or presented comments received for substantive three or more disjunct occupied
information and comments on the issues and new information regarding conservation areas, excluding
proposed critical habitat designation. the Buena Vista Lake shrew. We unoccupied and/or historical locations.
On November 30, 2004, we published a grouped similar public comments into All units that were described in the
notice announcing the availability of six general issue categories relating Recovery Plan were analyzed to
our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the specifically to the proposed critical determine if the areas exhibited the
proposed critical habitat designation (69 habitat determination and/or the DEA. physical and biological features that are
FR 69578). The notice opened a 15-day Substantive comments and essential to the conservation of the
public comment period on the DEA, accompanying information have either shrew and would require special
extended the comment period on the been incorporated directly into the final management. We have determined that
proposed critical habitat designation, rule or final economic analysis the areas or units that we have proposed
and closed on December 15, 2004. documents, and/or they have been to designate as critical habitat, based on
addressed in the following summary. our analysis of the best available
Summary of Comments and
Peer Review scientific and commercial data, provide
Recommendations
for the essential lifecycle needs of the
We contacted appropriate Federal, In accordance with our joint policy species, and provide the habitat
State, and local agencies, scientific published in the Federal Register on components essential for the
organizations, and other interested July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited conservation of this species (i.e., the
parties and invited them to comment on review from at least three appropriate primary constituent elements (PCEs)
the proposed critical habitat designation and independent specialists/experts described below in the Primary
for the Buena Vista Lake shrew. In regarding the proposed rule. The Constituent Elements section).
addition, we invited public comment purpose of such review is to ensure that Therefore, we do not believe that it is
through the publication of a notice in our critical habitat designation is based necessary for the conservation of the
the Bakersfield Californian on on scientifically sound data, Buena Vista Lake shrew to designate
September 16, 2004. assumptions, and analyses. critical habitat in unoccupied areas or
In the August 19, 2004, proposed We solicited peer review from 5 areas that do not exhibit the primary
critical habitat designation (69 FR individuals who have detailed constituent elements essential for the
51417), we requested that all interested knowledge of and expertise in either conservation of the species.
parties submit comments on the mammalian biology in general, or shrew
specifics of the proposal, including biology specifically, as well as scientific State and Federal Agency or Tribal
information related to the critical principles and conservation biology. Comments
habitat designation, unit boundaries, The individuals were asked to review
species occurrence information and and comment on the specific We did not receive any comments
distribution, land use designations that assumptions and conclusions regarding regarding the proposed critical habitat
may affect critical habitat, potential the proposed designation of critical designation from any State, Federal or
economic effects of the proposed habitat. Two of the five reviewers Tribal entity.
designation, benefits associated with the submitted comments on the proposed Other Public Comments and Responses
critical habitat designation, potential designation.
exclusions and the associated rationale Peer Comment (1): One peer reviewer We address other substantive
for the exclusions, and methods used to felt the proposed critical habitat comments and accompanying
designate critical habitat. We also designation incorporated the most up to information in the following summary.
contacted all appropriate Federal, State, date information on the biology of the Any changes and/or reference updates
and local agencies, scientific shrew and the issues of range, suggested by commenters have been
organizations, and other interested distribution, and life history incorporated into this final rule or the
parties and invited them to comment. requirements of the shrew. This peer final economic analysis, as appropriate.
Issue 1—Habitat- and Species-Specific essential habitat. We have determined commenters were concerned over ability
Information that channels, because they lack the of the city to provide adequate drinking
Comment (1): Several commenters PCEs, do not provide habitat for the water supplies if groundwater recharge
stated that we have not adequately shrews. Therefore, channel areas have practices were restricted. Several
established that all the areas identified been removed from the critical habitat commenters were concerned that
as critical habitat do in fact contain the boundaries. Therefore, no restrictions of critical habitat designation will
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) use or modifications to channel adversely affect farming operations,
essential for the conservation of the operations will be imposed due to interrupt water supplies, and cause
species and that the proposed critical habitat designation. degradation of surrounding farmland.
Comment (3): One commenter stated One commenter states that critical
designation fails to narrowly define
that the final rule should recognize all habitat designation has potential to
those areas that have the PCEs. These
cumulative impacts to the shrew adversely affect water management
commenters also stated they wanted
occurring in the area. activities such as irrigation, municipal
excluded from designation those areas Our Response (3): In accordance with purposes, and flood management. One
that did not contain the PCEs for the Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species commenter asks if critical habitat will
shrew. These comments were directed Act, the regulations state that the affect how the County administers
towards roads, pump sites, maintained Secretary shall determine whether a FEMA regulations.
canals, and other areas devoid of species is an endangered species or a Our Response (5): All Federal
vegetation within the designation. One threatened species because of any of the agencies are required to evaluate
commenter expressed concern that there following factors: (1) The present or whether projects they authorize, fund,
was no comprehensive biological study threatened destruction, modification, or or carry out may adversely affect a
utilizing uniform assumptions of curtailment of its habitat or range, (2) federally listed species and/or its
analysis for all five units. overutilization for commercial, designated critical habitat. If projects
Our Response (1): We used the best recreational, scientific, or educational with a federal nexus are not likely to
scientific and commercial data available purposes, (3) disease or predation, (4) adversely affect critical habitat, then a
to us at the time in determining which the inadequacy of existing regulatory consultation with us would not be
areas proposed as critical habitat are mechanisms, and (5) other natural or necessary. For projects that are likely to
essential for the shrew. In our final manmade factors affecting its continued have only discountable, insignificant, or
determination, we used additional existence. As a result of this analysis, wholly beneficial effects on critical
information available to us, including the Buena Vista Lake shrew was listed habitat, we would concur in writing and
detailed aerial imagery and other as endangered on March 6, 2002 (67 FR no further consultation will be
information provided by commenters to 10101). The recognition of ‘‘cumulative necessary. For projects likely to have
assist us in refining our mapping of impacts’’ or threats is part of the process adverse affects on critical habitat, formal
essential habitat. After refining our of listing a species and not part of the consultation would be required
proposal by removing additional designation of critical habitat. pursuant to Section 7 of the Act.
nonhabitat and other nonessential areas Comment (4): One commenter stated Only those activities federally funded
such as roads, pump sites, maintained that the final rule should reflect a or authorized that may affect critical
canals, and other areas devoid of commitment to monitoring or improved habitat would be subject to the
vegetation, and considering the best data collection for the threat of selenium regulations pertaining to critical habitat.
available information, we conclude that contamination. Since all of the Buena Vista Lake shrew
the areas designated by this final rule, Our Response (4): Critical habitat habitat within the designation is
including currently occupied areas, are identifies those areas which contain the occupied by the listed Buena Vista Lake
essential for the conservation of the physical and biological features that are shrew and occurs on privately owned
species. In our development of the essential to the conservation of the lands, the designation of critical habitat
proposed designation, we utilized species and those areas that may require is not likely to result in a significant
certain specific conservation criteria of special management considerations or increase in regulatory requirements
protecting a variety of habitats, protections. Critical habitat designation above those already in place due to the
protecting suitable habitat across the is not intended to be a management plan presence of the listed species.
range of the species, and protecting for a specific area. Any monitoring or Buena Vista Lake shrews have been
habitats essential for the maintenance special management actions can be found within areas of proposed critical
and growth of self-sustaining developed through consultation or habitat where these intricate water
populations in establishing the areas of management agreements through banking and management operations are
critical habitat. This strategy was also partnerships with Federal, State, local in place. We recognize and acknowledge
used in the development of the final or private groups. that certain water banking and water
designation. management practices likely have no
Comment (2): One commenter Issue 2—Costs and Regulatory Burden impacts on the Buena Vista Lake shrew
suggested that there would be an Comment (5): Several commenters and may in fact be beneficial for
increase in siltation and debris stated that the Service needs to clarify maintaining them.
accumulation in channels and that this the proposed rule to allow the public to While the designation of critical
would increase maintenance burdens of understand what activities will be habitat does not constitute a regulation
water districts if there was a restriction limited at each proposed unit. These on private lands, the Federal listing of
in channel use due to the critical habitat commenters expressed concern that the Buena Vista Lake shrew under the
designation. critical habitat designation would limit Endangered Species Act may affect
Our Response (2): In our final their land use practices. Specifically, private landowners. Private actions
determination, we have additional several commenters stated concern over which could result in take of Buena
information available to us, including West Nile virus and whether mosquito Vista Lake shrew (e.g., ground
detailed aerial imagery and other abatement procedures would be allowed disturbing activities) require an
information provided by commenters to in areas and boundaries of those areas exemption from take following
assist us in refining our mapping of designated as critical habitat. Several consultation under Section 7 or an
incidental take permit under section 10 Comment (7): Several commenters boundaries. Therefore, we do not
of the Act. Because the Buena Vista stated that there should be allowances anticipate restrictions of use or
Lake shrew was listed in 2002, proposed for continued operation, maintenance, modifications to water deliveries to be
actions on private lands that require repair, and replacement of existing imposed due to critical habitat
Federal authorization or funding that facilities. designation.
may affect the species already undergo Our Response (7): Critical habitat While the designation of critical
consultation under Section 7 to ensure designations do not prevent the normal habitat does not typically result in
that their actions are not likely to operation, maintenance, repair, or regulation on private lands, the Federal
jeopardize the continued existence of replacement of existing facilities. listing of the Buena Vista Lake shrew
the species. Future consultations However, any action that would result under the Endangered Species Act may
involving private lands will also analyze in the take of a federally listed species affect private landowners. Actions
the effect of the proposed action on (e.g., ground disturbing activities), which could result in take of Buena
designated critical habitat. would require a Federal permit under Vista Lake shrew (e.g., ground
The Act also requires recovery section 7 or section 10 of the Act. disturbing activities) require a Federal
planning for listed species. Recovery Consultation on critical habitat is only permit under section 7 or section 10 of
planning for Buena Vista Lake shrew triggered when there is a Federal nexus the Act. Because the Buena Vista Lake
may include recommendations for land (action carried out, funded, or shrew was listed in 2002, Federal
acquisition or easements involving authorized by a Federal agency). Even if agencies already consult with us on
private landowners. These efforts would there is a Federal nexus, consultation activities in areas currently occupied by
be undertaken with the cooperation of would not be triggered unless the PCEs the species or, if the species may be
the landowners. We also work with are present in the action area. Where affected by an action, to ensure that
landowners to identify activities and possible, existing facilities, such as the their action does not jeopardize the
modifications to activities that will not ones referred to in the comment, have continued existence of the species.
result in take, to develop measures to been excluded from critical habitat Comment (9): One commenter asks if
minimize the potential for take, and to designation. Due to the mapping scale restrictive critical habitat management
provide authorizations for take through utilized in the rule, it was not possible practices imposed on federal agencies or
section 7 and 10 of the Act. We to remove all areas that do not exhibit private property owners seeking federal
encourage landowners to work in the PCEs for the species. Nonetheless, permits increase mitigation costs,
partnership with us to develop plans for critical habitat does not include man- property damage, or raise public safety
ensuring that land uses can be carried made structures and not containing one issues involving the maintenance of
out in a manner consistent with the or more of the PCEs, such as buildings, flood-carrying capacity for the affected
conservation of listed species. aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the water conveyance facilities.
Comment (6): One commenter stated land on which such structures are Our Response (9): Critical habitat
there would be economic impacts if located. If these areas do not exhibit the identifies those areas which contain the
water deliveries to Buena Vista Lake PCEs, and/or there is no Federal nexus, physical and biological features that are
Recreation Area were altered. One the owners of the facilities would not essential to the conservation of the
commenter feels that critical habitat will have regulatory responsibilities due to species and those areas that may require
cause substantial financial burden if critical habitat. special management considerations or
changes in structures or abilities to protections. Critical habitat designation
manage for irrigation and floodwater or Issue 3—Property Rights is not intended to be a management plan
banking operations are required. One Comment (8): Several commenters for a specific area. Any monitoring or
commenter stated that the Critical were concerned that designation of special management practices can be
habitat designation should be limited to critical habitat would affect flood developed through Section 7 or Section
those areas that are already reserved for control and water supply to Bakersfield 10 of the Act. Based on previous
habitat purposes to minimize economic and surrounding communities. They consultations, there have been no
impact. One commenter stated that the stated the designation could adversely restrictive management practices
Service must quantify economic impacts affect agricultural production and urban required that have resulted in increased
and consider cumulative impacts of the water districts if water deliveries are mitigation costs, property damage, or
proposed rule. restricted or restrictive management have raised public safety issues. Nor do
Our Response (6): We made a draft practices are imposed. we anticipate, based on the economic
economic analysis (DEA) available for Our Response (8): Critical habitat analysis, in the future restrictive
public comment for the Buena Vista designations do not constitute a burden management practices that will increase
Lake shrew on November 30, 2004, and in terms of Federal laws and regulations mitigation costs, property damage or
accepted comments on the DEA from on private landowners carrying out public safety issues.
that date through December 15, 2004 (69 privately funded activities. Unless a Comment (10): Several commenters
FR 69578). These comments will be Federal nexus exists for a project stated that areas that are subject to a
considered in the final EA. proposed on private property, the management regime that supports the
We did not propose to designate as critical habitat designation poses no shrew should be excluded from
critical habitat the Buena Vista Lake regulatory burden for private designation.
Recreation Area. Furthermore, based on landowners and similarly should not Our Response (10): We exclude areas
our economic analysis, we do not interfere with future land use plans. with management regimes from
anticipate a substantial financial burden Therefore, we do not believe that this designation if a current plan provides
in the area that we are designating. The designation will deny ranchers and adequate management or protection and
annualized economic effects of this farmers use of their land. We have also meets three criteria: (1) The plan is
designation are estimated to be $8,752 determined that channels such as water complete and provides a conservation
to $12,932, based on the economic delivery canals do not provide habitat benefit to the species (i.e., the plan must
analysis for Kern Lake only, as all the for the shrews due to lack of the primary maintain or provide for an increase in
other units were excluded from constituent elements, and we have the species’ population, or the
designation. removed them from the critical habitat enhancement or restoration of its habitat
within the area covered by the plan); (2) foraging, breeding, growth of juveniles, as irrigation ditches and other
the plan provides assurances that the genetic exchange, or sheltering. Thus, potentially restorable riparian habitats
conservation management strategies and we consider all critical habitat units to which might provide essential
actions will be implemented (i.e., those be occupied by the species. Federal connectivity between existing large
responsible for implementing the plan agencies already consult with us on blocks of core habitat. This commenter
are capable of accomplishing the activities in areas currently occupied by also wants the required agriculture land
objectives, have an implementation the species or if the species may be location at Atwell Island near Alpaugh
schedule, and adequate funding for affected by the action to ensure that included as critical habitat.
implementing the management plan); their actions do not jeopardize the Our Response (14): Although we agree
and (3) the plan provides assurances continued existence of the species. that preserving connectivity between
