[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 23, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19812-19845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-9596]



[[Page 19811]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 23, 2002 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 19812]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AH07


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation 
of Critical Habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys 
merriami parvus) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). A total of approximately 13,485 hectares (33,295 acres) 
in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, are designated as 
critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
    Critical habitat identifies specific areas, both occupied and 
unoccupied, that are essential to the conservation of a listed species 
and that may require special management considerations or protection.
    Section 7 of the Act prohibits destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out 
by any Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider 
economic and other impacts of specifying any particular area as 
critical habitat.

DATES: This rule is effective May 23, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available 
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at 
the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, CA 92008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone: 760/431-9440; 
facsimile 760/431-9624).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) is one 
of 19 recognized subspecies of Merriam's kangaroo rat (D. merriami), a 
widespread species distributed throughout arid regions of the western 
United States and northwestern Mexico (Hall and Kelson 1959, Williams 
et al. 1993). In coastal southern California, Merriam's kangaroo rat is 
the only species of kangaroo rat with four toes on each of its hind 
feet. The San Bernardino kangaroo rat has a body length of about 95 
millimeters (mm) (3.7 inches (in)) and a total length of 230 to 235 mm 
(9.0 to 9.3 in). The hind foot measures less than 36 mm (1.4 in) in 
length. The body color is pale yellow with a heavy overwash of dusky 
brown. The tail stripes are medium to dark brown and the foot pads and 
tail hairs are dark brown. The flanks and cheeks of the subspecies are 
dusky (Lidicker 1960). The San Bernardino kangaroo rat is considerably 
darker and smaller than either of the other two subspecies of Merriam's 
kangaroo rat that occur in southern California, D. merriami merriami 
and D. merriami collinus. The San Bernardino kangaroo rat, endemic to 
southern California, is one of the most highly differentiated 
subspecies of Merriam's kangaroo rat and, according to Lidicker (1960), 
``it seems likely that it has achieved nearly species rank.''
    The San Bernardino kangaroo rat, a member of the family 
Heteromyidae, was first described by Rhoades (1894) under the name 
Dipodomys parvus from specimens collected by R.B. Herron in Reche 
Canyon, San Bernardino County, California. Elliot reduced D. parvus to 
a subspecies of D. merriami (D. merriami parvus) in 1901, a taxonomic 
treatment of the species which was confirmed by Hall and Kelson (1959) 
and Williams et al. (1993). The San Bernardino kangaroo rat appears to 
be separated from Merriam's kangaroo rat (D. merriami merriami) at the 
northernmost extent of its range near Cajon Pass by an 8 to 13 
kilometer (km) (5 to 8 mile (mi)) gap of unsuitable habitat.
    The historical range of this species extends from the San 
Bernardino Valley in San Bernardino County to the Menifee Valley in 
Riverside County (Hall and Kelson 1959, Lidicker 1960). Prior to 1960, 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was known from more than 25 localities 
within this range (McKernan 1993). From the early 1880s to the early 
1930s, the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was a common resident of the San 
Bernardino and San Jacinto Valleys of southern California (Lidicker 
1960). At the time of listing, based on the distribution of apparent 
suitable soils and museum collections of this species, we estimated 
that the historical range encompassed approximately 130,587 hectares 
(ha) (326,467 acres (ac)) (63 FR 51005). Recent studies indicate that 
the species occupies a wider range of soil and vegetation types than 
previously thought (Braden and McKernan 2000), which suggests that the 
species' historical range may have been larger than we estimated at the 
time of listing.
    Although the entire area of the historical range would not have 
been occupied at any given time due to hydrological processes and 
resultant variation in habitat suitability, the San Bernardino kangaroo 
rat was widely distributed across the San Bernardino and San Jacinto 
valleys. By the 1930s, suitable habitat had been reduced to 
approximately 11,200 ha (28,000 ac) (McKernan 1997). Habitat 
destruction continued such that in 1997 the San Bernardino kangaroo rat 
was thought to occupy only 1,299 ha (3,247 ac) of suitable habitat 
divided unequally among seven locations (McKernan 1997). At the time of 
listing, we estimated that an additional 5,277 ha (13,193 ac) of 
habitat distributed within the Santa Ana River, Lytle and Cajon creeks, 
and San Jacinto River was also likely occupied by the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat (63 FR 51005). Unlike the three largest habitat blocks, we 
did not provide an estimate for additional habitat that was likely 
occupied for the smaller remnant populations at City Creek, Etiwanda 
alluvial fan and wash, Reche Canyon, and South Bloomington (including 
Jurupa Hills). At the time of listing, we discounted approximately 
1,358 ha (3,396 ac) of the 5,277 ha (13,193 ac) of additional habitat 
as being too mature or degraded to support San Bernardino kangaroo 
rats. Additional research following the listing of the species has 
indicated that San Bernardino kangaroo rats can occupy mature alluvial 
sage scrub, coastal sage scrub, and even chaparral vegetation types 
(McKernan 2000). Moreover, systematic and general biological surveys 
have resulted in the documentation of additional populations of the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat, within and outside areas previously known to 
be occupied by the species. Consequently, based on information relative 
to habitat usage and species' distribution obtained since the listing, 
we significantly underestimated the amount of area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing. Thus, within the areas designated as 
critical habitat, a minimum of approximately 13,155 ha (32,480 ac) of 
habitat are believed to be occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
    On December 8, 2000, we proposed 22,423 ha (55,408 ac) of lands for 
designation as critical habitat in the Santa Ana River (including City 
and Plunge Creeks), Lytle and Cajon Creeks, San Jacinto River and 
Bautista Creek, and the Etiwanda alluvial fan (65 FR 77178). The areas 
proposed and refined

[[Page 19813]]

for this final rule are within the known historical range for this 
species. However, the majority of the remaining San Bernardino kangaroo 
rat populations are primarily found in three areas, the Santa Ana Wash, 
the San Jacinto Wash, and Lytle Creek and Cajon Wash. Other smaller 
populations of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat are documented in washes 
and hills in the areas surrounding the three main population centers. 
Several of the areas containing these smaller populations were proposed 
as critical habitat, but upon re-evaluation were not included in this 
final designation because they were determined not to be essential to 
the long-term conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The 
basis for this determination and removing them from the final 
designation was information indicating that the small scattered 
populations or habitats occurred in areas that were highly fragmented 
by urban and agricultural development and/or no longer subject to 
hydrological and geomorphological processes that would naturally 
maintain alluvial sage scrub vegetation. However, even though we 
believe that these habitat areas are not essential to the long-term 
conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, they are still 
considered important and may assist in recovery efforts.
    Habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat has been severely 
reduced and fragmented by development and related activities in the San 
Bernardino and San Jacinto valleys, resulting in reduced habitat patch 
size and increased distances between patches of suitable habitat. As 
noted by Andren (1994) in a discussion of highly fragmented landscapes, 
reduced habitat patch size and isolation exacerbate the effects of 
habitat loss on a species' persistence (i.e., the loss of species, or 
decline in population size, will be greater than expected from habitat 
loss alone) and may preclude recolonization of suitable habitat 
following local extirpation events.
    The loss of native vertebrates, including rodents, due to habitat 
fragmentation is well documented (Soule et al. 1992, Andren 1994, 
Bolger et al. 1997). Results of habitat fragmentation on rodents may 
include increased extirpation rates due to increased vulnerability to 
random demographic (population characteristics such as age and sex 
structure) and environmental events (Hanski 1994, Bolger et al. 1997). 
For example, isolated populations are more susceptible to local 
extirpation by manmade or natural events, such as disease or floods, 
than are larger, more connected populations. Furthermore, small 
populations are more likely to experience detrimental effects 
associated with reproduction (e.g., genetic drift, inbreeding 
depression, and a loss of genetic variability) and increase the risk of 
extinction (Caughley 1994, Lacy 1997). Past and ongoing causes of 
fragmentation of San Bernardino kangaroo rat habitat include conversion 
of lands to urban, industrial, agricultural, and recreational uses; 
construction of roads and freeways; and development of flood control 
structures such as dams, levees, detention basins, and channels. The 
effect of these human-caused disturbances is three-fold--(1) they 
reduce the amount of suitable habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo 
rat, breaking large areas into smaller patches, (2) they act as 
barriers to movement between the remaining suitable habitat patches, 
and (3) they disrupt, preclude, or alter natural processes necessary to 
maintain suitable habitat (i.e., sediment scour and deposition).
    San Bernardino kangaroo rats are typically found on alluvial fans 
(relatively flat or gently sloping masses of loose rock, gravel, and 
sand deposited by a stream as it flows into a valley or upon a plain), 
floodplains, along washes, in adjacent upland areas containing 
appropriate physical and vegetative characteristics (McKernan 1997), 
and in areas with historic braided channels (R. McKernan, Curator, San 
Bernardino County Museum, pers. comm., 2002). These areas consist of 
sand, loam, sandy loam, or gravelly soils (McKernan 1993, Braden and 
McKernan 2000) that are associated with alluvial processes (i.e., the 
scour and deposition of clay, silt, sand, gravel, or similar material 
by running water such as rivers and streams; debris flows). San 
Bernardino kangaroo rats also occupy areas where winds contribute to 
the deposition of sandy soils (e.g., northwest of the Jurupa Hills) 
(McKernan 1997). The soils deposited by alluvial or wind driven 
processes typically support alluvial sage scrub and chaparral 
vegetation and allow kangaroo rats to dig simple, shallow burrow 
systems (McKernan 1997).
    Alluvial sage scrub has been described as a variant of coastal sage 
scrub (Smith 1980) and is also referred to as Riversidean alluvial fan 
scrub, alluvial fan sage scrub, cismontane alluvial scrub, alluvial fan 
scrub, or by Holland (1986) as Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. 
This relatively open vegetation type is adapted to periodic flooding 
and erosion (Hanes et al. 1989) and is comprised of an assortment of 
drought-deciduous shrubs and larger evergreen woody shrubs 
characteristic of both coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities 
(Smith 1980).
    Three phases of alluvial sage scrub have been described: Pioneer, 
intermediate, and mature. The phases are thought to correspond to 
factors such as flood scour, distance from flood channel, time since 
last flood, and substrate features (Smith 1980, Hanes et al. 1989). 
Under natural conditions, flood waters periodically break out of the 
main river channel in a complex pattern, resulting in a braided 
appearance to the floodplain and a mosaic of vegetation stages. Pioneer 
sage scrub, the earliest phase, is subject to frequent hydrological 
disturbance and the sparse vegetation is usually renewed by frequent 
floods (Smith 1980, Hanes et al. 1989). The intermediate phase, which 
is typically found on benches between the active channel and mature 
floodplain terraces, is subject to periodic flooding at longer 
intervals. The vegetation of early and intermediate stages is 
relatively open, and supports the highest densities of the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat (McKernan 1997).
    The oldest, or mature, phase of alluvial sage scrub is rarely 
affected by flooding and supports the highest plant density (Smith 
1980). Although mature areas are generally used less frequently by the 
kangaroo rats or occupied at lower densities than those supporting 
earlier phases, these areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. Shallow burrows, such as those inhabited by the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rats, are likely to become inundated or lost due to scour and 
sediment deposition during flooding events. Therefore, mature phase 
alluvial scrub areas can serve as refugia for San Bernardino kangaroo 
rats from lower portions of the floodplain during large scale flooding 
events, and they can support source populations for recolonization of 
the lower floodplain areas after the flooding has subsided. Due to the 
dynamic nature of the alluvial floodplain, all three elevations within 
the floodplain and the associated phases of alluvial scrub habitat are 
essential to the long-term survival of the San Bernardino kangaroo.
    Alluvial sage scrub vegetation includes plant species that are 
often associated with coastal sage scrub, chaparral, or desert 
transition communities. Common plant species found within these plant 
communities may include: Lepidospartum squamatum (scalebroom), 
Eriogonum fasciculatum (California buckwheat), Eriodictyon crassifolium 
(wooly yerba santa), Eriodictyon trichocalyx (hairy