that the conservation strategies and Therefore, we believe that the known occupied locations is important
measures will be effective (i.e., it designation of critical habitat is not for the conservation of the Buena Vista
identifies biological goals, has likely to result in additional regulatory Lake shrew, we do not believe that
provisions for monitoring and reporting burden above that already in place due unoccupied and historical locations are
progress, and is of a duration sufficient to the presence of the listed species. essential for the conservation of the
to substantially implement the plan and species. The Recovery Plan for Upland
Issue 4—Mapping Methodology Species of the San Joaquin Valley
achieve the plan’s goals and objectives).
Units containing a management plan or Comment (13): Several commenters (Recovery Plan) determined that the
regime that meets the above criteria asked that specific areas that they Buena Vista Lake shrew could be
have been excluded from designation. believed do not exhibit the PCEs be conserved by protecting habitat in three
Comment (11): Several commenters excluded from the critical habitat or more disjunct occupied conservation
stated concern over the regular designation. areas, excluding unoccupied and/or
operation, repair, and maintenance of Our Response (13): Where site- historical locations. All units that were
existing oil and gas pipelines and water specific documentation was submitted described in the Recovery Plan were
diversion canals within critical habitat to us providing a rationale as to why an analyzed to determine if the areas
boundaries. Several commenters are area should not be designated critical exhibited the physical and biological
concerned that critical habitat habitat, we evaluated that information features (PCEs) that are essential to the
designation will affect water district in accordance with the definition of conservation of the shrew and may
supplies. They stated that significant critical habitat pursuant to section 3 require special management. The five
economic effects will occur if operations (5)(A) of the Act and the provisions of units that we have proposed to
of banking projects or delivery canals section 4 (b)(2) of the Act. Following our designate as critical habitat provide for
require modifications. evaluation of the parcels, we made a the essential life-cycle needs of the
Our Response (11): Activities carried determination as to whether species, and provide the habitat
out, funded, authorized, or permitted by modifications to the proposal were components essential for the
a Federal agency (i.e., Federal nexus) warranted. In the preparation of the conservation of this species (i.e., the
require consultation pursuant to section final rule, we further examined the area primary constituent elements (PCEs)
7 of the Act if they may affect a federally proposed and we refined the critical described below in the Primary
listed species and/or its designated habitat boundaries to exclude, where Constituent Elements section). Under
critical habitat. Our experience with possible within the limitations of our the Act, areas without PCEs cannot be
consultations on the Buena Vista Lake minimum mapping scale, those areas designated critical habitat, such as these
shrew is that few oil and gas activities that did not, or were not likely to, areas suggested for potentially restorable
have involved a Federal nexus and have contain the PCEs for the Buena Vista areas, unless determined to be essential
not required a consultation under Lake shrew. for the conservation of the species.
Section 7 of the Act. Regardless, we Please refer to the Summary of Again, we have determined that the
have excluded from critical habitat the Changes from the Proposed Rule section areas or units that we have proposed to
units with oil and gas pipelines due to of this final rule for a more detailed designate as critical habitat provide the
their adequate management plans. See discussion of changes and exclusion habitat components essential for the
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the from the proposed rule. conservation of this species. Therefore,
Act. Similarly, there are no water Comment (14): One commenter urges we do not believe that it is necessary to
diversion canals within final critical the Service to expand critical habitat the conservation of the Buena Vista
habitat boundaries. The canal that designation to include all habitats Lake shrew to designate critical habitat
occurs within the unit included in the essential to the conservation of the in unoccupied areas.
final designation has been removed species and in need of special
from the critical habitat boundary. management. The commenter further Issue 5—Procedural Concerns
Therefore, projects within these canals states that the proposed rule does not Comment (15): Several commenters
would not require consultation due to ensure recovery of the species. They stated concerns because the proposed
critical habitat. state that the designation is too small rule was not accompanied by an
Comment (12): Several commenters and too isolated to ensure viable, self- economic analysis. They claimed it was
stated that designation would result in sustaining populations. They argued difficult to comment on the proposed
restrictions or delays to regular that the rule should include occupied as rule without reviewing the information
operation or maintenance or new well as unoccupied potential habitat from the economic analysis.
construction of water delivery or that could be recolonized and provide Our Response (15): We made a draft
agricultural or industrial facilities, potential dispersal habitats. This of the economic analysis (DEA)
requiring consultation with the Service. commenter also stated that the Service available for public comment for the
Our Response (12): All lands should analyze areas described in the Buena Vista Lake shrew on November
designated as critical habitat are within Recovery Plan for inclusion in the final 30, 2004, and accepted comments on the
the geographic area occupied by the rule, as well as areas to provide DEA from that date through December
species, and are likely to be used by the connectivity. One commenter 15, 2004 (69 FR 69578). The information
Buena Vista Lake shrew, whether for recommends identifying locations, such presented in the DEA has been reviewed
and its analysis has been included in easement on the project. See Exclusions Comment (22): One comment
our decisionmaking process for the final Section. indicated that the economic analysis of
designation. Comment (19): The City of Bakersfield critical habitat designation should
Comment (16): Several commenters stated that it is operating under current measure not only loss of profit (i.e., lost
stated that the Service could not management practices that benefit the producer surplus) of affected
designate critical habitat without first shrew and that it is currently businesses, but loss of revenue as a
complying with NEPA requirements. developing a management plan to measure that may better capture the
Our Response (16): We published a benefit the shrew, and therefore its unit total economic impacts, including
notice in the Federal Register on should be excluded from designation. ‘‘employment dislocation’’ and
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244) Our Response (19): The City of ‘‘associated ill effects.’’
outlining our reasons for our Bakersfield’s Kern Fan Water Recharge Our Response (22): The Service
determination not to prepare an Unit has been excluded from acknowledges that the economic effects
environmental analyses as defined by designation based on the conservation identified by the commenter are
the NEPA in connection with measures that will benefit the Buena important, and should be addressed.
designating critical habitat under the Vista Lake shrew outlined in the Both categories of effects (i.e., welfare
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as management plan which meets the change in terms of lost producer
amended. It is our position that in the Service’s exclusion criteria. See surplus, and distributional effects in
Ninth Circuit, as upheld by the courts Exclusions Section. terms of employment dislocation) were
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d Comment (20): Several commenters addressed in the DEA. However,
1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. denied stated that the Coles Levee Unit 4 is guidance from OMB, and compliance
116 S. Ct. 698 (1996), we do not need covered by a management plan with Executive Order 12866 specifies
to prepare environmental analyses as sufficient for the protection of the that Federal agencies measure changes
defined by the NEPA. species and its habitat and should be in economic efficiency as a means of
Comment (17): One commenter excluded from designation. The understanding how society will be
argued that the proposed critical habitat commenters stated that the conservation affected by a regulatory action. This
designation contains areas that are not easement for the Coles Levee Unit, that provides a measure of the net impact of
occupied by the shrew. The commenter is held by California Department of Fish conservation measures. Consideration of
stated that Congress restricts the and Game, specifically recognizes the how certain economic sectors or groups
authority of the Service to designate shrew in Section 5.3 of the easement as of people are affected in a distributional
critical habitat in areas that are a ‘‘Species of Concern Benefited by this manner is important and should be
occupied. Easement.’’ considered, but OMB encourages
Our Response (17): All lands Our Response (20): We have reviewed Federal agencies to consider
designated as critical habitat are within and evaluated the conservation distributional effects separately from
the geographic area and have been easement conditions which meet the efficiency effects. These distinctions are
documented to be occupied by the Service’s exclusion criteria. We have discussed in Sections 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 of
species (CNDDB 2004; Maldonado 1992; determined that the Coles Levee Unit 4 the DEA. As such, the DEA presents the
Williams and Harpster 2001; ESRP should be excluded from the quantitative effects of shrew
2004), and are likely to be used by the designation based on the conservation conservation measures as the efficiency
Buena Vista Lake shrew, whether for measures that will benefit the Buena effects, and presents the distributional
foraging, breeding, growth of juveniles, Vista Lake shrew. See Exclusions effects of changes in agricultural
genetic exchange, or sheltering. Thus, section. activities in Section 5.5.
we consider all critical habitat units to Comment (23): One comment
be occupied by the species. Issue 6—Economic Analysis
suggested that the water requirement
Comment (18): One commenter Comment (21): One comment assumption of 3.5 acre-feet per acre is
requested that Unit 2 be excluded from suggested that the analysis should ‘‘much too high, and that use of
designation because it is currently in address the costs associated with evapotranspiration rates for field crops
negotiations for a Section 7 permit, ‘‘allowing the extinction of the and grass is not appropriate because it
which the commenter believes would subspecies of shrew, including the does not account for shading or mulch
provide the area with a sufficient genetic traits necessary for the survival (as suitable habitat for the Buena Vista
management plan. of the entire species.’’ Furthermore, Lake shrew).’’
Our Response (18): A current plan extinction of the shrew would be a loss Our Response (23): Several sources
provides adequate management or of opportunity for students and were consulted to determine
protection if it meets three criteria, scientists who study the species, and appropriate water requirements for use
outlined above in our Response to who also spend money locally. in the DEA. The estimate of 3.5 acre-feet
Comment 10. A Section 7 consultation Our Response (21): The purpose of the per acre was suggested by managers of
with long-term conservation assurances DEA is to estimate the economic effects the Kern National Wildlife Refuge
provides for the long-term protection of conservation activities associated (KNWR). As noted by those managers
and management of the species and its with the listing and designation of and as reported in Section 6.3.5.1 of the
habitat. At the time we received this critical habitat for the shrew, as well as DEA, a rate of 3.5 acre-feet per acre
comment, the Service was in the economic effects of the protective provides for optimal management of
negotiations for a Section 7 permit. A measures taken as a result of the listing. habitat in KNWR. This level was
Biological Opinion with long-term The Service believes that the benefits of considered reasonable because all units
conservation assurances has since been critical habitat designation are best are in the same geographic zone, and the
completed and issued for the Gooselake expressed in biological terms that can be KNWR water rate reflects optimal
project. The Goose Lake Unit has been weighed against the expected cost management conditions. As noted in
excluded from designation based on the impacts of the rulemaking. Thus, the Section 2.0 of the DEA, estimates of
conservation measures that will benefit DEA does not provide a monetary water requirements for wetland habitat
the Buena Vista Lake shrew outlined in measure of the economic benefits of in the San Joaquin Valley range as high
the Section 7 consultation and long term preventing extinction. as 10 acre-feet per acre.
Comment (24): One comment noted costs for purchased water, and the impacted, economic impacts could
that the cost of water purchases for possibility of closure of the existing occur though all information gathered
maintaining habitat based on $209 per facilities to future uses for water during the development of the DEA did
acre-foot is ‘‘not accurate,’’ and would banking or withdrawal. However, not suggest this would be the case.
instead require the purchase of further research revealed that these Comment (28): One comment noted
permanent water rights for ‘‘a scenarios could not be substantiated that, should the banked water from the
guaranteed source of water.’’ through available information and Kern River and Friant-Kern Canal in
Furthermore, current costs for water is therefore were too speculative to be Unit 3 be made unavailable to the
$2,500 per acre-foot. considered reasonably foreseeable. Pioneer Project, Kern Water Bank, and
Our Response (24): In drafting the Comment (27): A comment submitted Berrenda Mesa Project, the
DEA, the need for water was on behalf of the City of Bakersfield, ‘‘replacement value’’ at a rate of $209
investigated for each of the proposed Kern County Farm Bureau, Kern County per acre-foot for a total of 43,337 acre-
units. This research concluded that Water Agency, and J.G. Boswell feet banked annually would amount to
supplemental water would be necessary Company suggested that designation of $9.1 million per year (or $130 million
on two units (Unit 1, Kern National Unit 3 as critical habitat, Kern Fan over 20 years applying a seven percent
Wildlife Refuge; and Unit 2, Goose Water Recharge Area (KFWRA), ‘‘places discount rate). Additionally, the
Lake), but may or may not be warranted in jeopardy roughly $37.5 million in commenter states that the DEA doesn’t
on the remaining three units. The DEA water resources’’ of the City of consider total economic impacts;
assumes that supplemental water may Bakersfield, and ‘‘another $25 million in ‘‘secondary impacts’’ resulting from
be purchased on an as-needed basis. potential replacement costs’’ for other timing of water supply and economic
The $209 per acre-foot estimate is an entities who bank water (Buena Vista dislocation may result in an even greater
average spot price for leased water, Water Storage District, Cal Water cost. Applying a multiplier of 2.2, the
equivalent to a one-time, one-use Service Company, Kern County Water commenter suggests impacts may be as
acquisition. The purchase of permanent Agency, and the Olcese Water District). high as $311 million. The commenter
water rights would add more certainty The comment states that the KFWRA is further suggests that ‘‘conservation of
to the attainment of water, and would be an essential element of the City’s water that water may entail fallowing in some
a reasonable and conservative supply that is relied upon for water other location that is supplying the
assumption. There is little difference storage. If banking of water at this water,’’ and cites estimates for field
between a purchase price of $2,500 per project is restricted, the City may be crops (e.g., alfalfa) and the loss of
acre-foot and discounted annual required to seek additional water revenue that would lead to an economic
purchases of leased water, however. supplies from the already stressed State impact of $21.8 million annually. An
Thus, this comment does not Water Project and Central Valley additional commenter suggested that the
significantly change the quantitative Project, which will result in additional Friant Water Authority could be affected
results of the economic analysis. economic and environmental impacts. in its ability ‘‘to manage flood waters
Comment (25): One comment letter Further, if banking of water during flood with Kern and Tulare County water
inquired whether all the water applied events is restricted, Kern River water districts and growers throughout its
to shrew habitat would be transpired or could flood adjacent properties resulting Service Area.’’
evaporated, or whether some would in public safety risks. The commenter Our Response (28): Unit 3 is not
soak into the ground for eventual also suggested that the designation of included in the final designation for the
availability to adjacent water banks or Unit 3 may alter the diversion of water BLVS and therefore no costs are
croplands. upstream of the habitat area and that expected related to the shrew
Our Response (25): The DEA Section 7 consultations ‘‘could cause designation in this area for purchase of
considered the water diversion the Army Corps of Engineers to re- replacement water. The following
requirement (that is, the gross amount of schedule its operational releases from discussion, however, provides more
water that would be applied to habitat). Lake Isabella to maintain habitat information on the water use in the
It is understood in the DEA that only a downstream in Unit 3.’’ region. The current operation of Unit 3
portion of that water would be used by Our Response (27): Importantly, Unit is as a water recharge area, where excess
plants or evaporated, and that at least 3 of the proposed designation is flows from the Kern River are allowed
some of that water would soak into the excluded from the final designation and to percolate to the groundwater aquifer
ground and would be available for other impacts to water banking projects for later extraction. The DEA concludes
uses. including the KFWRA associated with that a change in the management of the
Comment (26): Multiple comments shrew conservation measures are water recharge area from its historic
stated that the DEA understated the cost therefore not expected. The following operations would not be required if the
to water districts by not considering discussion, however, provides some area were to be designated as critical
‘‘worst case’’ operating and maintenance context to the consideration of this habitat and, as such, that there would
costs if the Service imposes restrictions project in the DEA. Multiple possible not be a need to purchase the
on Federal surface water allotments, use management scenarios for Unit 3 were replacement of 43,337 acre-feet. In the
of conveyance systems, water banking, investigated in the development of the case that operations were significantly
and other water district activities and DEA through interviews with area water affected, and some amount of water lost
programs. district managers and representatives to these projects, the DEA would
Our Response (26): A range of exploring the potential restrictions or understate the economic effects to water
possible scenarios was investigated other measures that could be imposed users.
through interviews with area water on water districts or purveyors. This The Kern Fan Water Recharge Area
district managers and representatives research determined that a change in the also serves as a flood control
exploring the potential restrictions or management of the water recharge area management area, where flood flows
other measures that could be imposed from its historic operations would not may be deposited and channeled from
on water districts or purveyors. The be required if Unit 3 is designated as other areas. The DEA concludes that the
‘‘worst case’’ scenarios were considered, critical habitat. In the case that water area will continue its historic use of
including the possibility of much higher banking quantity or timing were flood management. To the extent that
flood management uses were restricted, supplemental financial burden effect on pomegranate hedgerow will not survive
the DEA would understate the economic member districts. because of the soil type, an alternative
effects in Unit 3. Comment (32): Two comments brushy or hedgerow plant could be
Comment (29): One commenter stated indicated that the cost to agriculture is identified as suitable for the soils. The
that the Friant-Kern Canal and its understated in that a larger buffer that cost of installing the buffer is not
district distribution systems could be the 45 feet estimated in the DEA would expected to vary more than a nominal
affected by additional vegetation control be necessary between farmed lands and amount from that estimated in the DEA
or management on canals directing critical habitat. One commenter also in the case that a different hedgerow is
water to the critical habitat units. suggested that farmers who typically use required.
Our Response (29): Neither the Friant- aerial application of pesticides may Comment (35): One comment noted
Kern Canal or Friant Water Authority have to change to more expensive that the DEA statement that ‘‘there is no
and its member districts have facilities ground application, and incur the cultivated farmland within the
within or adjacent to any of the higher costs. boundaries of the proposed
proposed units, and their distribution Our Response (32): For the DEA, the designation’’ is not accurate. The
systems are not likely to be affected Extension Service was consulted commenter noted that approximately 47
with additional vegetation control regarding the appropriate width of a acres in four fields within Unit 2, Goose
requirements. buffer that is intended to prevent Lake, have been cultivated in the past,
Comment (30): One commenter pesticide drift from farmed lands, and and have been and are eligible for
indicated that the requirement for water that would also allow for annual loan deficiency (Farm Program)
to enhance critical habitat units ‘‘could maneuverability of farm equipment. payments.
This width (45 feet) was used in the Our Response (35): To the extent that
cause a redirection of water in the
analysis. the land continues to be enrolled in the
Friant-Kern Canal,’’ and that such a
Aerial application of pesticides is Farm Program, and the owners choose
redirection would cause a financial more likely to result in pesticide drift not to cultivate the land for crop
burden to the Friant Water Authority. than are ground-based methods. There production in the future in order to
The commenter further notes that water are six or fewer farms with cultivated avoid an incidental take of shrew, then
purchased by the federal government for land located adjacent to critical habitat. the effect of the critical habitat
the critical habitat units ‘‘must be These are farms that are adjacent to Unit designation would be the difference
delivered to the sites, and the costs of 2 (Kern Fan Recharge), Unit 3 (Goose between net revenue (after expenses) of
which would be partly provided by the Lake), and Unit 5 (Kern Lake). To the crop production and the farm program
Authority.’’ extent that any or all of these farms deficiency payment. This amount will
Our Response (30): The need for currently use aerial pesticide vary depending upon crop and
supplemental water in each of the applications and switch to ground deficiency payment amount. In 2004,
critical habitat units is effected by the applications then the annual cost to according to the commenter, the fields
assumption that water will be those farms may be understated received loan deficiency payments,
purchased from willing sellers. As such, assuming costs of ground application is indicating that they may not have been
no redirection or displacement of more expensive. It is not clear, however, cultivated and have not been used to
existing uses would take place; rather, how and where these farms employ produce an alternate crop. If this status
supplemental water may be purchased pesticides, and it was not determined in were to continue in the future, there
on an as-needed basis. A $209 per acre- the development of the DEA that aerial would be no effect on the owner from
foot estimate is an average spot price for application would be restricted. the critical habitat designation.
leased water, equivalent to a one-time, Comment (33): One comment Comment (36): One commenter states
one-use acquisition. The purchase price indicated that the cost to agriculture is that the DEA ‘‘fails to address the
is assumed to include cost of delivery, overstated, in that the value of the fruit impacts to upstream agricultural water
and thus it would cover the cost of produced in buffers should be users if their water allotments are
conveyance systems. The economic subtracted from the cost of the trees. reduced or eliminated.’’
costs for water purchases are discussed Our Response (33): The DEA assumed Our Response (36): The DEA
in Section 6.3.5 in the DEA. that the pomegranate tree buffers considered the water needs of the
Comment (31): One commenter noted planted on agricultural lands would not critical habitat units, and acknowledges
that requirement of water to flood be developed for commercial that supplemental water, whether
habitat may burden the water districts production purposes, but to create required or optional, would necessitate
operating the Friant-Kern Canal. During ‘‘hedgerow thickets’’ designed to limit a purchase or lease of water from
dry years, when the amount of water is pesticide drift. As such, the plantings willing sellers. Section 6.3.5 provides an
limited, additional burden may occur on would be dense and managed for brush analysis of the water requirements and
the Friant Water Authority and its and foliage rather than fruit production, associated costs for each of the units.
member districts. the yield of which would be less than The DEA also contemplated the
Our Response (31): The supplemental a comparable orchard. Harvesting of possibility of closure of the existing
water for the critical habitat units is fruit would be made difficult by the facilities or effects on water users
assumed to be purchased on an as- thicket. In conclusion, any revenue from upstream of the units and determined
needed basis from willing sellers. In dry fruit sales would be minimal. these scenarios were considered
years, when water to member districts Comment (34): One comment unlikely; therefore, associated impacts
may be limited, the critical habitat units indicated that in Unit 5 (Kern Lake), were too speculative to be considered
may also be limited in acquisition of ‘‘soil and groundwater conditions will reasonably foreseeable.
water. In other words, water for the not allow tree production’’ in the Comment (37): One comment letter
critical habitat units is necessarily proposed buffer strip. requested information as to whether
secondary (or junior) to the member Our Response (34): The buffers would critical habitat designation in Unit 5
districts, and may not be available in be installed in currently cultivated (Kern Lake) would affect: (1) Mosquito
dry years. As such, that the units need farmland. To the extent that the abatement; (2) diversions of water from
water is not expected to have a suggested buffer planting of a New Rim Ditch; (3) timing and
quantities of flows through the Kern ‘‘in excess of $30 million’’ that would improvements or changes to the Outlet
Delta Water District facilities; (4) result if the Service required it to be Canal are uncertain, as the economic
farming activities adjacent to Unit 5; (5) dismantled. feasibility of improvements to the
operation of the tile drain system; (6) Our Response (38): In developing the BVWSD has not yet been determined.
maintenance of canals and roadways; (7) DEA, the possibility of impacts to tile Comment (41): One comment asserts
eligibility of the site for development drain system project, including its that the study understated the full range
into a mitigation bank; (8) eligibility for removal, were examined. No evidence of effects on private individuals or
inclusion of Unit 5 into the was uncovered to give reason to assume entities due to Section 7 consultations
Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP; and (9) that the existing system or tile drain in that induce the preparation of biological
activities of the owner to voluntarily place would require any alteration, and reports. In particular, costs of
supply water to the site. therefore it was determined that there preparation and ongoing operating costs
Our Response (37): In the would not be any reasonably foreseeable for the Kern County Valley Floor HCP
development of the DEA, our loss of land value or crop production are understated. The Kern County
investigation regarding whether changes associated with modification to this Planning Department estimates that
would be recommended to modify project. these costs are $200,000 for completion
existing mosquito abatement activities Comment (39): One commenter stated of the HCP document and more than
revealed that producers who follow that the Kern Delta Water District $70,000 annually in subsequent years
pesticide labels instructions for operates and maintains the New Rim for implementation.
application will not be impacted by Ditch in Unit 5, and expressed concern Our Response (41): The costs to
shrew conservation activities. The Kern that the district would be impacted if private entities was determined along
Delta Water District uses the New Rim their ability to operate the ditch is with other costs associated with Section
Ditch to transport water to its service affected by the designation. 7 consultations and development of
members. The New Rim Ditch lies Our Response (39): The New Rim HCPs. Table 16 in the DEA provides a
adjacent to, but outside of, critical Ditch, levee, and adjacent roadway are summary of the costs to non-Federal
habitat in Unit 5. It was determined that on the boundary, but outside of, the entities, both as a result of the listing
requirements for changing diversions, Unit 5. Previous operations and use of and anticipated in the future.
quantities, and timing of flows through the New Rim Ditch have been With respect to the Kern County
existing facilities was not reasonably conducive for the survival of the shrew, Valley Floor HCP, the commenter was
foreseeable in this area. The DEA and the seepage has been beneficial for contacted for cost estimates in the
considered farming activities in terms of its habitat. As long as current operations course of preparing the DEA, and those
the planting of buffer strips on adjacent and use do not change in the future, costs were subsequently included in the
lands, including those adjacent to Unit there would be no restrictions placed revised economic analysis. The total
5 (see Section 5.4 of the DEA). upon it that would result in economic cost to date of $450,000 was assumed to
Implementation of these buffer zones is effects. be divided equally among the 28 species
estimated to cost approximately $5,187 Comment (40): One commenter included in the HCP. The prospective
annually. The DEA also considered indicated that the Buena Vista Water annual cost, which is $125 as shown in
whether designation of critical habitat Storage District (BVWSD), which owns Table 16, was based on the $70,000
would affect operation, or possible the Outlet Canal, located within Unit 4, forecasted by the commenter as required
removal, of the tile drain system. Coles Levee, could be affected if they to complete the HCP. The annual costs
Discussions with the land owner are unable to line the canal as they plan. may appear understated because they
indicate that operations on the tile drain Our Response (40): Proposed Unit 4 is are assumed to be shared equally among
system include periodic maintenance not included in the final designation for the 28 listed species considered in the
and repair of the pumps transporting the BLVS and therefore no further costs HCP.
tailwater at the end of the drains; these are expected related to the shrew Comment (42): One comment
activities are not likely to affect the associated with this potential project. suggested that designation of Unit 3,
shrew. Routine maintenance of canals The following discussion, however, Kern Fan Water Recharge, would
and roadways, including grading and provides more information on the Outlet necessitate the installation of ‘‘an
adding to gravel base, have been Canal lining project. A representative of irrigation system such as sprinklers
conducted in the past and are not the BVWSD was contacted regarding * * * to water disconnected areas and
anticipated to be restricted due to shrew operational plans for the Outlet Canal. establish sufficient vegetative cover.’’ As
conservation activities. Further The BVWSD has considered lining the such, the DEA should include the
investigation did not indicate that Outlet Canal since the late 1970s, but annual costs for a sprinkler system.
designation of Unit 5 would limit its never completed necessary feasibility Our Response (42): Proposed Unit 3 is
eligibility for development into a studies. More recently, the District has currently operated as a water recharge
mitigation bank, or inclusion into the begun to consider it again, based on the area, where excess flows from the Kern
Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP. The installation of new equipment to better River are allowed to percolate to the
potential for restrictions on additional measure the seepage from the canal. groundwater aquifer for later extraction.
water supply, or changes in the timing Among the study alternatives is the The DEA did not anticipate significant
of water applications to the site, were efficacy of lining the entire canal enough changes to operations in this
also considered. Such activities are not (bottom and sides) versus lining the Unit to necessitate the installation of
likely to be restricted or limited as the bottom and only parts of the sides, infrastructure for irrigation. However,
shrew thrives on moist edges to wetted leaving the top parts of the levees Unit 3 is not included in the final
areas, and could reasonably adapt under unlined in order to protect the waterway designation for the BLVS and therefore
these conditions. habitat. Lining of the canal could no costs are expected related to the
Comment (38): One comment letter provide the BVWSD with a reduction in shrew for an irrigation system in this
expressed concern about the future seepage loss and ability to use or sell the area.
status of the tile drain system in Unit 5 conserved water. The benefit to the Comment (43): One comment noted
(Kern Lake), and the economic damage BVWSD of the additional water would that the DEA does not consider ‘‘the
in terms of land values and crop losses be offset by the cost of lining. Future costs of replacing the consumptive use
of water needed to moisten shrew shrew as Unit 2 has been excluded from of habitat enhancement is extremely
habitat’’ within Unit 3, the Kern Fan designation and therefore no economic difficult, and requires that a strict set of
Water Recharge, and that the impacts are anticipated to this project. conditions be met in order to follow the
replacement of 9,163 acre-feet of Current operations of the canal in Unit guidance of the Office of Management
groundwater in that unit would cost 2 for water delivery and transport of and Budget and develop useable results.
$1.9 million annually. flood waters have permitted the survival While improvements to habitat to other
Our Response (43): Unit 3 is not of the shrew, however, and investigation species may occur, the Service believes
included in the final designation for the regarding whether the canal’s operation that the benefits of critical habitat
BLVS and therefore no costs are or use would be restricted in the future designation are best expressed in
expected related to the shrew for under a critical habitat designation biological terms that can be weighed
purchase of replacement water. The concluded that restrictions are against the expected cost impacts of the
following discussion, however, provides reasonably foreseeable. rulemaking. Thus, this DEA does not
more information on the consumptive Comment (45): One comment letter provide a monetary measure of the
water use in the region. The Kern Fan submitted on behalf of the Gooselake economic benefits of improving habitat
Water Recharge area operates as a water Holding Company (GHC) clarified the for other species.
bank with an intentional use of allowing ownership status and plans for surface
water to percolate to the groundwater water regulation and groundwater Summary of Changes From the
aquifer for eventual reuse. In allowing recharge within Unit 2, Goose Lake, Proposed Rule
percolation of supplemental water, and consistent with a Biological Opinion In preparing our final designation of
simultaneously providing habitat signed by the Service on November 15, critical habitat for the Buena Vista Lake
moisture to the benefit of the shrew, 2004. GHC owns most of the Goose Lake shrew, we reviewed comments received
some evaporative loss may occur that Area, not the Semitropic Water Storage on the proposed designation of critical
would not be recoverable. Assuming a District as stated in the DEA. habitat. In addition to minor
15 percent rate of evaporative loss, Our Response (45): The Biological clarifications in the text, we made
approximately 1,375 acre-feet of the Opinion for this project was signed after numerous changes to our proposed
supplemental water would not be the publication date of the DEA. The designation, as follows:
available to groundwater users. It Service appreciates these clarifications
(1) Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
should be noted that it is not known to the description in the DEA and they
we excluded four properties with
whether supplemental water will be are incorporated into the revised
adequate management plans that
required in the Kern Fan Recharge Area. analysis. It is of note, however, that Unit
provide for conservation of the Buena
If water is required, it is assumed that 2 of the proposed critical habitat, which
Vista Lake shrew and its habitat. For
water would be purchased from willing contains this project, has been excluded
more information, refer to Exclusions
sellers, and hence would not displace from the final designation of critical
Under 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.
other existing uses. Nevertheless, habitat.
should the water be required, the upper Comment (46): One comment (2) We refined our mapping
bound on the opportunity cost of the inquired whether water purchased for boundaries, using the best information
1,375 acre-feet of water lost, at $209 per maintenance of shrew habitat would available to us, to include only occupied
acre-foot, would be $287,375 annually. enhance waterfowl habitat in Unit 2 areas which we have determined to
Comment (44): One comment letter (Goose Lake), and if so, could a have the primary constituent elements
stated that the Semitropic Water District monetary value be placed on the and are essential to the shrew. We
owns and operates a canal in Unit 2 for enhancement and deducted from the removed canals, open water areas, and
water delivery and transport of flood cost of water. other nonessential areas from the
waters, and concern was expressed that Our Response (46): It is possible that proposed critical habitat designation.
the district would be constrained in its waterfowl habitat would be enhanced (3) Collectively, we excluded a total of
operations or use of the canal. by purchase of water for shrew habitat. 4,566 ac (1,848 ha) of federally and
Our Response (44): This canal is not However, estimating the monetary value privately-owned lands from this final
included in the final designation for the or economic benefits (‘‘negative costs’’) critical habitat designation.
TABLE 1.—PROPOSED AND FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT AREA