[[Page 19814]]

yerba santa), Yucca whipplei (our Lord's candle), Rhus ovata (sugar 
bush), Rhus integrifolia (lemonadeberry), Malosma laurina (laurel 
sumac), Juniperus californicus (California juniper), Baccharis 
salicifolia (mulefat), Penstemon spectabilis (showy penstemon), 
Heterotheca villosa (golden aster), Eriogonum elongatum (tall 
buckwheat), Encelia farinosa (brittle bush), Opuntia spp. (prickly pear 
and cholla), Adenostoma fasciculatum (chamise), Prunus ilicifolia 
(holly-leaf cherry), Quercus spp. (oaks), Salvia apiana (white sage), 
and annual forbs (e.g., Phacelia spp. (phacelia), Lupinus spp. 
(lupine), and Plagiobothrys spp. (popcorn flower)), and native and 
nonnative grasses.
    Similar to other subspecies of Merriam's kangaroo rat, the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat prefers moderately open habitats characterized 
by low shrub canopy cover (McKernan 1997). However, the species uses 
areas of denser vegetation (Braden and McKernan 2000). McKernan (pers. 
comm., 2000) further stated that such areas are essential to San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat conservation. Research conducted by Braden and 
McKernan (2000) during 1998 and 1999 demonstrated that areas with late 
phases of the floodplain vegetation, such as mature alluvial fan sage 
scrub and associated coastal sage scrub and chaparral, including some 
areas of moderate to dense vegetation such as nonnative grasslands, are 
at least periodically occupied by the species.
    A study of San Bernardino kangaroo rats conducted by Braden and 
McKernan (2000) provided additional new, specific data about the 
habitat characteristics in which the species was found. While this 
study indicated the range of habitat characteristics in which the 
species can occur, it was not designed to describe habitat preferences 
for the species. Braden and McKernan determined that within habitat 
occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat: (1) Perennial cover varies 
from 0 to 100 percent; (2) annual cover (primarily nonnative grasses) 
varies from 0 to 70 percent; (3) the proportion of surface fine sands 
varies from 0 to 100 percent; (4) surface cover of small rock fragments 
varies from 0 to 90 percent; and (5) surface cover of large rock 
fragments varies from 0 to 51 percent. The San Bernardino kangaroo rat 
has also been documented in areas of human disturbance not typically 
associated with the species, including nonnative grasslands, margins of 
orchards and out-of-use vineyards, alluvial sage scrub, and areas of 
wildland/urban interface within floodplains or terraces and adjacent to 
occupied habitat (McKernan, in litt. 2000).
    Areas that contain low densities of San Bernardino kangaroo rats 
may be important for dispersal, genetic exchange, colonization of newly 
suitable habitat, and re-colonization of areas after severe storm 
events. The dynamic nature of the alluvial habitat leads to a situation 
where not all the habitat associated with alluvial processes is 
suitable for the species at any point in time. However, areas generally 
considered unsuitable habitat, such as out-of-production vineyards and 
margins of orchards, can and do develop into suitable habitat for the 
species through natural processes (McKernan, pers. comm., 2000).
    Little is known about home range size, dispersal distances, or 
other spatial requirements of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. However, 
home ranges for the Merriam's kangaroo rat in the Palm Springs, 
California, area averaged 0.33 ha (0.8 ac) for males and 0.31 ha (0.8 
ac) for females (Behrends et al. 1986). Furthermore, Blair (1943) 
reported much larger home ranges for Merriam's kangaroo rats in New 
Mexico, where home ranges averaged 1.7 ha (4.1 ac) for males and 1.6 ha 
(3.8 ac) for females. Space requirements for the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat likely vary according to season, age and sex of animal, 
food availability, and other factors. Although outlying areas of their 
home ranges may overlap, Dipodomys adults actively defend small core 
areas near their burrows (Jones 1993). Home range overlap between males 
and between males and females is extensive, but female-female overlap 
is slight (Jones 1993). The degree of competition between San 
Bernardino kangaroo rats and sympatric (living in the same geographical 
area) species of kangaroo rats for food and other resources is not 
presently known.
    Similar to other kangaroo rats, the Merriam's kangaroo rat is 
generally granivorous (feeds on seeds and grains) and often stores 
large quantities of seeds in surface caches (Reichman and Price 1993). 
Green vegetation and insects are also important seasonal food sources. 
Insects, when available, have been documented to constitute as much as 
50 percent of a kangaroo rat's diet (Reichman and Price 1993).
    Wilson et al. (1985) reported that compared to other rodents, 
Merriam's kangaroo rat, and heteromyids in general, have relatively low 
reproductive output. Rainfall and the availability of food have been 
cited as factors affecting kangaroo rat populations. Droughts lasting 
more than a year can cause rapid declines in population numbers after 
seed caches are depleted (Goldingay et al. 1997).
    Little information exists on the specific types and local 
abundances of predators that feed on the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. 
Potential native predators include the common barn owl (Tyto alba), 
great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), long-eared owl (Asio otus), gray 
fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), coyote (Canis latrans), long-tailed 
weasel (Mustela frenata), bobcat (Felis rufus), badger (Taxidea taxus), 
San Diego gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus annectens), California 
king snake (Lampropeltis getulus californiae), red diamond rattlesnake 
(Crotalus ruber), and southern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus viridus). 
Domestic cats (Felis cattus) are known to be predators of native 
rodents (Hubbs 1951, George 1974) and have the ability to reduce 
population sizes of rodents (Crooks and Soule 1999). Predation of San 
Bernardino kangaroo rats by domestic cats has been documented 
(McKernan, pers. comm., 2000). Continued fragmentation of habitat is 
likely to promote higher levels of predation by native animals (Bolger 
et al. 1997) and urban-associated animals (e.g., domestic cats, 
opossums (Didelphis virginianus), and striped skunks (Mephitis 
mephitis)) as the interface between natural habitat and urban areas is 
increased (Churcher and Lawton 1987).
    A limited amount of data exists pertaining to population dynamics 
of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Information is not currently 
available on several aspects of the species' life history such as 
fecundity (the capacity of an organism to produce offspring), survival, 
population age and sex structure, intra- and interspecific competition, 
and causes and rates of mortality. With respect to population density, 
Braden and McKernan (2000) documented substantial annual variation on a 
trapping grid in San Bernardino County, where densities ranged from 2 
to 26 animals per ha (2.47 ac). The reasons for these greatly disparate 
values during the 15-month study are unknown. These fluctuations bring 
to light several important aspects of the species' distribution and 
life history which should be considered when identifying areas 
essential for the conservation of the species--(1) a low population 
density observed in an area at one point in time does not mean the area 
is occupied at the same low density any other month, season, or year; 
(2) a low population density is not an indicator of low habitat quality 
or low overall value of the land for the conservation of the species; 
(3) an

[[Page 19815]]

abundance of San Bernardino kangaroo rats can decrease rapidly; and (4) 
one or more factors (e.g., food availability, fecundity, disease, 
predation, genetics, environment) are strongly influencing the species' 
population dynamics in one or more areas. High-amplitude, high-
frequency fluctuations in small, isolated populations make them 
extremely susceptible to local extirpation.