Unit Proposed Final
1. Kern Wildlife Refuge Unit .............................................................................................................................. 387 ac (157 ha) 0 ac (0 ha).

2. Goose Lake Unit ............................................................................................................................................ 1,277 ac (517 0 ac (0 ha).
ha).
3. Kern Fan Recharge Unit ............................................................................................................................... 2,682 ac (1,085 0 ac (0 ha).
ha).
4. Coles Levee Unit ........................................................................................................................................... 214 ac (87 ha) .. 0 ac (0 ha).
5. Kern Lake Preserve Unit ............................................................................................................................... 90 ac (36 ha) .... 84 ac (34 ha).
Total ............................................................................................................................................................ 4,649 ac (1,882 84 ac (34 ha).

ha).
Critical Habitat accordance with the Act, on which are protection; and (ii) specific areas
found those physical or biological outside the geographic area occupied by
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines features (I) essential to the conservation a species at the time it is listed, upon
critical habitat as—(i) the specific areas of the species and (II) that may require a determination that such areas are
within the geographic area occupied by special management considerations or essential for the conservation of the
a species, at the time it is listed in
species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use designate critical habitat in areas available information at the time of the
of all methods and procedures that are outside the geographic area occupied by action. Federally funded or permitted
necessary to bring an endangered or a the species unless the best available projects affecting listed species outside
threatened species to the point at which scientific and commercial data their designated critical habitat areas
listing under the Act is no longer demonstrate that those areas are may still result in jeopardy findings in
necessary. essential for the conservation needs of some cases. Similarly, critical habitat
The designation of critical habitat the species. designations made on the basis of the
does not affect land ownership or Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that best available information at the time of
establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, we take into consideration the economic designation will not control the
preserve, or other conservation area. It impact, the impact on national security, direction and substance of future
does not allow government or public and any other relevant impact of recovery plans, habitat conservation
access to private lands. Under section 7 specifying any particular area as critical plans, or other species conservation
of the Act, Federal agencies must habitat. We may exclude areas from planning efforts if new information
consult with us on activities they critical habitat designation when the available to these planning efforts calls
undertake, fund, or permit that may benefits of exclusion outweigh the for a different outcome.
affect critical habitat and lead to its benefits of including the areas within
destruction or adverse modification. critical habitat, provided the exclusion Methods
However, the Act prohibits will not result in extinction of the Our methods for identifying the
unauthorized take of listed species and species. Buena Vista Lake shrew critical habitat
requires consultation for activities that Our Policy on Information Standards included in this final designation are
may affect them, including habitat under the Endangered Species Act, identical to the methods we used in our
alterations, regardless of whether published in the Federal Register on proposal of critical habitat for the Buena
critical habitat has been designated. We July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), provides Vista Lake shrew, published on August
have found that the designation of criteria, establishes procedures, and 19, 2004 (69 FR 51417).
critical habitat provides little additional provides guidance to ensure that our As required by section 4(b)(2) of the
protection to most listed species. decisions represent the best scientific Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12,
To be included in a critical habitat and commercial data available. It we used the best scientific and
designation, habitat must be either a requires our biologists, to the extent commercial data available to determine
specific area within the geographic area consistent with the Act and with the use areas that contain the physical and
occupied by the species on which are of the best scientific and commercial biological features that are essential for
found those physical or biological data available, to use primary and the conservation of the shrew. This
features essential to the conservation of original sources of information as the included data and information
the species (primary constituent basis for recommendations to designate contained in, but not limited to, the
elements, as defined at 50 CFR critical habitat. When determining proposed and final rules listing the
424.12(b)) and which may require which areas are critical habitat, a shrew (65 FR 35033, June 1, 2000, and
special management considerations or primary source of information should be 67 FR 10101, March 6, 2002), the
protections, or be specific areas outside the listing package for the species. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the
of the geographic area occupied by the Additional information may be obtained San Joaquin Valley, California (Service
species which are determined to be from a recovery plan, articles in peer- 1998), the proposed rule designating
essential to the conservation of the reviewed journals, conservation plans critical habitat (69 FR 51417, August 19,
species. Section 3(5)(C) of the Act states developed by States and counties or 2004), research and survey observations
that not all areas that can be occupied other entities that develop HCPs, published in peer-reviewed articles
by a species should be designated as scientific status surveys and studies, (Grinnell 1932, 1933; Hall 1981;
critical habitat unless the Secretary biological assessments, or other Williams and Kilburn 1984; Williams
determines that all such areas are unpublished materials and expert 1986), habitat and wetland mapping and
essential to the conservation of the opinion or personal knowledge. other data collected and reports
species. Our regulations (50 CFR Section 4 of the Act requires that we submitted by biologists holding section
424.12(e)) also state that, ‘‘The Secretary designate critical habitat on the basis of 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits, biological
shall designate as critical habitat areas what we know at the time of listing. assessments provided to the Service
outside the geographic area presently Habitat is often dynamic, and species through section 7 consultations, reports
occupied by the species only when a may move from one area to another over and documents that are on file in the
designation limited to its present range time. Furthermore, we recognize that Service’s field office (Center for
would be inadequate to ensure the designation of critical habitat may not Conservation Biology 1990; Maldonado
conservation of the species.’’ include all of the habitat areas that may et al. 1998; ESRP 1999a; ESRP 2004),
Regulations at 50 CFR 424.02(j) define eventually be determined to be personal discussions with experts inside
special management considerations or necessary for the recovery of the and outside of the Service with
protection to mean any methods or species. For these reasons, critical extensive knowledge of the shrew and
procedures useful in protecting the habitat designations do not signal that habitat in the area, and information
physical and biological features of the habitat outside the designation is received during the two open comment
environment for the conservation of unimportant or may not be required for periods. We also conducted site visits
listed species. When we designate recovery. and visual habitat evaluation in areas
critical habitat, we may not have the Areas that support populations, but known to have shrews, and in areas
information necessary to identify all are outside the critical habitat within the historical ranges that had
areas that are essential for the designation, will continue to be subject potential to contain shrew habitat.
conservation of the species. to conservation actions implemented The critical habitat units were
Nevertheless, we are required to under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to delineated by creating rough areas for
designate those areas we consider to be the regulatory protections afforded by each unit by screen-digitizing polygons
essential, using the best information section 7(a)(2) and section 9 of the Act, (map units) using ArcView
available to us. Accordingly, we do not as determined on the basis of the best (Environmental Systems Research
Institute, Inc.), a computer Geographic detail below in the Unit Descriptions Kern Fan recharge area, Cole Levee
Information System (GIS) program. The section. Ecological Preserve (Cole Levee), the
polygons were created by overlaying Kern National Wildlife Refuge (Kern
Primary Constituent Elements
current and historic species location NWR), and the Goose Lake slough
points (CNDDB 2004), and mapped In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) bottoms. The vegetative communities
wetland habitats (California Department of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR associated with these areas and with
of Water Resources 1998) or other 424.12, in determining which areas to shrew occupancy are characterized by
wetland location information, onto propose as critical habitat, we are the presence of but are not limited to:
SPOT imagery (satellite aerial required to base critical habitat Fremont cottonwood (Populus
photography) (CNES/SPOT Image determinations on the best scientific fremontii), willows (Salix spp.),
Corporation 1993–2000) and Digital and commercial data available and to glasswort (Salicornia sp.), wild-rye grass
Ortho-rectified Quarter Quadrangles consider those physical and biological (Elymus sp.), rush grass (Juncus sp.),
(DOQQs) (USGS 1993–1998) for areas features (primary constituent elements and other emergent vegetation (Service
containing the shrew. We utilized GIS (PCEs)) that are essential to the 1998). Maldonado (1992) found shrews
data derived from a variety of Federal, conservation of the species, and that in areas of moist ground covered with
State, and local agencies, and from may require special management leaf litter near other low-lying
private organizations and individuals. considerations and protection. These vegetation, branches, tree roots, and
To identify where essential habitat for include, but are not limited to: space for fallen logs, or in areas with cool, moist
the shrew occurs, we evaluated the GIS individual and population growth and soil beneath dense mats of vegetation
habitat mapping and species occurrence for normal behavior; food, water, air, kept moist by its proximity to the water
information from the CNDDB (2004). We light, minerals, or other nutritional or line. He described specific habitat
presumed occurrences identified in physiological requirements; cover or features that would make them suitable
CNDDB to be extant unless there was shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, for the shrew: (1) Dense vegetative
affirmative documentation that an and rearing (or development) of cover; (2) a thick, three-dimensional
occurrence had been extirpated. We also offspring; and habitats that are protected understory layer of vegetation and felled
relied on unpublished species from disturbance or are representative of logs, branches, and detritus/debris; (3)
occurrence data contained within our the historic geographical and ecological heavy understory of leaf litter with duff
files, including section 10(a)(1)(A) distributions of a species. overlying soils; (4) proximity to suitable
The specific primary constituent moisture; and (5) a year-round supply of
reports and biological assessments.
elements required for the shrew are invertebrate prey. Williams and
These polygons of identified habitat derived from the biological needs of the
were further evaluated. Several factors Harpster (2001) concluded that the best
shrew as described in the Background habitat for the shrew was found in
were used to delineate the proposed section of this proposal and in the final
critical habitat units from these land ‘‘riparian and wetland communities
listing rule. with an abundance of leaf litter (humus)
areas. We reviewed any information in
the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of Space for Individual and Population or dense herbaceous cover.’’ They also
Growth and Normal Behavior determined that ‘‘although moist soil in
the San Joaquin Valley, California
areas with an overstory of willows or
(Service 1998), or other peer-reviewed As described previously, shrew were cotton woods appears to be favored,’’
literature or expert opinion for the recorded in association with perennial they doubted that such overstory was
shrew to determine if the designated and intermittent wetland habitats along essential. Based on changes in the
areas would meet the species’ needs for riparian corridors, marsh edges, and native habitat composition and structure
conservation and whether these areas other palustrine (marsh type) habitats in and information on habitat descriptions
contained the appropriate primary the southern San Joaquin Valley of of where the shrew have been found, we
constituent elements for the species. California. The shrew presumably include the moist vegetative
Further refinement was done by using occurred in the moist habitat communities surrounding permanent
satellite imagery, watershed boundaries, surrounding wetland margins in the and semipermanent wetlands in our
soil type coverages, vegetation/land Kern, Buena Vista, Goose and Tulare description of shrew critical habitat
cover data, and agricultural/urban land Lakes basins on the valley floor below because they are the habitat
use data to eliminate areas that did not 350 ft (107 m) elevation (Grinnell 1932, requirements needed by the shrew.
contain the appropriate vegetation or 1933; Hall 1981; Williams and Kilburn
associated native plant species, as well 1984; Williams 1986; Service 1998). Food
as features such as cultivated agriculture With the draining and conversion of the The specific feeding and foraging
fields, development, and other areas majority of the shrew’s natural habitat habits of the shrew are not well known.
that are unlikely to contribute to the from wetland to agriculture and the In general, shrews primarily feed on
conservation of the shrew. channelization of riparian corridors for insects and other animals, mostly
As stated earlier, the shrew occurs in water conveyance structures, the invertebrates (Harris 1990; Williams
habitats in and adjacent to riparian and vegetative communities associated with 1991; Maldonado 1992). Food probably
wetland edge areas with a vegetation the shrew have become degraded and is not cached and stored, so the shrew
structure that provides cover, allowing non-native species have replaced the must forage periodically day and night
for moist soils that support a diversity plant species associated with the shrew to maintain its high metabolic rate.
of terrestrial and aquatic insect prey. We (Grinnell 1932; Mercer and Morgan The vegetation communities
have determined that one of the five 1991; Griggs 1992; Service 1998). described above provide a diversity of
known locations of shrew should be Current survey information has structural layers and plant species and
designated as critical habitat (CNDDB identified five areas where the shrew likely contribute to the availability of
2004). This area contains wetland and/ has been found (CNDDB 2004; prey for shrews. Therefore, conservation
or riparian habitat, is located within the Maldonado 1992; Williams and Harpster of the shrew should include
historical range of the shrew, and is 2001; ESRP 2004). The five locations are consideration of the habitat needs of
occupied by the shrew. The specific the former Kern Lake Preserve (Kern prey species, including structural and
essential habitat is explained in greater Preserve) on the old Kern Lake bed, the species diversity and seasonal
availability. Shrew habitat must provide Primary Constituents for the Buena Therefore, these areas are essential to
sufficient prey base and cover from Vista Lake Shrew the conservation of the shrew.
which to hunt in an appropriate We are designating critical habitat in
Based on our current knowledge of
configuration and proximity to nesting the units that we have determined are
the life history, biology, and ecology of
sites. The shrew feeds indiscriminately essential to the conservation of the
the species and the requirements of the
on available larvae and adults of several shrew, except for those excluded under
habitat to sustain the essential life
species of aquatic and terrestrial insects. Section 4(b)(2). In our development of
history functions of the species, we have
An abundance of invertebrates is critical habitat for the shrew, we used
determined that the shrew’s primary
associated with moist habitats, such as the following methods. The unit being
constituent elements are:
wetland edges, riparian habitat, or edges designated has the primary constituent
(i) Riparian or wetland communities
of lakes, ponds, or drainages that elements described above.
supporting a complex vegetative Whenever possible, areas not
possess a dense vegetative cover (Owen
structure with a thick cover of leaf litter containing the primary constituent
and Hoffmann 1983). Therefore, to be
or dense mats of low-lying vegetation; elements, such as developed areas, were
considered essential, critical habitat
and not included in the boundaries of
consists of a vegetative structure that
(ii) Suitable moisture supplied by a critical habitat. However, we did not
contains suitable soil moisture capable
shallow water table, irrigation, or map critical habitat in enough detail to
of supporting a diversity of invertebrates
proximity to permanent or exclude all developed areas, or other
so that there is a substantial food source
semipermanent water; and areas unlikely to contain the primary
to sustain occurrences of the shrew.
(iii) A consistent and diverse supply constituent elements essential for the
Water of prey. conservation of the Buena Vista Lake
Open water does not appear to be The requisite riparian and wetland shrew. Areas within the boundaries of
necessary for the survival of the shrew. habitat is essential for the shrew the mapped units, such as buildings,
The habitat where the shrew have been because it provides space and cover roads, parking lots, railroad tracks,
found contain areas with both open necessary to sustain the entire life cycle canals, and other paved areas, are
water and mesic environments needs of the shrew, as well as its excluded from the designation by text,
(Maldonado 1992; Williams and invertebrate prey. The shrew is preyed but these exclusions do not show on the
Harpster 2001). The availability of water upon by many large vertebrate maps because their scale is too small.
contributes to improved vegetation carnivores as well as by avian predators. In summary, we are designating one
structure and diversity which improves Therefore, a dense vegetative structure critical habitat unit within the known
cover availability. The presence of water provides the cover or shelter essential geographical area occupied by the
also attracts potential prey species for evading predators as well as serving species. The primary constituent
improving prey availability. as habitat for breeding and elements are present and the shrew is
reproduction, and allows for the extant in this unit. Additional areas
Reproduction and Rearing of Offspring protection and rearing of offspring and outside of the geographic area currently
Little is known about the reproductive the growth of adult shrews. known to be occupied by the shrew
needs of the shrew. The breeding season were evaluated to determine if they are
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
begins in February or March and ends essential to the conservation of the
Habitat
in May or June, but can be extended shrew and should be included in the
depending on habitat quality and We are designating critical habitat on final critical habitat designation. Based
available moisture (Paul Collins, Santa lands that we have determined essential upon our evaluation of available
Barbara Museum of Natural History, in to the conservation of the Buena Vista information, which included the
litt. 2000). The edges of wetland or Lake shrew. These areas have the Recovery Plan, survey data, and
marshy habitat allow the shrew to primary constituent elements described historical records, we do not find any
provide hospitable environments and above. Protecting a variety of habitats areas outside of the known geographical
have a larger prey base to give birth and and conditions that contain the PCEs area occupied by the shrew to be
raise its young. The shrew’s preference will allow for the conservation of the essential to the conservation of the
for dense vegetative understories also species because it will increase the species at this time.
provides cover from predators. Dense ability of the shrew to survive stochastic
vegetation also allows for the soil environmental (e.g., fire), natural (e.g., Special Management Considerations or
moisture necessary for a consistent predators), demographic (e.g., low Protections
supply of terrestrial and aquatic insect recruitment), or genetic (e.g., When designating critical habitat, we
prey (Kirkland 1991; Ma and Talmage inbreeding) events, therefore lowering assess whether the areas determined to
2001; Freas 1990; Maldonado 1992; the probability of extinction. Suitable be essential for conservation may
Maldonado et al. 1998). habitat within the historic range is require special management
The areas proposed for designation as extremely limited and remaining considerations or protections. As we
critical habitat for the shrew consist of habitats are vulnerable to both undertake the process of designating
occupied habitat with the primary anthropogenic and natural threats critical habitat for a species, we first
constituent elements that are essential because so few extant occurrences of the evaluate lands defined by those physical
for adult and juvenile shrews to shrew exist, and the number of and biological features essential to the
maintain and sustain occurrences individuals at each location is estimated conservation of the species for inclusion
throughout their range. The PCEs below to be low. Also, these areas provide in the designation pursuant to section
describe the physical and biological habitats essential for the maintenance 3(5)(A) of the Act. Secondly, we then
features essential to shrew conservation. and growth of self-sustaining evaluate lands defined by those features
Special management, such as habitat populations and metapopulations (a set to assess whether they may require
rehabilitation efforts (e.g., provision of of local populations where typically special management considerations or
an adequate and reliable water source migration from one local population to protection.
and restoration of riparian habitat), may other areas containing suitable habitat is The majority of locations supporting
be necessary in the unit designated. possible) of shrews throughout its range. the shrew are on private land, and are
subject to a change in the water supply, special management may be needed to protection or management plan exists
which maintains the current habitat. address them. for this unit. Absent special
Elevated concentrations of selenium The critical habitat unit identified in management or protection, this unit is
also represent a serious environmental this final designation may require susceptible to existing threats and
threat to the species (Service 2002). special management considerations or activities such as the ones listed in the
High levels of selenium have been protection to maintain a functioning ‘‘Effects of Critical Habitat’’ section,
measured in recharge and evaporation hydrological regime to maintain the which could result in degradation and
ponds adjacent to areas where the shrew requisite riparian and wetland habitat, disappearance of the shrew populations
occurs (California Department of Water which is essential for the shrew by and their habitat.
Resources in litt. 1997). Potential providing space and cover necessary to
Critical Habitat Designation
dietary selenium concentrations from sustain the entire life cycle needs of the
shrew, as well as its invertebrate prey. We are designating one (1) unit as
sampled aquatic insects are within
This designated unit is threatened by critical habitat for the shrew. This
ranges toxic to small mammals (Olson
activities that may result in the critical habitat unit described below
1986) and could include, but may not be constitutes our best assessment at this
alteration of the moisture regime which
limited to, reduced reproductive output would lead to reduced water quality or time of the areas essential for the
or premature death (Eisler 1985). The supply, loss of suitable invertebrate conservation of the shrew. The unit
shrew also faces high risks of extinction supply for feeding and loss of complex being designated as critical habitat for
from random catastrophic events (e.g., vegetative structure for cover. the shrew is the Kern Lake Preserve
floods, drought, and inbreeding) We have determined this unit may Unit.
(Service 1998). These threats and others require special management or The approximate area encompassed
mentioned above would render the protection, due to the existing threats to within the critical habitat unit is shown
habitat less suitable for the shrew, and the shrew, and because no long-term in Table 2.
TABLE 2.—FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE BUENA VISTA LAKE SHREW
Local
Federal State agencies Private Total
Unit
ac ha ac ha ac ha ac ha ac ha
1. Kern Lake Preserve ................................................................................................. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 84 34 84 34
Grand Total ........................................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 34 84 34
The areas essential for the shrew conservation easement and is managed with an overstory of cottonwoods and
include an area within the species’ by the landowners. We are unaware of willows, abundant ground litter, and
range in California. Below is a brief any plans to develop this site. moist soil (Center for Conservation
description of the unit and the reasons The Kern Lake Unit is situated at the Biology 1990).
why it is essential for the conservation edge of the historic Kern Lake. Since the The Kern Lake Unit may require
of the shrew. advent of reclamation and development, special management considerations or
the surrounding lands have seen protection to maintain a functioning
Unit 1: Kern Lake Preserve Unit
intensive cattle and sheep ranching and, hydrological regime to maintain the
Modifications were made to this unit more recently, cotton and alfalfa requisite riparian and wetland habitat,
which resulted in the exclusion of a farming. While Kern Lake is now only which is essential for the shrew by
canal and the canal levee banks from the a dry lake bed, the unit’s ‘‘Gator Pond’’ providing space and cover necessary to
designation. This exclusion resulted in site and wet alkali meadows stand as sustain the entire life cycle needs of the
the reduction of critical habitat unique reminders of their biological shrew, as well as its invertebrate prey.
designation from 90 ac (36 ha) to 84 ac heritage. This designated unit is threatened by
(34 ha). A portion of the runoff from the activities that may result in the
The Kern Lake Unit is approximately surrounding hills travels through alteration of the moisture regime which
84 acres (34 ha) and is found in the underground aquifers, surfacing as would lead to reduced water quality or
southern portion of the San Joaquin artesian springs at Gator Pond. The supply, loss of suitable invertebrate
Valley in southwestern Kern County, heavy clay soils support a distinctive supply for feeding and loss of complex
approximately 16 miles south of assemblage of native species. An island vegetative structure for cover.
Bakersfield. This unit lies between Hwy of native vegetation situated among a Furthermore, no long-term protection or
99 and Interstate 5, south of Herring sea of cotton fields, this Unit contains management plan exists for this unit.
Road near the New Rim Ditch. This unit three ecologically significant natural Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
is essential to the conservation of the communities: freshwater marsh, alkali
species because it represents one of five meadow, and iodine bush scrub. Gator Section 7 Consultation
remaining areas known to support an Pond, in the sanctuary’s eastern quarter, Section 7 of the Act requires Federal
extant population of the shrew that also lies near the shoreline of the historic agencies, including the Service, to
contains the PCEs. The Kern Lake area Kern Lake. ensure that actions they fund, authorize,
was formerly managed by the Nature Shrews were discovered at the Kern or carry out are not likely to destroy or
Conservancy for the Boswell Lake Unit in 1986 near a community of adversely modify critical habitat.
Corporation, and was once thought to saltbushes and saltgrass. In 1988 and Section 7(a) of the Act requires
contain the last remaining population of 1989, 25 shrews were captured in low- Federal agencies, including the Service,
the shrew. This area does not have a lying, riparian and/or wetland habitats to evaluate their actions with respect to
any species that is proposed or listed as agencies may request reinitiation of recovery. Actions likely to ‘‘destroy or
endangered or threatened and with consultation or conference with us on adversely modify’’ critical habitat are
respect to its critical habitat, if any is actions for which formal consultation those that would appreciably reduce the
proposed or designated. Regulations has been completed, if those actions value of critical habitat to the listed
implementing this interagency may affect designated critical habitat or species.
cooperation provision of the Act are adversely modify or destroy proposed Federal agencies already consult with
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section critical habitat. us on activities in areas currently
7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal We may issue a formal conference occupied by the species to ensure that
agencies to confer with us on any action report if requested by a Federal agency. their actions do not jeopardize the
that is likely to jeopardize the continued Formal conference reports on proposed continued existence of the species.
existence of a proposed species or result critical habitat contain an opinion that These actions include, but are not
in destruction or adverse modification is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, limited to:
of proposed critical habitat. Conference if critical habitat were designated. We (1) Actions that would affect riparian
reports provide conservation may adopt the formal conference report or wetland areas by any Federal Agency.
recommendations to assist the agency in as the biological opinion when the Such activities could include, but are
eliminating conflicts that may be caused critical habitat is designated, if no not limited to, flood control or changes
by the proposed action. The substantial new information or changes in water banking activities. These
conservation recommendations in a in the action alter the content of the activities could eliminate or reduce the
conference report are advisory. If a opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). habitat necessary for the reproduction,
species is listed or critical habitat is Activities on Federal lands that may sheltering, or growth of Buena Vista
designated, section 7(a)(2) requires affect the shrew or its critical habitat Lake shrews.
Federal agencies to ensure that activities will require section 7 consultation. (2) Actions that would affect the
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not Activities on private or State lands regulation of water flows by any Federal
likely to jeopardize the continued requiring a permit from a Federal agency. Such activities could include,
existence of such a species or to destroy agency, such as a permit from the U.S. but are not limited to, damming,
or adversely modify its critical habitat. Army Corps of Engineers under section diversion, and channelization. These
If a Federal action may affect a listed 404 of the Clean Water Act, a section activities could eliminate or reduce the
species or its critical habitat, the 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the Service, or habitat necessary for the reproduction,
responsible Federal agency (action some other Federal action, including sheltering or growth of Buena Vista Lake
agency) must enter into consultation funding (e.g., Federal Highway shrews.
with us. Through this consultation, the Administration or Federal Emergency (3) Actions that would involve
action agency ensures that the permitted Management Agency funding), will also regulations funded or permitted by the
actions do not destroy or adversely continue to be subject to the section 7 Federal Highway Administration. (We
modify critical habitat. consultation process. Federal actions note that the Federal Highway
When we issue a biological opinion not affecting listed species or critical Administration does not fund the
concluding that a project is likely to habitat and actions on non-Federal and routine operations and maintenance of
result in the destruction or adverse private lands that are not federally the State highway system.). Such
modification of critical habitat, we also funded, authorized, or permitted do not activities could include, but are not
provide reasonable and prudent require section 7 consultation. limited to, new road construction and
alternatives to the project, if any are Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us right-of-way designation. These
identifiable. ‘‘Reasonable and prudent to briefly evaluate and describe in any activities could eliminate or reduce
alternatives’’ are defined at 50 CFR proposed or final regulation that riparian or wetland habitat along river
402.02 as alternative actions identified designates critical habitat those crossings necessary for reproduction,
during consultation that can be activities involving a Federal action that sheltering or growth of Buena Vista Lake
implemented in a manner consistent may destroy or adversely modify such shrews.
with the intended purpose of the action, habitat, or that may be affected by such (4) Actions that would involve
that are consistent with the scope of the designation. Activities that may destroy regulation of airport improvement
Federal agency’s legal authority and or adversely modify critical habitat activities by the Federal Aviation
jurisdiction, that are economically and include those that appreciably reduce Administration. Such activities could
technologically feasible, and that the the value of critical habitat to the shrew. include, but are not limited to, the
Director believes would avoid We note that such activities may also creation or expansion of airport
destruction or adverse modification of jeopardize the continued existence of facilities. These activities could
critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent the species. eliminate or reduce riparian or wetland
alternatives can vary from slight project To properly portray the effects of habitat necessary for the reproduction,
modifications to extensive redesign or critical habitat designation, we must sheltering, foraging, or growth of Buena
relocation of the project. Costs first compare the section 7 requirements Vista Lake shrews.
associated with implementing a for actions that may affect critical (5) Actions that would involve
reasonable and prudent alternative are habitat with the requirements for licensing of construction of
similarly variable. actions that may affect a listed species. communication sites by the Federal
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Section 7 prohibits actions funded, Communications Commission. Such
Federal agencies to reinitiate authorized, or carried out by Federal activities could include, but are not
consultation on previously reviewed agencies from jeopardizing the limited to, the installation of new radio
actions in instances where critical continued existence of a listed species equipment and facilities. These
habitat is subsequently designated and or destroying or adversely modifying the activities could eliminate or reduce the
the Federal agency has retained listed species’ critical habitat. Actions habitat necessary for the reproduction,
discretionary involvement or control likely to ‘‘jeopardize the continued sheltering, foraging, or growth of Buena
over the action or such discretionary existence’’ of a species are those that Vista Lake shrews.
involvement or control is authorized by would appreciably reduce the (6) Actions that would involve
law. Consequently, some Federal likelihood of the species’ survival and funding of activities by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, features located there generally require have undergone public review and
Department of Energy, Federal special management to address comment (i.e., pending HCPs), (3) Tribal
Emergency Management Agency, applicable threats. If those features do conservation plans that cover the
Federal Highway Administration, or any not require special management, or if species, (4) State conservation plans that
other Federal agency. Such activities they do in general but not for the cover the species, and (5) National
could include, but are not limited to, particular area in question because of Wildlife Refuge System Comprehensive
activities associated with the cleaning the existence of an adequate Conservation Plans.
up of Superfund sites, erosion control management plan or for some other
Relationship of Critical Habitat to the
activities, and flood control activities. reason, then the area does not require
Kern National Wildlife Refuge Unit
These activities could eliminate or special management.
reduce upland and/or aquatic habitat for We consider a current plan to provide We are excluding the Kern National
Buena Vista Lake shrews. adequate management or protection if it Wildlife Refuge.
(7) Actions that would affect waters of meets three criteria: (1) The plan is The Kern National Wildlife Refuge
the United States by the Army Corps complete and provides a conservation has an approved and signed
under section 404 of the Clean Water benefit to the species (i.e., the plan must Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Act. Such activities could include, but maintain or provide for an increase in (CCP) (Service 2004a) that provides for
are not limited to, placement of fill into the species’ population, or the the protection and management of all
wetlands. These activities could enhancement or restoration of its habitat trust resources, including federally
eliminate or reduce the habitat within the area covered by the plan); (2) listed species and sensitive natural
necessary for the reproduction, feeding, the plan provides assurances that the habitats. One goal of the CCP for the
or growth of Buena Vista Lake shrews. conservation management strategies and Kern National Wildlife Refuge is to
All lands within this designation as actions will be implemented (i.e., those ‘‘restore and maintain representative
critical habitat are within the historical responsible for implementing the plan examples of Tulare Basin riparian and
geographic area occupied by the species, are capable of accomplishing the saltbush scrub habitats on Kern Refuge.’’
and are likely to be used by the shrew objectives, and have an implementation To reach this goal, the approved CCP
whether for foraging, breeding, growth schedule or adequate funding for provides for a water source to sustain
of juveniles, dispersal, migration, implementing the management plan); riparian vegetation and remnant sloughs
genetic exchange, or sheltering. We and (3) the plan provides assurances that support the Buena Vista Lake shrew
consider all lands included in this that the conservation strategies and through the flooding and managing of
designation to be essential to the measures will be effective (i.e., it riparian areas in the fall, winter, and
survival of the species. Federal agencies identifies biological goals, has early spring, as well as irrigating trees
already consult with us on activities in provisions for reporting progress, and is in riparian areas during the summer
areas currently occupied by the species, of a duration sufficient to implement the months. As part of the approved CCP,
and also one whether the species may plan and achieve the plan’s goals and an additional 15 acres of riparian
be affected by the action, to ensure that objectives). vegetation would be planted and
their actions do not jeopardize the Further, section 4(b)(2) of the Act maintained to provide habitat for the
continued existence of the species. states that critical habitat shall be shrew. The plan also calls for the
Therefore, we believe that the designated, and revised, on the basis of eradication of salt cedar from the
designation of critical habitat is not the best available scientific data after riparian areas and restoration of riparian
likely to result in a significant taking into consideration the economic areas through planting of riparian trees,
regulatory burden above that already in impact, the effect on national security, shrubs, and forbs native to riparian
place due to the presence of the listed and any other relevant impact of forests in the area. This plan has already
species. Few additional consultations specifying any particular area as critical undergone a Section 7 consultation that
are likely to be conducted due to the habitat. An area may be excluded from has evaluated the plan for consistency
designation of critical habitat. critical habitat if it is determined, with the conservation needs of the
following an analysis, that the benefits species (Service 2004b). Funding for the
Application of Section 3(5)(A) and implementation of the CCP comes from
of such exclusion outweigh the benefits
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the the Kern Refuge Complex’s annual
of specifying a particular area as critical
Act operation budget. Management items
habitat, unless the failure to designate
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines such area as critical habitat will result that benefit the shrew will be
critical habitat as the specific areas in the extinction of the species. accomplished by existing staff and
within the geographic area occupied by In our critical habitat designations, we existing annual budget.
the species on which are found those use both the provisions outlined in The Refuge has completed a