Previous Federal Action

    The San Bernardino kangaroo rat was emergency listed as endangered 
on January 27, 1998; concurrently, a proposal to make provisions of the 
emergency listing permanent was also published in the Federal Register 
(63 FR 3835 and 63 FR 3877, respectively). On September 24, 1998, we 
published a final rule determining the San Bernardino kangaroo rat to 
be an endangered species under the Act (63 FR 51005). Critical habitat 
was determined not to be prudent at the time of listing because an 
increase in the degree of threat and the lack of benefit to the species 
(63 FR 51005).
    On March 4, 1999, the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity and 
Christians Caring for Creation filed a lawsuit in the Federal District 
Court for the Northern District of California challenging our failure 
to designate critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and 
six other federally listed species. A settlement agreement was entered 
into on November 3, 1999, in which we were to re-evaluate the prudency 
of designating critical habitat. If designation of critical habitat for 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was determined to be prudent, we would 
publish a proposed rule critical habitat designation by December 1, 
2000, and a final designation by December 1, 2001.
    In accordance with the stipulated settlement agreement, we re-
evaluated the not prudent finding as determined at the time of listing. 
Following our re-evaluation, we determined that critical habitat was, 
in fact, prudent and published a proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat on December 8, 2000 (65 FR 77178). A discussion of our re-
evaluation of the prudency of designating critical habitat for the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat is contained within the Previous Federal Action 
section of our rule proposing the designation (65 FR 77178).
    Following delayed completion of the draft economic analysis for the 
proposed designation and time required to hold public hearings, we 
requested a 90-day extension from the plaintiffs to adequately address 
public comments and complete the final designation. On November 19, 
2001, the plaintiffs agreed to the extension. The District Court 
subsequently approved the 90-day extension requiring us to complete the 
final designation by March 1, 2002. Through agreement of the parties, 
this deadline was subsequently extended to April 15, 2002.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the 
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations 
or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are 
necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point 
at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on 
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. In regulations at 50 CFR 
402.02, we define destruction or adverse modification as ``...the 
direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of 
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed 
species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations 
adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features that 
were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.'' Aside from 
the added protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does 
not provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical 
habitat. Because consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply 
to activities on private or other non-Federal lands that do not involve 
a Federal nexus, critical habitat designation would not result in any 
regulatory requirements for these actions.
    The designation of critical habitat does not, in itself, lead to 
the recovery of a listed species. The designation of critical habitat 
does not create a management plan, establish a preserve, reserve, or 
wilderness area where no actions are allowed, it does not establish 
numerical population goals, prescribe specific management actions 
(inside or outside of critical habitat), or directly affect areas not 
designated as critical habitat.
    In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the 
habitat must first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' 
Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known, and using 
the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that 
provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which 
are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 
424.12(b)).
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat at 
the time of listing to the extent such habitat is determinable, at the 
time of listing. When we designate critical habitat at the time of 
listing or under short court-ordered deadlines, we often may not have 
sufficient information to identify all areas which are essential for 
the conservation of the species. Nevertheless, we are required to 
designate those areas we know to be critical habitat, using the best 
information available to us.
    Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we are 
designating only areas currently known to be essential. Essential areas 
contain the features and habitat characteristics that are necessary to 
sustain the species, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b). We will not 
speculate about what areas might be found to be essential if better 
information became available, or what areas may become essential over 
time. Moreover, certain known populations of the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat have not been designated as critical habitat. We did not 
designate critical habitat for small scattered populations or habitats 
which were in areas that were highly fragmented by urban and 
agricultural development or were no longer subject to hydrological and 
geomorphological processes that would naturally maintain alluvial sage 
scrub vegetation (the primary plant community containing its habitat) 
because we do not believe that these areas are essential to the 
conservation of the species based on current scientific and commercial 
information.
    Based on the limited and fragmented range of the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat, we are including 330 ha (815 ac) of habitat determined to 
be essential to the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat 
that is not currently known to be occupied. This area is located in 
Riverside County at the northern end of the San Jacinto Unit (Unit 3). 
A more detailed discussion of this area and the rationale as to why it 
is essential to the

[[Page 19816]]

conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is contained in the 
description for this critical habitat unit.
    The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271), provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides 
guidance to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the 
best scientific and commercial data available. This policy requires 
Service biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the 
use of the best scientific and commercial data available, to use 
primary and original sources of information as the basis for 
recommendations to designate critical habitat. When determining which 
areas are critical habitat, a primary source of information should be 
the listing package for the species. Additional information may be 
obtained from a recovery plan; articles in peer-reviewed journals; 
conservation plans developed, or under development, by States and 
counties; scientific status surveys and studies; and biological 
assessments or other unpublished materials (e.g., gray literature).
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that any designation of 
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may 
eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the 
species. For these reasons, it is important to understand that critical 
habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation 
is unimportant or may not be necessary for the conservation of the 
species. Areas outside the critical habitat designation will continue 
to be subject to conservation actions that may be implemented under 
section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded 
by the section 7(a)(2) of the Act jeopardy standard and the section 9 
of the Act take prohibitions, as determined on the basis of the best 
available information at the time of the action. We specifically 
anticipate that federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat units may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species 
conservation planning efforts if new information available to these 
planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

    In determining areas that are essential to conserve the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we used the best scientific and commercial 
data available. These data included research and survey observations 
published in peer reviewed articles; regional Geographic Information 
System (GIS) coverages; San Bernardino County Multiple Species Habitat 
Conservation Program (MSHCP) database; the University of California, 
Riverside, species database; and data from reports submitted by 
biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits, including 
results from on-going research on the San Bernardino kangaroo rat by 
the San Bernardino County Museum.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12 in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the 
best scientific and commercial data available and to consider those 
physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation 
of the species and that may require special management considerations 
or protection. These physical and biological features, as outlined in 
50 CFR 424.12, include but are not limited to: space for individual and 
population growth, and for normal behavior; food, water, or other 
nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for 
breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; habitats that are 
protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical 
geographical and ecological distributions of a species. All areas 
designated as critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat 
contain one or more of these physical or biological features, also 
called primary constituent elements.
    The primary constituent elements for the San Bernardino kangaroo 
rat are those habitat components that are essential for the primary 
biological needs of foraging, reproducing, rearing of young, intra-
specific communication, dispersal, genetic exchange, and/or sheltering. 
The primary constituent elements are found in areas influenced by 
historic and/or current geomorphological and hydrological processes and 
areas of wind-blown sand that support alluvial sage scrub vegetation or 
a mosaic of alluvial sage scrub and associated vegetation types (e.g., 
coastal sage scrub, chaparral) in San Bernardino and Riverside 
counties. Primary constituent elements associated with the biological 
needs of dispersal are also found in areas that provide connectivity or 
linkage between or within larger core population areas, including open 
space and disturbed areas that may contain introduced plant species.
    The long-term conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is 
dependent upon a number of factors including the protection and 
management of occupied habitat, the protection of linkages between core 
areas to maintain gene flow and minimize loss of genetic diversity (W. 
Spencer, conservation biologist, Conservation Biology Institute, pers. 
comm., 2002; Lande 1988), the protection of upland areas adjacent to 
suitable habitat that serve as refugia from lower portions of the 
floodplain during large scale flooding events and/or provide source 
populations for recolonization of the lower floodplain after the 
flooding has subsided (R. McKernan, pers. comm., 2002), and the 
protection of geomorphological, hydrological, and aeolian (wind-driven) 
processes essential to the continued existence and conservation of 
suitable habitat. The location and dynamic nature of the alluvial 
habitat occupied by this species makes it especially vulnerable to 
flood control activities throughout the drainages in which it occurs.
    Based on our current knowledge of this species, the primary 
constituent elements include:
    (1) Soil series consisting predominantly of sand, loamy sand, sandy 
loam, or loam;
    (2) Alluvial sage scrub and associated vegetation, such as coastal 
sage scrub and chamise chaparral, with a moderately open canopy;
    (3) River, creek, stream, and wash channels; alluvial fans; 
floodplains; floodplain benches and terraces; and historic braided 
channels that are subject to dynamic geomorphological and hydrological 
processes typical of fluvial systems within the historical range of the 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat. These areas may include a mosaic of 
suitable and unsuitable soils and vegetation that either (a) occur at a 
scale smaller than the home range of the animal, or (b) form a series 
of core areas and linkages between them; and
    (4) Upland areas proximal to floodplains with suitable habitat 
(e.g., floodplains that support the soils, vegetation, or 
geomorphological, hydrological and aeolian processes essential to this 
species). These areas are essential due to their geographic proximity 
to suitable habitat and the functions they serve during flooding 
events. These areas may include

[[Page 19817]]

marginal habitats such as agricultural lands that are disced annually, 
out-of-production vineyards, margins of orchards, areas of active or 
inactive industrial or resource extraction activities, and urban/
wildland interfaces.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    In identifying areas essential to the conservation of the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we used data regarding the habitat elements 
essential to the species, including vegetation types, hydrology, 
elevation, topography, and soil type and texture. We identified 
suitable and necessary habitat components within the species' current 
and historic range, and examined the degree of existing urbanization 
and other forms of anthropogenic habitat disturbance, excluding from 
the designation, as feasible, those areas in which development has 
permanently precluded occupation by the species.
    To identify those lands essential to the conservation of the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we used data regarding (1) known San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat occurrences, (2) alluvial fan sage scrub and 
associated vegetation, (3) geomorphology, and (4) connectivity 
corridors between San Bernardino kangaroo rat populations. We delimited 
a study area by selecting geographic boundaries based on the four 
factors described above. We determined conservation value based on the 
presence of, or proximity to, extant San Bernardino kangaroo rat 
populations and/or alluvial fan sage scrub and associated vegetation, 
surrounding land-uses, and the potential to allow dispersal of the 
species between occupied areas. We then evaluated within this area 
those areas where ongoing habitat conservation planning efforts have 
resulted in the preparation of biological analyses that identify 
habitat important for the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo 
rat. These include the proposed Western Riverside County MSHCP and the 
proposed San Bernardino Valley-Wide MSHCP. Finally, we evaluated 
adjacent lands that may not have been included in the original data due 
to data limitations but have conservation value for the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat based on the factors described above.
    Once essential habitat was identified and delineated, we evaluated 
those lands to determine if they were covered by an approved Habitat 
Conservation Plan (HCP) or other special management plan that provided 
protection and management for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and its 
habitat. We determined that none of the essential lands were covered by 
an approved HCP or other special management plan in which the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat is a covered species.
    Critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was delineated 
based on interpretation of the multiple sources available during the 
preparation of this final rule, including aerial photography at a scale 
of 1:24,000 (comparable to the scale of a 7.5 minute U.S. Geological 
Survey Quadrangle topographic map), current (2001) digital ortho-
photography, and projects authorized for take through consultations 
under section 7 of the Act. These lands were divided into specific map 
units, i.e., critical habitat units.
    In defining critical habitat boundaries, we made an effort to avoid 
development, such as urbanized areas (e.g., cities) and similar lands 
that do not contain the primary constituent elements that defined lands 
essential for the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. 
However, our minimum mapping unit did not allow us to exclude all 
developed areas. Existing features and structures within the boundaries 
of the mapped units, such as buildings, roads, railroads, airports, 
other paved areas, lawns, and other urban landscaped areas will not 
contain one or more of the primary constituent elements. Federal 
actions limited to those areas, therefore, would not trigger a 
consultation under section 7 of the Act unless they affect the species 
and/or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.

Critical Habitat Designation

    The approximate area of critical habitat by county and land 
ownership is shown in Table 1. Critical habitat includes San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat habitat throughout the species' remaining range in 
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California. Lands designated are 
under private, State, Tribal, and Federal ownership, with Federal lands 
including lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) and 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Four critical habitat units have been 
delineated: Santa Ana River; Lytle and Cajon Creeks; San Jacinto River-
Bautista Creek; and Etiwanda Alluvial Fan and Wash. These areas support 
important concentrations of San Bernardino kangaroo rats and are the 
major strongholds of this species within its geographical range. In 
summary, the critical habitat areas described below constitute our best 
assessment of areas needed for the survival and conservation of the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat. A brief description of each unit, and reasons 
for designating it as critical habitat, are presented below.