physical and biological features (i) sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the Act to Comprehensive Conservation Plan
essential to the conservation of the evaluate those specific areas that we are (CCP) that addresses the shrew, the CCP
species and (ii) which may require considering proposing designating as has undergone section 7 review, and it
special management considerations or critical habitat as well as for those areas clearly provides a conservation benefit
protection. Therefore, areas within the that are formally proposed for to the species. The Service has a
geographic area occupied by the species designation as critical habitat. Lands we statutory mandate to manage the refuge
that do not contain the features essential have found do not meet the definition for the conservation of listed species,
for the conservation of the species are of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) and the CCP provides a detailed plan of
not, by definition, critical habitat. or have excluded pursuant to section how it will do so. The Refuge
Similarly, areas within the geographic 4(b)(2) include those covered by the accordingly does not meet the definition
area occupied by the species that do not following types of plans if they provide of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A)
require special management or assurances that the conservation of the Act because management plans
protection also are not, by definition, measures they outline will be already in place provide for the
critical habitat. To determine whether implemented and effective: (1) Legally conservation of the shrew, and no
an area requires special management, operative HCPs that cover the species, special management or protection will
we first determine if the essential (2) draft HCPs that cover the species and be required.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to the lands in critical habitat beyond what is management actions due to a reduction
Goose Lake Project already provided by the existing Section in competition with non-native
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us 7 nexus for habitat areas occupied by predators, a reduction in risk of
to consider other relevant impacts, in the listed extant species. chemically altered aquatic habitats, a
Where conservation measures are in reduction in risk of loss of aquatic and
addition to economic impacts, of
place, our experience indicates that this upland habitat, and the enhancement
designating critical habitat. Section 7 of
benefit is small or nonexistent. The and creation of aquatic habitat. The
the Act authorizes us to issue permits
benefits of excluding projects with an conservation benefits of critical habitat
for the take of listed wildlife species
approved biological opinion normally are primarily regulatory or prohibitive
incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
outweigh the benefits of inclusion. The in nature. Where consistent with the
An incidental take permit application
principal benefit of any designated discretion provided by the Act, the
must be supported by a Biological
critical habitat is that federally funded Service believes it is necessary to
Assessment that identifies conservation or authorized activities in such habitat implement policies that provide
measures that the permittee agrees to that may affect the habitat require positive incentives to private
implement for the species to minimize consultation under Section 7 of the Act. landowners to voluntarily conserve
and mitigate the impacts of the Such consultation would ensure that natural resources and that remove or
permitted incidental take. adequate protection is provided to avoid reduce disincentives to conservation.
One proposed critical habitat unit adverse modification of critical habitat. Thus, we believe it is essential for the
(Goose Lake Unit) warrants exclusion We have found that if a project has recovery of the Buena Vista Lake shrew
from the final designation of critical completed its Section 7 consultation to build on continued conservation
habitat under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act then the benefit of excluding an area activities such as these with a proven
based on the special management from critical habitat can be greater than partner, and to provide positive
considerations and protections afforded not designating the area. A Biological incentives for other private landowners
the Buena Vista Lake shrew habitat Opinion was developed through a who might be considering implementing
through the implementation of a Section 7 consultation on a wetlands voluntary conservation activities but
Biological Opinion developed through a restoration and enhancement project have concerns about incurring
Section 7 consultation on a wetlands that includes areas in the Goose Lake incidental regulatory or economic
restoration and enhancement project Unit. In the Biological Opinion, we impacts.
funded through the North American determined that the project would While the consultation requirement
Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) ensure the long-term survival of the associated with critical habitat on the
in the Goose Lake bottoms. We believe covered species in the plan area, Goose Lake Unit would add little
the benefits excluding this wetlands including the shrew. By implementing benefit, it would require the use of
restoration and enhancement project the Biological Opinion, this project resources to ensure regulatory
from the critical habitat designations includes management measures and compliance that could otherwise be
will outweigh the benefits of including protections for conservation of lands used for on the ground management of
them. The following represents our designed to protect, restore, and the targeted listed or sensitive species.
rationale for excluding the Goose Lake enhance their value as habitat for the The Goose Lake Unit is currently
Unit for Buena Vista Lake shrew from Buena Vista Lake shrew. The project is protected under the Conservation
the final designated critical habitat. funded through the NAWCA, which Measures outlined for long-term
(1) Benefits of Inclusion mandates a management agreement for management in a Section 7 Biological
the project. Opinion that was signed for the project
Designation of critical habitat Another possible benefit to including in November 2004. The project is
provides important information on these lands is that the designation of funded by NAWCA, which provides
those habitats and their primary critical habitat can serve to educate assurances for a 25-year long-term
constituent elements that are essential landowners and the public regarding the agreement. Through this NAWCA
to the conservation of the species. This potential conservation values of an area. project and Section 7 consultation,
information is particularly important to This may focus and contribute to Goose Lake project will enhance and
any Federal agency, State, county, local conservation efforts of other parties by restore wetlands and will be managed in
jurisdiction, conservation organization, clearly delineating areas of high this manner for the 25-year term of the
or private landowner that may be conservation value for certain species. project. The conservation measures
evaluating adverse actions or However, we believe that this education outlined in the biological opinion will
implementing conservation measures benefit has largely been achieved. The protect the shrew during construction
that involve those habitats. The benefit additional educational benefits, which and maintenance of the project and the
of a critical habitat designation would might arise from critical habitat wetlands restored and enhanced by the
ensure that any actions authorized, designation, are largely accomplished project will provide essential habitat for
funded, or carried out by a Federal through the proposed rule and request the shrew.
agency would not likely destroy or for public comment that accompanied
adversely modify any critical habitat. The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
the development of this regulation. We
Without critical habitat, some site- Benefits of Inclusion
have accordingly determined that the
specific projects might not trigger benefits of designating critical habitat Based on the above considerations,
consultation requirements under the Act on this property covered by the and consistent with the direction
in areas where species are not currently described conservation measures above provided in section 4(b)(2) of the Act
present; in contrast, Federal actions in are small. and the Federal District Court decision
areas occupied by listed species would concerning critical habitat (Center for
still require consultation under Section (2) Benefits of Exclusion Biological Diversity v. Norton, Civ. No.
7 of the Act. We consider all habitats The Service believes that Buena Vista 01–409 TUC DCB D. Ariz. Jan. 13, 2003),
within this designation to be occupied. Lake shrews within the properties with we have determined that the benefits of
Therefore, we anticipate little additional conservation strategies will benefit excluding the Gooselake Holding
regulatory benefit from including these substantially from landowner voluntary Company property in Unit 2 as critical
habitat outweigh the benefits of implementing voluntary conservation that involve those habitats. The benefit
including it as critical habitat for the activities on their lands. We conclude of a critical habitat designation would
Buena Vista Lake shrew. there is a higher likelihood of beneficial ensure that any actions authorized,
This conclusion is based on the conservation activities occurring in funded, or carried out by a Federal
following factors: these and other areas without agency would not likely destroy or
(1) The Gooselake Holding Company designated critical habitat than there adversely modify any critical habitat.
property is currently operating under a would be with designated critical Without critical habitat, some site-
Section 7 biological opinion in habitat on these properties. specific projects might not trigger
cooperation with the Service and Ducks
Relationship of Critical Habitat to the consultation requirements under the Act
Unlimited to implement conservation
Kern Fan Recharge Area Unit in areas where species are not currently
measures and achieve important
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us present; in contrast, Federal actions in
conservation goals through the
restoration and enhancement of to consider other relevant impacts, in areas occupied by listed species would
important riparian and wetland habitat addition to economic impacts, of still require consultation under section
for the Buena Vista Lake shrew. designating critical habitat. One 7 of the Act. We consider all habitats
(2) Given the current conservation proposed critical habitat unit (Kern Fan within this designation to be occupied.
strategies created and implemented by Recharge Area Unit) warrants exclusion Therefore, we anticipate little additional
the Gooselake Holding Company, the from the final designation of critical regulatory benefit from including these
Service believes the additional habitat under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act lands in critical habitat beyond what is
regulatory and educational benefits of based on the special management already provided by the existing section
including these lands as critical habitat considerations and protections afforded 7 nexus for habitat areas occupied by
are relatively small. The designation of the Buena Vista Lake shrew habitat the listed extant species.
critical habitat can serve to educate the through a Management Plan for the Kern The benefits of including areas with
general public as well as conservation Fan Recharge Area developed the City approved management plans in critical
organizations regarding the potential of Bakersfield. We have determined that habitat are normally small. The
conservation value of an area, but this the benefits of excluding the Kern Fan principal benefit of any designated
goal is already being accomplished Unit from the critical habitat
critical habitat is that federally funded
through the identification of this area in designation will outweigh the benefits
the management plans described above. or authorized activities in such habitat
of including it in the final designation.
Likewise, there will be little additional The following represents our rationale that may affect it require consultation
Federal regulatory benefit to the species for excluding the Kern Fan Recharge under section 7 of the Act. Such
because (a) this unit, if included, would Area Unit for Buena Vista Lake shrew consultation would ensure that
likely not be adversely affected to any from the final designated critical adequate protection is provided to avoid
significant degree by Federal activities habitat. adverse modification of critical habitat.
requiring section 7 consultation, and (b) Portions of the recharge area are Where conservation measures are in
all units are already occupied by the flooded sporadically, forming place, our experience indicates that this
Buena Vista Lake shrew, and a section fragmented wetland communities benefit is small or nonexistent.
7 nexus already exists. The Service is throughout the area. Narrow strips of Currently approved management plans
unable to identify any other potential riparian communities exist on both are already designed to ensure the long-
benefits associated with critical habitat sides of the Kern River. The plant term survival of covered species within
for these properties. communities of the Kern Fan Water the plan area. Management plans
(3) Excluding these privately owned Recharge Area include a mixture of include management measures and
lands with conservation strategies from Valley saltbush scrub, Great Valley protections for conservation lands
critical habitat may, by way of example, mesquite shrub, and some remnant designed to protect, restore, and
provide positive social, legal, and riparian areas. Remnant riparian areas enhance their value as habitat for the
economic incentives to other non- are found throughout the water bank Buena Vista Lake shrew.
Federal landowners who own lands that area, but are mainly located near the Another possible benefit to including
could contribute to listed species main channel of the Kern River. The these lands is that the designation of
recovery if voluntary conservation Buena Vista Lake shrew has been critical habitat can serve to educate
measures on these lands are documented on the Kern Fan Water
implemented. landowners and the public regarding the
Recharge Unit. This Unit is currently
In conclusion, we find that the potential conservation values of an area.
protected under a Service-approved
exclusion of critical habitat on This may focus and contribute to
Management Plan developed by the City
Gooselake Holding Company would conservation efforts of other parties by
of Bakersfield that includes yearly
most likely have a net positive clearly delineating areas of high
monitoring and Service approval of any
conservation effect on the recovery and conservation value for certain species.
changes.
conservation of the Buena Vista Lake However, we believe that this education
shrew when compared to the positive (1) Benefits of Inclusion benefit has largely been achieved. The
conservation effects of a critical habitat Designation of critical habitat additional educational benefits, which
designation. As described above, the provides important information on might arise from critical habitat
overall benefits to these species of a those habitats and their primary designation, are largely accomplished
critical habitat designation for these constituent elements that are essential through the proposed rule and request
properties are relatively small. In to the conservation of the species. This for public comment that accompanied
contrast, we believe that this exclusion information is particularly important to the development of this regulation. We
will enhance our existing partnership any Federal agency, State, county, local have accordingly determined that the
with these landowners, and it will set a jurisdiction, conservation organization, benefits of designating critical habitat
positive example and provide positive or private landowner that may be on this property covered by the
incentives to other non-Federal evaluating adverse actions or described conservation measures above
landowners who may be considering implementing conservation measures are small.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion of the City of Bakersfield’s Water critical habitat may, by way of example,
Resource Department. provide positive social, legal, and
Approximately 80 percent of the economic incentives to other non-
occurrence records of the Buena Vista (3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh
Federal landowners who own lands that
Lake shrew are on private lands. the Benefits of Inclusion
could contribute to listed species
Proactive voluntary conservation efforts Based on the above considerations, recovery if voluntary conservation
by private or non-Federal entities are and consistent with the direction measures on these lands are
necessary to prevent the extinction and provided in section 4(b)(2) of the Act implemented.
promote the recovery of the Buena Vista and the Federal District Court decision In conclusion, we find that the
Lake shrew in the Tulare Basin. concerning critical habitat (Center for exclusion of critical habitat on the City
We have determined that the Buena Biological Diversity v. Norton, Civ. No. of Bakersfield’s Kern Fan Water
Vista Lake shrew within the properties 01–409 TUC DCB D. Ariz. Jan. 13, 2003), Recharge Unit would most likely have a
with management plans or conservation we have determined that the benefits of net positive conservation effect on the
strategies that protect or enhance the excluding the City of Bakersfield recovery and conservation of the Buena
conservation of the species will benefit property in Unit 3 from critical habitat Vista Lake shrew when compared to the
substantially from voluntary landowner outweigh the benefits of including them positive conservation effects of a critical
management actions due to an as critical habitat for the Buena Vista habitat designation. As described above,
enhancement and creation of riparian Lake shrew. the overall benefits to these species of
and wetland habitat and a reduction in This conclusion is based on the a critical habitat designation for these
risk of loss of riparian habitat. The following factors: properties are relatively small. In
(1) The City of Bakersfield property is contrast, we believe that this exclusion
conservation benefits of critical habitat
currently operating under a Service- will enhance our existing partnership
are primarily regulatory or prohibitive
approved Management Plan to with these landowners, and it will set a
in nature. Where consistent with the
implement conservation measures and positive example and provide positive
discretion provided by the Act, the
achieve important conservation goals incentives to other non-Federal
Service believes it is necessary to
through the management of water landowners who may be considering
implement policies that provide
banking operations to achieve the implementing voluntary conservation
positive incentives to private
optimal flooding regime for the activities on their lands. We conclude
landowners to voluntarily conserve
enhancement of important riparian and there is a higher likelihood of beneficial
natural resources and that remove or
wetland habitat for the Buena Vista Lake conservation activities occurring in
reduce disincentives to conservation shrew.
(Wilcove et al. 1998). Thus, we believe these and other areas without
(2) Given the past and current designated critical habitat than there
it is essential for the recovery of the conservation strategies created and
Buena Vista Lake shrew to build on would be with designated critical
implemented by the City of Bakersfield, habitat on these properties.
continued conservation activities such the Service believes the additional
as these with a proven partner, and to regulatory and educational benefits of Relationship of Critical Habitat to the
provide positive incentives for other including these lands as critical habitat Coles Levee Unit
private landowners who might be are relatively small. The Service The Coles Levee Ecosystem Preserve
considering implementing voluntary anticipates that the conservation has been established with a
conservation activities but have strategies will continue to be conservation easement that is held by
concerns about incurring incidental implemented in the future, and that the the California Department of Fish and
regulatory or economic impacts. funding for these activities will Game. This conservation easement
The City of Bakersfield manages the continue to be available because the establishes that this area will be
Kern Fan Recharge Area in such a way City of Bakersfield is enterprise funded ‘‘retained forever in a natural condition
as to promote the conservation of the and receives an annual budget for the and to prevent any use of the property
Buena Vista Lake shrew. The Service- operation and maintenance of the Kern that will significantly impair or interfere
approved management plan developed Fan Recharge Area. The designation of with the conservation values of the
by the City of Bakersfield includes critical habitat can serve to educate the property.’’ The Conservation Easement
management of the area for the benefit general public as well as conservation limits the use of the Property to such
of the shrew. These activities include organizations regarding the potential activities as set forth and reserved in the
limiting public access to the site, conservation value of an area, but this easement, including those involving the
cessation of grazing practices, protection goal is already being accomplished conservation, protection, restoration and
of the site from development or through the identification of this area in enhancement of native species and their
encroachment, maintenance of the site the management plans described above. habitat.
as permanent open space that has been Likewise, there will be little additional We proposed as critical habitat, but
left predominantly in its natural Federal regulatory benefit to the species have now considered for exclusion from
vegetative state, and the spreading of because (a) there is a low likelihood that the final designation, the Coles Levee
flood waters which promotes the these proposed critical habitat units will Unit that is entirely within the Coles
moisture regime and wetland and be negatively affected to any significant Levee Ecosystem Preserve.
riparian vegetation determined to be degree by Federal activities requiring
essential for the conservation of the section 7 consultation, and (b) all units (1) Benefits of Inclusion
shrew. Annual monitoring of the site are already occupied by the Buena Vista There is minimal benefit from
will also be implemented to promote Lake shrew and a section 7 nexus designating critical habitat for the Buena
adaptive management of the area for the already exists. The Service is unable to Vista Lake shrew within the Coles Levee
optimal enhancement of wetland and identify any other potential benefits Ecosystem Preserve because these lands
riparian vegetation for the benefit of the associated with critical habitat for these are already managed for the
shrew. Funding for the implementation properties. conservation of wildlife. One possible
of the habitat management plan is (3) Excluding these privately owned benefit of including these lands as
assured through the annual fiscal budget lands with conservation strategies from critical habitat would be to educate the
public regarding the conservation values ARCO will provide for a continuous impacts of designating a particular area
of these areas and the habitat they water source to the pond to sustain as critical habitat. We may exclude areas
support. However, critical habitat habitat beneficial to the shrew. The from critical habitat upon a
designation provides little gain in the management agreement for the Preserve determination that the benefits of such
way of increased recognition for special also includes impact and avoidance exclusions outweigh the benefits of
habitat values on lands that are measures for any construction that will specifying such areas as part of critical
expressly managed to protect and occur in the area and provides for the habitat. We cannot exclude such areas
enhance those values. Additionally, the monitoring of the Preserve on a yearly from critical habitat if such exclusion
designation of critical habitat will not basis for plants and animals. The would result in the extinction of the
have any appreciable effect on the agreement also stipulates a mitigation species.
development or implementation of requirement at a 4 to 1 ratio for Following the publication of the
public education programs in these replacement of any habitat that is proposed critical habitat designation,
areas. impacted. Therefore, the benefits of we conducted an economic analysis to
Another possible benefit to including exclusion include relieving additional estimate the potential economic effect of
these lands is that the designation of regulatory burden that might be the designation. The draft analysis was
critical habitat can serve to educate imposed by the critical habitat, which made available for public review on
landowners and the public regarding the could divert resources from substantive November 30, 2004. We accepted
potential conservation values of an area. resource protection to procedural comments on the draft analysis until
This may focus and contribute to regulatory efforts. December 15, 2004.
conservation efforts of other parties by The primary purpose of the economic
clearly delineating areas of high (3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh
the Benefits of Inclusion analysis is to estimate the potential
conservation value for certain species. economic impacts associated with the
However, we believe that this education We believe that the potential
designation of critical habitat for the
benefit has largely been achieved. The disincentives to the State’s active
Buena Vista Lake shrew. This
additional educational benefits, which management of their trust resources that
information is intended to assist the
might arise from critical habitat are provided by designation of critical
Secretary in making decisions about
designation, are largely accomplished habitat are appreciably greater than the
whether the benefits of excluding
through the proposed rule and request benefits to be derived from such
particular areas from the designation
for public comment that accompanied designation. This is a result of the fact
that these lands are already managed to outweigh the benefits of including those
the development of this regulation. We
protect and enhance unique and areas in the designation. This economic
have accordingly determined that the
important natural resource values. We analysis considers the economic
benefits of designating critical habitat
therefore conclude that the benefits of efficiency effects that may result from
on this property covered by the
excluding the Coles Levee Ecosystem the designation, including habitat
described conservation measures above
Preserve lands from the final critical protections that may be co-extensive
are small.
The designation of critical habitat habitat designation outweigh the with the listing of the species. It also
would require consultation with us for benefits of including them. Such addresses distribution of impacts,
any action undertaken, authorized, or exclusion will not increase the including an assessment of the potential
funded by a Federal agency that may likelihood that management activities effects on small entities and the energy
affect the species or its designated would be proposed that would industry. This information can be used
critical habitat. However, the appreciably diminish the value of the by the Secretary to assess whether the
management objects for the Coles Levee habitat for conservation of the species. effects of the designation might unduly
Ecosystem preserve already include Further, such exclusion will not result burden a particular group or economic
specifically managing for targeted listed in the extinction of the species. We sector.
species and sensitive species; therefore, therefore conclude that the benefits of This analysis focuses on the direct
the benefit from additional consultation excluding Coles Levee Ecosystem and indirect costs of the rule. However,
is likely also to be minimal. Preserve lands from the final critical economic impacts to land use activities
habitat designation outweigh the can exist in the absence of critical
(2) Benefits of Exclusion habitat. These impacts may result from,
benefits of including them.
While the consultation requirement Based on the above considerations, for example, local zoning laws, State
associated with critical habitat on the and consistent with the direction and natural resource laws, and
Coles Levee Ecosystem Preserve would provided in section 4(b)(2) of the Act enforceable management plans and best
add little benefit, it would require the and the Federal District Court decision management practices applied by other
use of resources to ensure regulatory concerning critical habitat (Center for State and Federal agencies. Economic
compliance that could otherwise be Biological Diversity v. Norton, Civ. No. impacts that result from these types of
used for on-the-ground management of 01–409 TUC DCB D. Ariz. Jan. 13, 2003), protections are not included in the
the targeted listed or sensitive species. we have determined that the benefits of analysis as they are considered to be
The Coles Levee Ecosystem Preserve is excluding the Coles Levee Ecosystem part of the regulatory and policy
currently managed by the California Preserve property in Unit 4 as critical baseline.
Department of Fish and Game through habitat outweigh the benefits of Our proposed critical habitat rule
a conservation easement and including them as critical habitat for the pertained to the Buena Vista Lake
management agreement that is funded Buena Vista Lake shrew. shrew. Therefore, our economic analysis
in perpetuity. Through this evaluated the potential future effects
management, the entire Preserve is Economic Analysis associated with the listing of this
fenced to prevent trespass grazing or Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us species as endangered under the Act, as
other unauthorized uses of the area. to designate critical habitat on the basis well as any potential effect of the
There is additional fencing around the of the best scientific and commercial critical habitat designation above and
pond area that provides for shrew information available and to consider beyond those regulatory and economic
habitat. As part of the management, the economic and other relevant impacts associated with listing.
We received nine comment letters on The economic analysis indicates that governments,’’ with two exceptions. It
the draft economic analysis of the this rule will not have an annual excludes ‘‘a condition of federal
proposed designation. Following the economic effect of $100 million or more. assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty
close of the comment period, we arising from participation in a voluntary
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
considered comments, prepared Federal program,’’ unless the regulation
et seq.)
responses to comments, and prepared a ‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal
summary of revisions to economic Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act program under which $500,000,000 or
issues based on final critical habitat (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the more is provided annually to State,
designation (see Responses to Small Business Regulatory Enforcement local, and tribal governments under
Comments section). The economic Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), entitlement authority,’’ if the provision
whenever an agency is required to would ‘‘increase the stringency of
analysis indicates that is rule will not
publish a notice of rulemaking for any conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps
have an annual economic effect of $100
proposed or final rule, it must prepare upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
million or more. Based on our economic
and make available for public comment Government’s responsibility to provide
analysis, the annualized economic a regulatory flexibility analysis that
effects of this designation are estimated funding’’ and the State, local, or tribal
describes the effects of the rule on small governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust
to be $8,752 to $12,932, because the entities (i.e., small businesses, small accordingly. (At the time of enactment,
economic analysis is for Kern Lake only, organizations, and small government these entitlement programs were:
as all the other units were excluded jurisdictions). However, no regulatory Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child
from designation. We have excluded flexibility analysis is required if the Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services
4,173 ac (1,689 ha) of privately owned head of the agency certifies the rule will Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation
lands (and 387 ac (157 ha) of federal not have a significant economic impact State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
land) analyzed in the draft economic on a substantial number of small Assistance, and Independent Living;
analysis based on non-economic entities. The SBREFA amended the Family Support Welfare Services; and
considerations. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to Child Support Enforcement.) ‘‘Federal
A copy of the final economic analysis require Federal agencies to provide a private sector mandate’’ includes a
and a description of the exclusion statement of the factual basis for regulation that ‘‘would impose an
process with supporting documents may certifying that the rule will not have a enforceable duty upon the private
be obtained from the Sacramento Fish significant economic impact on a sector, except (i) a condition of Federal
and Wildlife Office directly (see substantial number of small entities. assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from
ADDRESSES section). participation in a voluntary Federal
Executive Order 13211
program.’’
Required Determinations On May 18, 2001, the President issued The designation of critical habitat
an Executive Order (E.O. 13211) on does not impose a legally binding duty
Regulatory Planning and Review regulations that significantly affect on non-Federal government entities or
In accordance with Executive Order energy supply, distribution, and use. private parties. Under the Act, the only
12866, this document is a significant Executive Order 13211 requires agencies regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
rule in that it may raise novel legal and to prepare Statements of Energy Effects must ensure that their actions do not
policy issues, but will not have an when undertaking certain actions. This destroy or adversely modify critical
annual effect on the economy of $100 proposed rule to designate critical habitat under section 7. While non-
million or more or affect the economy habitat for the shrew is not a significant Federal entities who receive Federal
in a material way. Due to the tight regulatory action under Executive Order funding, assistance, permits or
timeline for publication in the Federal 12866, and it is not expected to otherwise require approval or
Register, the Office of Management and significantly affect energy supplies, authorization from a Federal agency for
distribution, or use. Therefore, this an action may be indirectly impacted by
Budget (OMB) has not formally
action is not a significant energy action the designation of critical habitat, the
reviewed this rule. As explained above,
and no Statement of Energy Effects is legally binding duty to avoid
we prepared an economic analysis of
required. destruction or adverse modification of
this action; the draft economic analysis critical habitat rests squarely on the
was made available for public comment, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
and we considered those comments U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
extent that non-Federal entities are
during the preparation of this rule. We In accordance with the Unfunded indirectly impacted because they
used this analysis to meet the Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), receive Federal assistance or participate
requirement of section 4(b)(2) of the Act the Service makes the following in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
to determine the economic findings: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
consequences of designating the specific (a) This rule will not produce a not apply; nor would critical habitat
area as critical habitat. We also used it Federal mandate. In general, a Federal shift the costs of the large entitlement
to help determine whether to exclude mandate is a provision in legislation, programs listed above on to State
any area from critical habitat, as statute, or regulation that would impose governments.
provided for under section 4(b)(2), if we an enforceable duty upon State, local, or (b) Due to current public knowledge
determine that the benefits of such tribal governments or the private sector of the species’ protection, the
exclusion outweigh the benefits of and includes both ‘‘Federal prohibition against take of the species
specifying such area as part of the intergovernmental mandates’’ and both within and outside of the
critical habitat, unless we determine, ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ designated areas, and the fact that
based on the best scientific and These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. critical habitat provides no incremental
commercial data available, that the 658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental restrictions, we do not anticipate that
failure to designate such area as critical mandate’’ includes a regulation that this rule will significantly or uniquely
habitat will result in the extinction of ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty affect small governments. As such,
the species. upon State, local, or tribal Small Government Agency Plan is not
required. We will, however, further Civil Justice Reform with Native American Tribal
evaluate this issue as we conduct our In accordance with Executive Order Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive
economic analysis and revise this 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has Order 13175, and the Department of the
assessment if appropriate. determined that the rule does not Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
unduly burden the judicial system and readily acknowledge our responsibility
Takings
that it meets the requirements of to communicate meaningfully with
In accordance with Executive Order sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. recognized Federal Tribes on a
12630 (‘‘Government Actions and We have proposed designating critical government-to-government basis. We
Interference with Constitutionally habitat in accordance with the have determined that there are no tribal
Protected Private Property Rights’’), we provisions of the Endangered Species lands essential for the conservation of
have analyzed the potential takings Act. This proposed rule uses standard the shrew. Therefore, critical habitat for
implications of designating critical property descriptions and identifies the the shrew has not been designated on
habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew primary constituent elements within the Tribal lands.
in a takings implication assessment, designated areas to assist the public in References Cited
which indicates that this rule would not understanding the habitat needs of the
pose significant takings implications. shrew. A complete list of all references cited
The takings implications assessment in this rulemaking is available upon
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 request from the Field Supervisor,
concludes that this final designation of
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
critical habitat for the shrew does not
pose significant takings implications. This rule does not contain any new (see ADDRESSES section).
collections of information that require
Federalism approval by OMB under the Paperwork Author(s)
In accordance with Executive Order Reduction Act. This rule will not The primary author of this package is
13132, the rule does not have significant impose recordkeeping or reporting the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
Federalism effects. A Federalism requirements on State or local staff.
assessment is not required. In keeping governments, individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
with DOI policy, we requested
information from, and coordinated conduct or sponsor, and a person is not Endangered and threatened species,
required to respond to, a collection of Exports, Imports, Reporting and record
development of, this proposed critical
information unless it displays a keeping requirements, Transportation.
habitat designation with appropriate
currently valid OMB control number.
State resource agencies in California. Regulation Promulgation
The designation of critical habitat in National Environmental Policy Act
areas currently occupied by the shrew It is our position that, outside the ■ For the reasons outlined in the
imposes no additional restrictions to Tenth Circuit, we do not need to preamble, we amend part 17, subchapter
those currently in place and, therefore, prepare environmental analyses as B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of
has little incremental impact on State defined by the NEPA in connection with Federal Regulations, as follows:
and local governments and their designating critical habitat under the
activities. The designation may have PART 17—[AMENDED]
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
some benefit to these governments in amended. We published a notice ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17
that the areas essential to the outlining our reasons for this continues to read as follows:
conservation of the species are more determination in the Federal Register
clearly defined, and the primary on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
constituent elements of the habitat 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
assertion was upheld in the courts of the 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
necessary to the survival of the species Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v.
are specifically identified. While Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. ■ 2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entry for
making this definition and 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). ‘‘Shrew, Buena Vista Lake’’ under
identification does not alter where and ‘‘MAMMALS’’ to read as follows:
what federally sponsored activities may Government-to-Government
occur, it may assist these local Relationship With Tribes § 17.11 Endangered and threatened
governments in long-range planning In accordance with the President’s wildlife.
(rather than waiting for case-by-case memorandum of April 29, 1994, * * * * *
section 7 consultations to occur). ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations (h) * * *
Species Vertebrate popu- Critical Special

Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name gered or threatened
MAMMALS
* * * * * * *
Shrew, Buena Vista Sorex ornatus U.S.A. (CA) Entire ....................... E 725 17.95(a) NA
Lake relictus.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * (ii) Suitable moisture supplied by a 3887121; 313369, 3887111; 313304,

shallow water table, irrigation, or 3887106; 313237, 3887111; 313199,
■ 3. Amend § 17.95(a) by adding an entry
proximity to permanent or 3887141; 313174, 3887156; 313172,
for ‘‘Buena Vista Lake shrew’’ in the
semipermanent water; and 3887156; 313169, 3887157; 313156,
same alphabetical order as this species (iii) A consistent and diverse supply
appears in the table in § 17.11, to read as 3887157; 313139, 3887155; 313124,
of prey. 3887148; 313109, 3887135; 313096,
follows: (3) Critical habitat does not include 3887121; 313081, 3887105; 313064,
§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. existing features and structures, such as 3887087; 313051, 3887072; 313042,
buildings, aqueducts, airports, roads, 3887062; 313035, 3887052; 313031,
(a) Mammals. and other developed areas not 3887048; 313002, 3887026; 313001,
* * * * * containing one or more of the primary 3887026; 313000, 3887025; 312990,
constituent elements.
Buena Vista Lake Shrew (Sorex ornatus 3887023; 312979, 3887026; 312963,
(4) Data layers defining map units
relictus) 3887031; 312958, 3887033; 312947,
were created on a base of USGS 7.5′
quadrangles, and critical habitat units 3887036; 312933, 3887044; 312921,
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 3887050; 312911, 3887052; 312900,
for Kern County, California, on the maps were then mapped using Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. 3887052; 312896, 3887052; returning to
below. 312678, 3887297;
(5) Unit 1: Kern Lake, Kern County,
(2) The primary constituent elements California. (iii) Eastern Polygon: 313471,
of critical habitat for the Buena Vista (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 3887135; 313472, 3887797; 313823,
Lake shrew are the habitat components map Coal Oil Canyon, California, land 3887791; 313823, 3887314; 313786,
that provide: bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 3887267; 313696, 3887224; 313618,
(i) Riparian or wetland communities 27 coordinates (E,N): 3887189; 313491, 3887139; returning to
supporting a complex vegetative (ii) Western Polygon: 312678, 313471, 3887135.
structure with a thick cover of leaf litter 3887297; 313415, 3887298; 313415,
or dense mats of low-lying vegetation; 3887297; 313439, 3887297; 313437, (iv) Note: Map follows:
and 3887127; 313415, 3887121; 313415, BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
* * * * *
Dated: January 12, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 05–982 Filed 1–13–05; 12:49 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
ER24JA05.000</GPH>

Rule: Endangered and Threatened Species: Critical Habitat Designations&#8212 Buena Vista Lake Shrew

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule: Endangered and Threatened Species: Critical Habitat Designations&#8212 Buena Vista Lake Shrew

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Monday,

January 24, 2005

TABLE 1.—PROPOSED AND FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT AREA

1. Kern Wildlife Refuge Unit .............................................................................................................................. 387 ac (157 ha) 0 ac (0 ha).

Total ............................................................................................................................................................ 4,649 ac (1,882 84 ac (34 ha).

Grand Total ........................................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 34 84 34

Species Vertebrate popu- Critical Special

* * * * * (ii) Suitable moisture supplied by a 3887121; 313369, 3887111; 313304,

You might also like