                            Table 1.--Approximate Critical Habitat in Hectares (ha) (Acres (ac)) by County and Land Ownership
                                              [Area estimates reflect critical habitat unit boundaries\1\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              County                      Federal \2\               Tribal              Local/State\3\             Private                 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riverside.........................  135 ha                  290 ha                  0 ha                    1,835 ha               2,260 ha
                                    (330 ac)                (710 ac)                (0 ac)                  (4,530 ac)             (5,565 ac)
San Bernardino....................  800 ac                  0 ha                    215 ha                  10,210 ha              11,225 ha
                                    (1,970 ac)              (0 ac)                  (535 ac)                (25,220 ac)            (27,725 ac)
    Total.........................  935 ha                  290 ha                  215 ha                  12,045 ha              13,485 ha
                                    (2,300 ac)              (710 ac)                (535 ac)                (29,750 ac)            (33,295 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Approximate hectares have been converted to acres (1 ha = 2.47 ac). Based on the level of imprecision of mapping at this scale, approximate hectares
  and acres have been rounded to the nearest 5.
\2\ Federal lands include BLM and Forest Service lands.
\3\ Local/State lands defined for San Bernardino County are those lands formerly owned by the U.S. Air Force as part of Norton Air Force Base. These
  lands are in the process of being acquired by the San Bernardino County International Airport Authority and the Inland Valley Development Agency.


[[Page 19818]]

Critical Habitat Unit 1: Santa Ana River

    The Santa Ana River critical habitat unit, located in San 
Bernardino County, encompasses approximately 3,615 ha (8,935 ac), and 
includes the Santa Ana River and portions of City, Plunge, and Mill 
creeks. Bounded by Seven Oaks Dam to the northeast, the area includes 
lands within the San Bernardino National Forest and portions of the 
cities of San Bernardino, Redlands, Highland, and Colton. Although 
Seven Oaks Dam impedes sediment transport and reduces the magnitude, 
frequency, and extent of flood events, the system still retains partial 
fluvial dynamics because contributions from Mill Creek are not impeded 
by a dam or debris basin.
    A large tract of undeveloped land in San Bernardino National Forest 
is partially within and adjacent to the northern and eastern portions 
of this critical habitat unit. In addition, this unit contains upland 
refugia and tributaries (e.g., City and Plunge creeks) that are 
occupied by the species, active hydrological channels, floodplain 
terraces, and areas of habitat immediately adjacent to floodplain 
terraces.
    The Santa Ana River unit contains the approximately 310 ha (765 ac) 
Woolly-Star Preservation Area (WSPA), a section of the floodplain 
downstream of Seven Oaks Dam that was preserved by the flood control 
districts of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The WSPA 
was established in 1988 by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) in an 
attempt to minimize the effects of Seven Oaks Dam on the federally 
endangered Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum (Santa Ana River 
woolly-star) along the Santa Ana River. This area of alluvial fan scrub 
in the wash near the low-flow channel of the river was designated for 
preservation because these sections of the wash were thought to have 
the highest potential to maintain the hydrology necessary for the 
periodic regeneration of early phases of alluvial fan sage scrub. Most 
of the area is likely to support San Bernardino kangaroo rats (MEC 
Analytical Systems, Inc 2000).
    We are now coordinating with the BLM, ACOE, San Bernardino Valley 
Conservation District, Cemex Construction Materials, Robertson's Ready 
Mix, and other local interests in an attempt to establish the Santa Ana 
River Wash Conservation Area. The objective of these discussions is to 
consolidate a conservation area consisting of alluvial fan scrub 
occupied by three federally endangered species, the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat, Santa Ana River woolly-star, and Dodecahema leptoceras 
(slender-horned spineflower); and one federally threatened species, the 
coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). 
The area is envisioned to include an Area of Critical Environmental 
Concern or ACEC (see below) and the ACOE's preservation lands for Santa 
Ana River woolly-star. This cooperative agreement would reconfigure and 
consolidate sand and gravel mining operations in this unit to reduce 
adverse effects to these listed species and remaining alluvial fan 
scrub communities.
    In 1994, the BLM designated three parcels in the Santa Ana River, a 
total of approximately 305 ha (760 ac), as an ACEC. The primary goal of 
this designation was to protect and enhance the habitat of federally 
listed plant species occurring in the area while providing for the 
administration of existing water conservation rights. Although the 
establishment of this ACEC was important in regard to conservation of 
sensitive species and communities in this area, the administration of 
these valid existing water conservation rights may conflict with the 
BLM's ability to manage their lands for the San Bernardino kangaroo 
rat. Existing rights include a withdrawal of Federal lands for water 
conservation through an act of Congress on February 20, 1909 (Public, 
No. 248). The entire ACEC is included in this withdrawn land and may be 
used for water conservation measures such as the construction of 
percolation basins. These lands are not managed specifically for the 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
    Additionally, approximately 30 ha (54 ac) of occupied habitat in 
the Santa Ana River has been set aside in perpetuity by the U.S. Air 
Force as part of on-base site remediation efforts at the former Norton 
Air Force Base in San Bernardino, California. The area will be 
monitored and managed specifically for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, 
as well as the woolly-star.

Critical Habitat Unit 2: Lytle and Cajon Creeks

    The Lytle and Cajon Creeks Unit, which encompasses approximately 
5,655 ha (13,970 ac) in San Bernardino County, includes the northern 
extent of this species' remaining distribution. This unit contains 
habitat along and between Lytle and Cajon creeks from the point that 
the creeks emanate from canyons within San Bernardino National Forest 
to flood control channels downstream. This unit includes alluvial fans, 
floodplain terraces, and historic braided river channels. Alluvial sage 
scrub and other vegetation types that provide habitat for San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat occur on terraces and adjacent areas with sandy 
soils. This unit includes Glen Helen Regional Park and portions of the 
City of Muscoy.
    The hydro-geomorphological processes that apparently rejuvenate and 
maintain the dynamic mosaic of alluvial fan sage scrub are still 
largely intact in Lytle and Cajon creeks (i.e., stream flows are not 
impeded by dams or debris basins), and the remaining habitat allows 
dispersal between these two drainages, which is important for genetic 
exchange between populations. This unit is adjacent to large tracts of 
undeveloped land and contains upland areas occupied by the species. 
Therefore, these areas are essential because of the presence of 
substantial, existing populations of the species and habitat 
connectivity within and between Lytle and Cajon Creeks, as well as with 
the Etiwanda alluvial fan to the west.
    The approximately 560 ha (1,380 ac) Cajon Creek Habitat 
Conservation Management Area, managed by Vulcan Materials Co., Western 
Division, was created in 1996 to offset approximately 920 ha (2,270 ac) 
of sand and gravel mining proposed within and adjacent to Cajon Creek. 
Of this, an estimated 245 ha (610 ac) is the Cajon Creek Conservation 
Bank established to help conserve populations of 24 species associated 
with alluvial fan scrub, including the Santa Ana River woolly-star, San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat, and coastal California gnatcatcher. We are 
working, through the section 7 consultation process, with project 
proponents to encourage the purchase of lands within this conservation 
bank by the year 2006, when interim protection under a 10-year 
conservation easement ends. The entire Cajon Creek Habitat Conservation 
Management Area and adjacent mitigation lands set aside for the 
development of the County of San Bernardino Sheriff's training facility 
would form the nucleus for a larger reserve to protect the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat and other listed species in this area.

Critical Habitat Unit 3: San Jacinto River-Bautista Creek

    The San Jacinto River-Bautista Creek Unit encompasses approximately 
2,260 ha (5,565 ac) in Riverside County and includes portions of San 
Bernardino National Forest, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation, 
Bautista Creek, and areas along the San Jacinto River in the vicinity 
of San Jacinto, Hemet, and Valle Vista. This unit, which represents the 
southern extent of the currently known distribution of the

[[Page 19819]]

species, is adjacent to San Bernardino National Forest and includes 
occupied habitat and approximately 330 ha (815 ac) of lands not 
currently known to be occupied.
    Along the San Jacinto River the species occurs from the upper reach 
of habitat in the River downstream to State Route 79, within the 
confined portion of the floodplain, beyond the earthen flood control 
levee, along the river into the San Jacinto Valley and foothills of the 
Badlands. In Bautista Creek, the species occurs upstream of the 
Bautista flood control basin until the topography of the canyon becomes 
too steep. On Tribal lands two occupied tributaries to the San Jacinto 
River are included. All non-Tribal lands within Riverside County 
designated as critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat are 
within the planning area of the Western Riverside MSHCP.
    Since the time of listing, additional areas along the San Jacinto 
River and Bautista Creek have been identified as essential for the 
conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. New essential areas 
were identified based on additional occupation information, a better 
understanding of the species' habitat needs and vegetation providing 
habitat, the need for habitat connectivity, and the importance of 
maintenance of hydrological conditions. New information indicates that 
the habitat occupied within the floodplain by the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat is larger than previously thought (McKernan, in litt. 
1999, Braden and McKernan 2000), and includes areas of higher 
vegetation density. We have also received additional information on the 
distribution of the species within the watershed (e.g., Bautista 
Creek), and are including areas essential for maintaining habitat 
connectivity along the floodplain. This additional information further 
supports the identification of this area as a major concentration of 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat in the final listing rule and the 
importance of this area for the long-term conservation for this 
species.
    Approximately 290 ha (710 ac) of lands within the Soboba Band of 
Luiseno Indians Reservation within this critical habitat unit have been 
determined to be essential to the conservation of the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat and designated as critical habitat. These lands include 
portions of the San Jacinto River and two tributary washes. This 
portion of the unit is least affected by flood control activities and 
supports the largest known density of animals in the unit. Inclusion of 
the Tribal portion of the unit is also necessary to maintain the 
hydrologic functions of the unit. Please refer to the Government-to 
Government Relationship with Tribes section of this final rule for a 
more detailed explanation of why these Tribal lands have been included 
in this final designation.
    The San Jacinto River/Bautista Canyon population is the only known 
remaining population in Riverside County. Although this population is 
the smallest of the three large remaining populations, it is essential 
for the long-term survival and recovery of the species. The other two 
large populations (Santa Ana River and Lytle Creek/Cajon Wash) are in 
relatively close proximity to one another, leaving them simultaneously 
vulnerable to regional catastrophes. As a result, the San Jacinto 
population is essential for the recovery of the species, and any 
permanent reduction in its viability would affect the long-term 
survival of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
    The portion of designated critical habitat located downstream 
(west) of State Route 79, an estimated 330 ha (815 ac), is currently 
not known to be occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. This area 
was historically occupied but we are not aware of any recent trapping 
efforts that could provide additional information as to current status 
of occupancy. This portion of the unit provides additional habitat 
essential for recovery to maintain a viable population and by reducing 
the risks from deleterious stochastic (random naturally occurring) 
events within the unit.
    The population of San Bernardino kangaroo rats in this unit is at 
risk due to its small size and the limited area that it occupies. As 
discussed above, low abundance renders the population susceptible to 
stochastic events such as inbreeding, the loss of genetic variation, 
demographic problems like skewed variability in age and sex ratios, and 
catastrophes such as floods, droughts, or disease epidemics (Lande 
1988, Frankham and Ralls 1998, Saccheri et al. 1998).
    The risks of catastrophic stochastic events due to small population 
size and isolation is exacerbated by normal population fluctuation 
cycles. During a severe population decline due to a natural fluctuation 
or a stochastic event, populations contract into disjunct groups. As 
populations rebound these groups become the source for recolonization 
of previously occupied and new areas. Areas that include varying 
habitat conditions (e.g., topography, position on the floodplain, 
vegetation characteristics, substrate, areas for population expansion) 
have an increased ability to support populations through stochastic 
events. Population expansion in good years results in reservoirs of 
individuals that survive in more difficult years. Therefore, essential 
habitat areas supporting relatively small populations should include 
varying habitat conditions.
    The area of this unit that is not known to be occupied is on the 
broadest portion of the historic floodplain and is contiguous to known 
occupied habitat. It will provide area for population expansion during 
expansion years and provides important habitat variability for 
persistence in years of decline.

Critical Habitat Unit 4: Etiwanda Alluvial Fan and Wash

    The Etiwanda Alluvial Fan and Wash, which encompasses approximately 
1,950 ha (4,820 ac), is located in western San Bernardino County and 
represents the approximate westernmost extent of the known range of the 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Within the northern boundary of the unit 
are portions of San Bernardino National Forest. This unit includes 
lands within and between the active hydrological channels of Deer, Day, 
and Etiwanda creeks. A large alluvial fan, floodplains, and terraces 
occur throughout the unit. Soils are primarily sandy or sandy loam and 
support alluvial fan sage scrub. This unit also includes portions 
within the boundaries of the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana; 
and the approximately 310 ha (760 ac) North Etiwanda Preserve.
    Lands designated as critical habitat within this unit contain a 
population of the species and upland refugia from catastrophic 
flooding. Neither dams nor debris basins exist at the mouths of East 
Etiwanda and San Sevaine creeks, enabling natural fluvial processes to 
maintain favorable habitat conditions on the upper alluvial fan and in 
other portions of the critical habitat unit. However, urban development 
and existing and proposed flood control structures will preclude the 
occurrence of future natural fluvial processes in the Etiwanda alluvial 
fan south of 24th Street/Wilson Avenue (Biological Opinion, FWS-SB-
1743.5 Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, February 7, 2002). Despite 
these conditions, the San Bernardino kangaroo rat persists within San 
Bernardino County Transportation and Flood Control District property 
and approximately 65 ha (155 ac) of this habitat within the critical 
habitat unit has been set aside and will be managed primarily for the 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Recognized local San Bernardino kangaroo 
rat authority, Robert McKernan, states that areas

[[Page 19820]]

within historic flood regimes (such as western Lytle Creek fan 
including the Etiwanda wash) should be given equal priority to the 
major population areas of the Santa Ana River and Cajon Wash in 
considering the survival and recovery of the San Bernardino kangaroo 
rat (R. McKernan 1999).

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7  Consultation

    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do 
not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat to the extent that the 
action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for the 
conservation of the species. Individuals, organizations, States, local 
governments, and other non-Federal entities are affected by the 
designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on Federal 
lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other authorization, or 
involve Federal funding.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is 
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its 
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into 
consultation with us. Through this consultation, we would ensure that 
the permitted actions do not adversely modify critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the 
project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives 
are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during 
consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of 
the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 
economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director 
believes would avoid resulting in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives 
can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or 
relocation of the project.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical 
habitat is subsequently designated, and the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law. 
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of 
consultation or conferencing with us on actions for which formal 
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated 
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical 
habitat. Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to 
assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the 
proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a conference 
report are advisory.
    We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal 
action agency. Formal conference reports include a biological opinion 
that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species was 
listed or critical habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal 
conference report as the biological opinion when the species is listed 
or critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or 
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 
402.10(d)).
    Activities on Federal lands that may affect the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat or its critical habitat will require consultation under 
section 7 of the Act. Activities on private or State lands requiring a 
permit from a Federal agency, such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers (Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or some 
other Federal action, including funding (e.g., Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or Federal Emergency 
Management Agency) will also continue to be subject to the consultation 
process pursuant to section 7 of the Act. Federal actions not affecting 
listed species or critical habitat and actions on non-Federal lands 
that are not federally funded or permitted do not require consultation 
under section 7 of the Act.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely 
modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation. 
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat 
include those that alter the primary constituent elements to an extent 
that the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery 
of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is appreciably reduced. We note that 
such activities may also jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species. Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat 
include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Any activity that results in changes in the hydrology of the 
unit, including activities associated with flood control structures and 
operations; construction of levees, berms, and concrete channels; 
flooding; sediment, sand, or gravel removal, transfer, or deposition; 
grading; excavation; and construction or modification of bridges;
    (2) Any activity that results in development or alteration of the 
landscape within or immediately adjacent to fluvial systems, including 
water diversion, reclamation, and recharge activities; agricultural 
activities; urban and industrial development; water conservation 
activities; off-road activity; and mechanized land clearing or discing;
    (3) Any activity that results in changes to the water quality or 
quantity to an extent that habitat becomes unsuitable to support the 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat;
    (4) Any activity that could lead to the introduction, expansion, or 
increased density of exotic plant or animal species, urban-associated 
domestic animals (e.g., cats), or livestock into San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat habitat;
    (5) Any activity that results in appreciable detrimental changes to 
the density or diversity of plant or animal populations in San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat habitat, such as grubbing, grading, 
overgrazing, mining, discing, off-road vehicle use, or the application 
of herbicides, rodenticides, or other pesticides; and
    (6) Any activity that could result in an appreciably decreased 
habitat value or quality through indirect effects, such as noise, edge 
effects, night-time lighting, or fragmentation.
    To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we 
must first compare the requirements pursuant to section 7 of the Act 
for actions that

[[Page 19821]]

may affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may 
affect a listed species. Section 7 of the Act prohibits actions funded, 
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the 
continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying the listed species' critical habitat. Actions likely to 
``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a species are those that 
would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and 
recovery. Actions likely to ``destroy or adversely modify'' critical 
habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the value of critical 
habitat for the recovery of the listed species.
    Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on 
recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of these 
definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species 
concerned, particularly when the area of the proposed action is 
occupied by the species concerned. Designation of critical habitat in 
areas occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is not likely to 
result in a significant regulatory burden above that already in place 
due to the presence of the listed species. In that portion of critical 
habitat that is not currently known to be occupied or if occupied 
habitat becomes unoccupied in the future, critical habitat may provide 
a benefit through the recognition of the importance of these areas to 
the conservation of the species. However, the Corps already currently 
requires review of most or all projects requiring permits in all 
fluvial systems, whether San Bernardino kangaroo rats are known to be 
present.
    Designation of critical habitat could affect Federal agency 
activities. Federal agencies already consult pursuant to section 7 of 
the Act with the Service on activities in areas known to be occupied by 
the species to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species. These actions include, but are not 
limited to:
    (1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the U.S. by the 
Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
    (2) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation, 
and regulation of agricultural activities;
    (3) Regulation of airport construction and improvement activities 
by the Federal Aviation Administration;
    (4) Licensing of construction of communication sites by the Federal 
Communications Commission; and
    (5) Funding of activities by the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Department of Energy, or any other Federal agency.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
likely constitute destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, contact the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of the regulations 
on listed wildlife, and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be 
addressed to the Division of Endangered Species, U. S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 
(telephone 503-231-6158; facsimile 503-231-6243).

Relationship to Habitat Conservation Plans and Other Planning 
Efforts

    Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes the Service to issue to 
non-Federal entities a permit for the incidental take of endangered and 
threatened species. This permit allows a non-Federal landowner to 
proceed with an activity that is legal in all other respects, but that 
results in the incidental taking of a listed species. The Act defines 
incidental take as take that is ``incidental to, and not the purpose 
of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.'' A habitat 
conservation plan, or HCP, must accompany an application for an 
incidental take permit. The purpose of the HCP is to describe and 
ensure that the effects of the permitted action on covered species are 
adequately minimized and mitigated and that the action does not 
appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of the species.
    The State of California instituted a conservation planning program 
parallel to the Federal HCP program. Under the Natural Community 
Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act of 1991, a NCCP is a plan for the 
conservation of natural communities that takes an ecosystem approach 
and encourages cooperation between private and government interests. 
The Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) work 
with applicants to develop plans that serve both as an HCP under the 
Federal Endangered Species Act as well as an NCCP under the State's 
NCCP Act. Much like a regional HCP, an NCCP identifies and provides for 
the regional or area-wide protection and perpetuation of plants, 
animals, and their habitats, while allowing compatible land use and 
economic activity. The initial focus of this program is coastal sage 
scrub. Within this program, the CDFG included the long-term 
conservation of alluvial sage scrub, which is in part occupied by the 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat. However, participation in NCCP is 
voluntary. San Bernardino and Riverside counties have signed planning 
agreements (memoranda of understanding (MOUs)) to develop multi-species 
plans that meet NCCP criteria, but have not enrolled in the NCCP 
program in the interim.
    We are coordinating with the BLM, Corps, San Bernardino Valley 
Conservation District, Sun West Materials, Robertson's Ready Mix, and 
other local interests in an attempt to establish the Santa Ana River 
Wash Conservation Area. The objective of these discussions is to 
consolidate a conservation area consisting of alluvial fan scrub 
communities occupied by four federally listed species, but as yet, we 
have not completed this process.
    Because there are no approved HCPs/NCCPs in which the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat is a covered species or other conservation 
plans that are currently completed that specifically address the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we did not exclude any lands from this 
critical habitat designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act on 
this basis.
    In the event that future HCPs covering the San Bernardino kangaroo 
rat are developed within the boundaries of designated critical habitat, 
we will work with applicants to ensure that the HCPs provide for 
protection and management of habitat areas essential for the 
conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat by either directing 
development and habitat modification to nonessential areas or 
appropriately modifying activities within essential habitat areas so 
that such activities will not adversely modify the primary constituent 
elements. The HCP development process provides an opportunity for more 
intensive data collection and analysis regarding the use of particular 
habitat areas by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The process also 
enables us to conduct detailed evaluations of the importance of such 
lands to the long-term survival of the species in the context of 
constructing a biologically configured system of interlinked habitat 
blocks.
    We will provide technical assistance and work closely with 
applicants throughout the development of future HCPs to identify 
appropriate management for lands essential for the long-term 
conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The take minimization 
and compensation measures provided under these HCPs are expected to 
protect the essential habitat lands designated as critical habitat in 
this rule. If an HCP that addresses the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as 
a covered species is ultimately approved, the Service may reassess the

[[Page 19822]]

critical habitat boundaries in light of the HCP.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the December 8, 2000, proposed critical habitat designation (65 
FR 77178), we requested all interested parties to submit comments on 
the specifics of the proposal including information related to 
biological justification, policy, economics, and proposed critical 
habitat boundaries. The first comment period closed on February 6, 
2001. The comment period was reopened from September 4, 2001, to 
October 4, 2001 (66 FR 46251), to allow for additional comments on the 
proposed designation, and comments on the draft economic analysis of 
the proposed critical habitat. Comments received after the close of 
this last comment period were determined not to provide substantive 
comment that had not already been raised or addressed and entered into 
the supportive record for this rulemaking.
    We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, Tribes, 
county governments, elected officials, and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment. In addition, we invited public comment through 
the publication of legal notices in two newspapers in southern 
California: San Bernardino County Sun and Riverside Press Enterprise on 
December 11, 2000, and again in both papers on September 4, 2001. We 
provided notification of the draft economic analysis through telephone 
calls, letters, and news releases faxed and/or mailed to affected 
elected officials, media outlets, local jurisdictions, and interest 
groups. We also published the draft economic analysis and associated 
material on our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Internet site 
following its release on September 4, 2001. In addition to inviting 
public comment on the proposed designation and the draft economic 
analysis on the proposed designation, the latter notices announced the 
dates and times of public hearings on the proposed designation. These 
hearings were held on September 20, 2001, in San Bernardino, California 
from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Transcripts of 
these hearings are available for inspection (see ADDRESSES section).
    We asked nine biologists, who have knowledge of the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat, to provide peer review of the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat; six responded. 
Five of the six supported the designation, although several expressed 
concerns with the ability of the amount of habitat proposed to provide 
for the persistence and recovery of the species; one was non-committal. 
Several of the reviewers felt that the Braden and McKernan (2000) study 
could be misleading, as their methods for quantifying the percent cover 
of habitat could give the impression that marginal upland mature shrub 
habitat had the same value as high quality alluvial scrub. Their 
comments have been either addressed in the text or responded to below.
    We received a total of 66 comment letters/testimonies, from 54 
separate parties, during the two public comment periods. Comments were 
received from a number of Federal and local agencies, and separate 
private organizations or individuals. Of these 66 comments, 10 were in 
favor of the designation, 52 against it, and 4 were neutral. We 
reviewed all comments received for substantive issues and comments, and 
new information regarding the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Similar 
comments were grouped into three general issues relating specifically 
to the proposed critical habitat determination and draft economic 
analysis on the proposed determination. Comments have been incorporated 
directly into the final rule or final addendum to the economic analysis 
or addressed in the following summary.

Issue 1: Biological Justification and Methodology

    1. Comment: The scale of the proposed critical habitat for the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat is overly broad, resulting in vague unit 
boundaries. Several commenters questioned the biological justification 
for proposing critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat 
using such a landscape-scale approach. Several commenters were 
concerned that the mapping lacked precision for use by the public. 
Several commenters voiced concern that areas that should not be 
designated as critical habitat were included because of the mapping 
scale.
    Our Response: We recognize that not all parcels of land designated 
as critical habitat will contain the habitat components essential to 
the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Due to time 
constraints, and the absence of more detailed map information during 
the preparation of the proposed designation, we used a 100-m UTM grid 
to delineate the critical habitat boundaries. This resulted in the 
inclusion of some lands that did not provide the primary constituent 
elements for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, such as homes and urban 
landscapes.
    In developing the final designation, we made an effort to minimize 
the inclusion of nonessential areas that do not contain the primary 
constituent elements for the kangaroo rat. However, due to our mapping 
scale, some areas not essential to the conservation of the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat were included within the boundaries of proposed 
and final critical habitat. We were able to refine our boundaries 
considerably with recent (2001) aerial imagery which allowed for the 
exclusion of many areas that do not contain the primary constituent 
elements. These areas, such as towns, housing developments, mines, or 
other developed lands are unlikely to provide essential habitat for the 
kangaroo rat. Because they do not contain one or more of the primary 
constituent elements for the species, Federal actions limited to those 
areas will not trigger a section 7 consultation, unless they affect the 
species or the primary constituent elements of adjacent critical 
habitat.
    2. Comment: Several peer reviewers, in addition to other 
commenters, had concerns that the amount of land proposed as critical 
habitat was not sufficient for the survival and long-term conservation 
of the species. Additionally, some commenters thought that the critical 
habitat proposal was overly broad, containing too much land, and one 
commenter supported the delineation of the proposed designation.
    Our Response: In proposing critical habitat for the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat, we identified those areas that we believed to be 
essential to the conservation of this species. However, the mapping 
scale that we used resulted in a more inclusive proposal. We did not 
include all areas currently occupied by the kangaroo rat, but 
designated those areas that possess larger populations, have unique 
ecological characteristics, and/or represent the historic geographic 
areas where the species can be re-established. Please refer to the 
Background and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections of 
this final rule for further discussion on this topic.
    After refining our proposal and weighing the best available 
information, we conclude that the areas designated by this final rule, 
including currently occupied areas that were not known to be occupied 
at the time the species was listed, are essential for the conservation 
of the species.
    3. Comment: Several peer reviewers and other commenters indicated 
that certain areas within the proposed critical habitat were either 
known to be occupied (e.g., Etiwanda Creek Channel, Day Creek Channel, 
San Antonio Wash

[[Page 19823]]

near Baseline Road, Etiwanda Fan) or were not occupied (e.g., Riverside 
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District facilities, Rancho 
Cucamonga, Fontana).
    Our Response: Data used in the preparation of our proposed and 
final designations indicate that the Etiwanda Creek Channel, Day Creek 
Channel, San Antonio Wash near Baseline Road, Etiwanda Fan, and areas 
in Fontana are occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The 
majority of the Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District 
facilities mentioned by the commenters (e.g., small properties, 
buildings, wells) are located in areas of the San Jacinto Wash in which 
we have current documentation of occupancy by the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat.
    4. Comment: Some commenters were concerned with the definition of 
``occupied'' in the proposed rule claiming that it was problematic, 
unsupportable, and inconsistent.
    Our Response: In the proposed rule and for this final designation, 
we defined occupancy based on documented occurrence data for the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat for the last fifteen years. We evaluated the 
location of observations relative to other documented occurrences to 
obtain an understanding of the mosaic of occupied habitat within 
appropriate suitable plant communities and wash habitat. We then 
evaluated the estimated territory size, potential use area and 
dispersal distances documented for other kangaroo rat species and 
applied those trends for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
    We understand that this definition of occupancy may differ from 
public perception of detectable presence of a kangaroo rat during each 
survey event over all of designated critical habitat. We believe that 
based on the behavior and ecology of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as 
extrapolated from the best available scientific data, the animal may 
not be detectable at all times across all areas designated as critical 
habitat. Based on our analysis we believe we have properly defined 
occupancy as it relates to the behavior and ecology of the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat.
    5. Comment: Several peer reviewers pointed out that small, isolated 
populations of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat may contain important 
genetic material for the species. They also suggested that the Service 
conduct a population genetics study to determine whether or not to 
include them in critical habitat.
    Our Response: Small isolated populations of the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat may provide important genetic material for the species and 
its long-term conservation. However, we currently do not have any 
information concerning the genetic diversity of these populations. 
Further, due to the time constraints for completing this designation, 
we were unable to develop and or conduct a biologically and 
statistically rigorous study to evaluate the genetics of the remaining 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat populations. Therefore, we did not have 
substantive information to determine and support that these small 
isolated populations are essential to the long-term conservation of the 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Thus, the areas containing them were not 
designated as critical habitat.
    6. Comment: The descriptions of the primary constituent elements of 
critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat are not specific, 
or are vague, incorrect, and/or confusing.
    Our Response: The description of the primary constituent elements 
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is based on the best available 
scientific and commercial data regarding the species, including a 
compilation of data from peer-reviewed, published literature; 
unpublished or non-peer-reviewed survey and research reports; and 
opinions of biologists knowledgeable about the San Bernardino kangaroo 
rat and its habitat. Additionally, we updated the biological 
information, including the primary constituent elements, in this final 
rule based on information that we received from survey reports during 
2002, public comments, and scientific and commercial data. 
Consequently, the primary constituent elements, as described in this 
final rule, represent our best estimate of what habitat components are 
essential for the conservation of the species. Please refer to the 
Primary Constituent Elements section of this final rule for a further 
discussion on this topic.
    7. Comment: One commenter questioned the methodology that we used 
to determine the critical habitat boundaries and indicated that the 
proposed designation must be substantially revised and resubmitted for 
public comments before it is finalized
    Our Response: As described in the Criteria Used To Identify 
Critical Habitat section of this final rule we describe the methods 
used to define critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. In 
general, to delineate critical habitat boundaries we used data 
regarding (1) known San Bernardino kangaroo rat occurrences, (2) 
alluvial fan sage scrub and associated vegetation, (3) geomorphology, 
and (4) connectivity corridors between San Bernardino kangaroo rat 
population. Once these areas were defined, we then evaluated them for 
conservation value and removed any lands determined not to be essential 
to the long-term conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (e.g., 
urban, active mining, and agriculture).
    During the development of this final designation, the lands 
proposed for designation were further re-evaluated and refined based on 
more recent aerial photography, public comment, and information 
received since the publication of the proposed designation. The 
critical habitat boundaries defined in this final rule have been 
reduced from those identified in the proposal.
    8. Comment: Several peer reviewers and one commenter expressed 
concern with the use of the data from Braden and McKernan (2000) to 
include upland areas such as vineyards (current/historical), 
agricultural lands, and mature alluvial fan sage scrub in the proposed 
critical habitat.
    Our Response: The Braden and McKernan (2000) study provided 
additional new, specific data about the habitat characteristics where 
the species has been documented; we realize that this study indicates 
the range of habitat characteristics in which the species can occur. We 
recognize that the study was not designed to indicate/describe habitat 
affinities or habitat preferences by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. 
We used this information, realizing its limitations, when developing 
our best estimate of areas that are important for the conservation of 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Please refer to the background section 
in this final rule for an expanded discussion on this topic.
    9. Comment: Several peer reviewers were concerned that the survey 
protocol was insufficient to determine presence/absence; therefore, 
data used to determine the proposed critical habitat was flawed. 
Additionally, one commenter was concerned that the Service assumed that 
many areas were occupied without protocol surveys.
    Our Response: We currently do not have an approved survey protocol 
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. However, based on repeated field 
sampling, we have developed a standard minimum methodology for 
conducting presence/absence surveys. We are currently reviewing 
proposed changes to increase the accuracy of this survey methodology 
and decrease the chances of error in detecting the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat if present.
    For determining critical habitat, we evaluated the current 
distribution of the

[[Page 19824]]

San Bernardino kangaroo rat based on documented sightings or captures 
and incorporated those areas that we believed to be essential to the 
conservation of the species based on this occurrence information in the 
critical habitat designation.
    10. Comment: The proposed rule inappropriately uses a ``recovery 
standard'' to determine critical habitat for the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat.
    Our Response: The definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A) 
of the Act includes ``(i) specific areas within the geographic area 
occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the 
Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require 
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific 
areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it 
is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species.'' The term ``conservation'', as defined in 
section 3(3) of the Act, means ``to use and the use of all methods and 
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or 
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant 
to the Act are no longer necessary.''
    In designating critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo 
rat, pursuant to the Act, we identified those areas that currently 
contain one or more of the physical or biological features, primary 
constituent elements, essential to the conservation of the species. We 
did not include all areas currently occupied by the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat or containing the primary constituent elements, but 
designated only those areas determined to be essential to the species 
conservation and characterized by large populations, unique ecological 
characteristics, and historic geographic areas where the species can be 
re-established.
    11. Comment: The lands that are being proposed as critical habitat 
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat represent a huge, unsubstantiated 
increase from the amount of habitat that was described in the final 
listing rule, and even now, as being occupied by this species. There is 
a lack of data to support this increase in occupied area for the 
species.
    Our Response: In our final rule to list the San Bernardino kangaroo 
rat as endangered (63 FR 51005), we estimated that approximately 5,279 
ha (13,044 ac) were likely occupied. In this final critical habitat 
designation we are designating approximately 13,485 ha (33,295 ac) as 
essential, of which approximately 330 ha (815 ac) are currently not 
known to be occupied. The approximate two-fold increase over the 
approximate amount of land occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat 
at the time it was federally listed is based on additional data and 
research that has expanded our knowledge on the distribution and 
habitat needs of the species. Please refer to the background section of 
this final rule for a more detailed discussion of this issue.
    12. Comment: The broad scale of the proposed critical habitat maps 
is not specific enough to allow for reasonable public comment, 
therefore violating the Act and 50 CFR 424.12(c).
    Our Response: We identified specific areas in the proposed 
determination that are referenced by public land surveys and UTM 
coordinates, which are found on standard topographic maps. We also made 
available a public viewing room where maps with the proposed critical 
habitat superimposed on 7.5 minute topographic maps and spot imagery 
could be inspected. Further, we distributed GIS coverages and maps of 
the proposed critical habitat to everyone who requested them. We 
believe the information made available to the public was sufficiently 
detailed to allow for informed public comment. This final rule contains 
the legal descriptions of areas designated as critical habitat required 
under 50 CFR 424.12(c). The accompanying maps are for illustration 
purposes only. If additional clarification is necessary, please contact 
the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section).
    13. Comment: According to one peer reviewer, geomorphological and 
hydrological processes, and presently unoccupied habitat are critical 
to the survival and conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. 
The commenter recommended including side channels in the critical 
habitat designation.
    Our Response: As we discuss in the Background section of this rule, 
we concur with the commenter on the importance of these 
geomorphological and hydrological processes for creating and 
maintaining habitat essential to the survival and conservation of the 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat. We considered the importance of these 
processes and side channels when delineating the boundaries of critical 
habitat for this final designation and included the areas providing for 
those geomorphological and hydrological processes that are essential 
for the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
    14. Comment: Several commenters felt that we proposed critical 
habitat before we obtained all of ``the best scientific evidence'; that 
we should conduct additional surveys or research (such as estimate the 
minimum viable population size); and that there is evidence to 
designate critical habitat areas outside of occupied habitat.
    Our Response: We are required to use the best available information 
in designating critical habitat. During the development of the proposed 
designation and following its publication during the two open comment 
periods, we solicited biological data and public participation in the 
rule making process. These comments have been taken into consideration 
in the development of this final designation. As stated in several 
sections of this final designation, we used data collected during 2001 
and 2002 to determine the final configuration of critical habitat. Data 
from 2002 corroborated occupancy and assisted in further defining 
critical habitat boundaries. We are currently unable to conduct a 
population viability analysis for or more detailed research on the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat due to time and funding constraints. We are 
currently required under a court-approved settlement agreement to 
finalize this designation by April 15, 2002. However, we will continue 
to monitor the species and collect new information and may revise the 
critical habitat designation in the future, funding permitting, if new 
information supports a change.

Issue 2: Policy and Regulations

    15. Comment: The Service violated the Administrative Procedure Act 
by not providing adequate public notice to all affected landowners, not 
providing sufficient opportunity for public comment, or extending the 
comment period to allow for adequate time for comment.
    Our Response: We published the proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat on December 8, 2000 (65 FR 
77178), and accepted comments from the public for 60 days, until 
February 6, 2001. The comment period was reopened from September 4, 
2001, to October 4, 2001 (66 FR 46251), to allow for additional 
comments on the proposed designation, and comments on the draft 
economic analysis on the proposed critical habitat. Comments received 
after the close of the last comment period were determined not to 
provide substantive comments that had not already been raised or 
addressed and entered into the supportive record for this rulemaking.
    We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, Tribes, 
county governments, elected officials, and other

[[Page 19825]]

interested parties and invited them to comment. In addition, we invited 
public comment through the publication of notices in the following 
newspapers in southern California: San Bernardino Sun and Riverside 
Press Enterprise on December 11, 2000, and again in both papers on 
September 4, 2001. We provided notification of the draft economic 
analysis through telephone calls, letters, and news releases faxed and/
or mailed to affected elected officials, media local jurisdictions, and 
interest groups. We also published the draft economic analysis and 
associated material on our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Internet 
site following the draft's release on September 4, 2001. In addition to 
inviting public comment on the proposed designation and the draft 
economic analysis for the proposed designation, the latter notices 
announced the dates and times of public hearings on the proposed 
designation. These hearings were held on September 20, 2001, in San 
Bernardino, California from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 
8:00 p.m. Transcripts of these hearings are available for inspection 
(see ADDRESSES section).
    16. Comment: A commenter indicated that our re-evaluation of the 
prudency of designating critical habitat for the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat was insufficient.
    Our Response: In our final rule listing the San Bernardino kangaroo 
rat as endangered under the Act (63 FR 51005), we found that 
designation of critical habitat was not prudent because we believed 
that designation could result in an increase in the degree of threat to 
the species. As we discuss in the Previous Federal Action section of 
this final rule, we were challenged on our original ``not prudent'' 
finding. On November 3, 1999, we agreed to a stipulated settlement that 
required us to publish a proposal to withdraw the existing ``not 
prudent'' critical habitat determination and re-evaluate the prudency 
of designating critical habitat. If designation of critical habitat for 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was determined to be prudent, we agreed 
to publish a proposed designation by December 1, 2000, and a final 
designation by December 1, 2001. The publication of our December 8, 
2000, proposal and this final rule are in compliance with the 
stipulated settlement agreement and subsequent court orders. A detailed 
discussion of our re-evaluation of the prudency of designating critical 
habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is located in the Previous 
Federal Action section of the proposed designation. In short, our re-
evaluation of the prudency of designating critical habitat resulted in 
our concluding that the benefits of designating critical habitat 
outweighed the benefits of not designating (i.e., threats to the 
species due to the release of specific habitat or occurrence 
information). Pursuant to section 3 of the Act, and the implementing 
regulations, in the absence of finding that critical habitat would 
increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to critical 
habitat being designated, then a prudent finding is warranted.
    17. Comment: The Service violated the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 (NEPA) by failing to prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement for the designation of critical habitat.
    Our Response: As discussed in the National Environmental Policy Act 
section of the proposed rule and this final, we have determined that it 
is not necessary to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an 
Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to 
section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act as amended. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
    18. Comment: Tribal lands should be excluded from critical habitat 
based on either section 4(b)(2) of the Act, Secretarial Order 3206, or 
because Tribal lands are managed better voluntarily.
    Our Response: In our proposed critical habitat rule, we indicated 
that approximately 465 ha (1,150 ac) of lands within the Soboba Band of 
Luiseno Indians Reservation in western Riverside County were essential 
for the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. In the 
development of the final critical habitat designation for the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we re-evaluated these Tribal lands to 
determine if they were essential to the conservation of the kangaroo 
rat and whether they should be designated as critical habitat. Based on 
distribution information for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat in the San 
Jacinto Wash, the continuity of kangaroo rat habitat extending up the 
tributaries adjacent to occupied habitat, and slope, vegetation, and 
disturbance information; we have re-defined the area designated as 
critical habitat on the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation. 
Additionally, we refined the 100 meter grid line used in the proposal 
to the essential critical habitat line along the edges of the two 
washes and the main portion of the river on Tribal land and removed 
from the designation a non-essential disturbed area on the western edge 
of Tribal lands on the north side of the river that is proposed for 
economic development. The result of this analysis and refinement was 
the reduction of critical habitat on Tribal land to 290 ha (710 ac).
    Currently the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians does not have a 
resource management plan which provides protection or conservation for 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and its habitat. We are committed to 
maintaining a positive working relationship with the Tribe and will 
continue to work with them on developing a resource management plan for 
the Reservation including conservation measures for the kangaroo rat. 
However, due to the time constraints for completing this final rule and 
the lack of an existing resource management plan covering the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we were required to finalize the designation 
based on our analysis of the relative importance of the lands within 
the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation for the conservation of 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
    For a further discussion of this issue please refer to the 
Government-To-Government Relationship With Tribes section of this final 
rule.
    19. Comment: Many commenters, including all of the peer reviewers, 
suggested that additional lands be designated as critical habitat for 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The areas suggested include additional 
lands upwind and upstream from lands contained within proposed critical 
habitat that are important to maintain San Bernardino kangaroo rat 
habitat, upland refugia areas up to 600 meters (1,950 feet) from 
channels, other known occupied sites, and other lands to connect the 
proposed critical habitat units together. The commenters indicated that 
these areas are needed for the long-term conservation of the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat.
    Our Response: We did not include all of the lands, both general and 
specific, suggested by the commenters in proposed critical habitat 
because, at the time of proposal, we concluded that these lands were 
not essential for the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat 
based on available information concerning status of the species in the 
specific areas and level of habitat disturbance and fragmentation. Only 
those lands that we believed to be essential to the conservation of the 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat based on the best scientific and commercial 
data available at the time the proposal was being developed were 
included in the proposed critical habitat designation.

[[Page 19826]]

    20. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern over the 
inclusion of the former Norton Air Force Base in final critical 
habitat.
    Our Response: Portions of the lands within the former Norton Air 
Force Base (NAFB) were included in the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Currently, NAFB is in the 
process of being turned over to the San Bernardino County Airport 
Authority and the Inland Valley Development Agency for use as a 
regional airport. During the development of the final designation, we 
re-evaluated those lands proposed as critical habitat that fell within 
the NAFB. Based on this re-evaluation and refinement, most of the land 
within the former NAFB was not included in this final critical habitat 
because it was determined not to be essential to the conservation of 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. All areas north of (and including) the 
runway have been removed from the final critical habitat designation 
because additional evaluation showed the area to be too highly degraded 
and fragmented to provide for conservation of the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat. Areas south of the runway, adjacent to or in the Santa 
Ana River channel, are still considered essential to the conservation 
of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat because these support suitable 
habitat and existing populations.
    Further, we completed an informal consultation with the Federal 
Aviation Authority regarding two grants, a $7 million grant to 
construct a Joint Powers Authority training facility and another grant 
between $5 and $20 million to rehabilitate the main runway. In our 
consultations on these two grants, following the proposal of critical 
habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, we determined that the 
construction of the JPA facility and the rehabilitation of the main 
runway will not adversely affect proposed critical habitat. The primary 
areas affected by these projects have been removed from designated 
critical habitat because they were determined to not be essential to 
the long-term conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat due to 
the degraded condition of the area.
    Commenters were additionally concerned that the designation of 
critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat would affect a 
$1.3 million grant that the San Bernardino International Airport 
Authority was applying for to construct a hanger. A consultation with 
us pursuant to section 7 of the Act was not necessary because the 
proposed action did not affect any San Bernardino kangaroo rats or 
their habitat and was not within proposed critical habitat. The grant 
has since been awarded to the airport authority.
    21. Comment: Emergency maintenance activities for the County of San 
Bernardino and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District should 
be exempted from designation within critical habitat.
    Our Response: Emergency maintenance activities are not exempt from 
consultation under section 7 of the Act. The regulations at 50 CFR 
402.05 allow for informal consultation where emergency circumstances 
mandate the need to consult in an expedited manner. Formal consultation 
should be initiated as soon as possible after the emergency is under 
control. We have conducted programmatic consultations with FEMA and 
other Federal agencies for future anticipated emergency actions. These 
consultations can be conducted prior to the emergency and address 
anticipated response activities. In addition, there is a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) between the Service and FEMA which involves 
expedited consultation time frames.
    22. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern regarding the 
inclusion of water and flood control district properties and facilities 
(e.g., Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Redlands) 
in the proposed critical habitat areas.
    Our Response: Lands proposed and designated in this final rule have 
been determined to be essential to the conservation of the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat by providing biological and physical requisites 
for the animals survival and long-term conservation. In developing our 
designation we attempted to exclude those areas that do not currently 
contain the primary constituent elements essential to the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat, such as urban areas and land altered by active 
agriculture or mining. However, due to our minimum mapping scale and 
based on the photographic accuracy of our GIS data, some areas not 
containing the primary constituent elements essential to the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat were included in designated critical habitat. 
Activities in which there is a Federal nexus that occur in these areas 
would not trigger a consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act 
unless those activities may affect a listed species or may directly or 
indirectly affect primary constituent elements in adjacent critical 
habitat.
    23. Comment: A number of commenters identified specific areas that 
they thought should not be designated as critical habitat (e.g., 
Etiwanda and San Sevine Channel south of State Route 30; all of Units 
4, 5, and 6; various project development areas).
    Our Response: Where site-specific documentation was submitted to us 
providing a rationale and supporting documentation as to why an area 
should not be designated critical habitat, we evaluated that 
information in accordance with the definition of critical habitat 
pursuant to section 3 of the Act and made a determination as to whether 
modifications to the proposal were appropriate. As discussed in the 
background sections of the proposed rule and this final rule, areas 
containing smaller populations of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat were 
removed from critical habitat in this final designation because they 
were determined not to be essential to the long-term conservation of 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The basis for this determination and 
removing them from the final designation was based on the information 
indicating that the small scattered populations or habitats occurred in 
areas that were highly fragmented by urban and agricultural development 
or no longer subject to hydrological and geomorphological processes 
that would naturally maintain alluvial sage scrub vegetation. Lands 
proposed as critical habitat that were excluded from this final 
designation based on this re-evaluation included portions of Etiwanda 
and San Sevine channels within Unit 4, and Units 5 and 6 in their 
entirety.
    24. Comment: Critical habitat should be retained within the 
boundaries of approved HCPs. HCPs cannot be viewed as a functional 
substitute for critical habitat designation, and they provide 
inadequate protection and special management considerations for the 
species and their habitat. Other commenters supported the exclusion of 
approved HCPs from critical habitat designation, and several commenters 
wanted pending HCPs to be excluded, as well. They supported their 
recommendations by asserting that landowners will be reluctant to 
participate in HCPs unless they have incentives, including the removal 
of critical habitat from HCP boundaries.
    Our Response: The designation of critical habitat should not deter 
participation in the Natural Community Conservation Program (NCCP) or 
HCP processes. Approvals issued under these processes include 
assurances of no additional mitigation through the HCP No Surprises 
regulation (63 FR 8859). We recognize that critical habitat is only one 
of many conservation tools for federally listed species. HCPs are one 
of

[[Page 19827]]

the most important tools for reconciling land use with the conservation 
of listed species on non-Federal lands. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
allows us to exclude from critical habitat areas where the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, provided the exclusion 
will not result in the extinction of the species. We believe that in 
most instances the benefits of excluding HCPs from critical habitat 
designations will outweigh the benefits of including them. Currently, 
there are no approved and legally operative HCPs in which the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat is a covered species and management is provided 
for the species' long-term conservation.
    25. Comment: The Service violated the Administrative Procedure Act 
and Endangered Species Act by not making the scientific data relied on 
in formulating the proposed rule available for public review and 
comment despite requests from interested parties and that we should 
also inform the public of areas that are occupied that we did not 
propose as critical habitat.
    Our Response: In the proposed rule, we stated that all supporting 
documentation, including the references and unpublished data used in 
the preparation of the proposed rule, would be available for public 
inspection at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. A public viewing 
room was made available at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office where 
the proposed critical habitat units, superimposed on 7.5 minute 
topographic maps, could be inspected. In addition, we responded to each 
request for GIS maps and data supporting the rulemaking in a timely 
manner by providing copies of the maps and data. Additionally, data 
concerning the occurrences of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat used in 
the analysis for the proposed designation were also made available to 
the public, if requested. These data have also been provided to several 
of the local jurisdictions in western Riverside and San Bernardino 
counties for use in the development of the regional HCPs. The 
occurrence data and supporting documentation used in the rulemaking are 
available for inspection at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office by 
appointment (Please see ADDRESSES Section of this rule).
    26. Comment: The designation of critical habitat would place an 
additional burden on landowners above and beyond what the listing of 
the species would require. The number of section 7 consultations will 
increase; areas where no San Bernardino kangaroo rat are known to occur 
will now be subject to consultations under section 7 of the Act since 
many Federal agencies previously have been making ``no effect'' 
determinations within unoccupied suitable habitat. Now, with the 
designation of critical habitat the Federal agencies may be required to 
consult and there could be an increase in ``may effect'' 
determinations, if any primary constituent elements are effected by the 
proposed action.
    Our Response: As discussed in this rule and our economic analysis, 
consultations pursuant to section 7 of the Act would only occur for 
activities that may affect a federally listed species or critical 
habitat in which there is a Federal nexus. We acknowledge that there 
may be some additional consultations pursuant to section 7 of the Act 
because of the designation critical habitat for the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat. However, we believe that in the areas occupied by the 
species (i.e., approximately 97.5 percent of designated critical 
habitat), Federal agencies should have already been consulting with us 
on activities affecting the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and its habitat 
due to it being listed as a federally endangered species. Further, 
because the portion of critical habitat that is not currently known to 
be occupied is located downstream of occupied habitat, activities 
occurring in this area with a Federal nexus may have also been 
subjected to consultation under section 7 of the Act. Therefore, we 
believe that additional consultations, or efforts such as technical 
assistance, would be minimal as the result of the designation of 
critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
    27. Comment: Critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat 
is needed because the current legal protections are insufficient to 
protect the species and its habitat (both occupied and unoccupied) from 
direct and indirect impacts.
    Our Response: The San Bernardino kangaroo rat and lands occupied by 
the species currently receive protection under sections 7, 9, and 10 of 
the Act. Much of the remaining habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo 
rat occurs in areas that are under the ACOE jurisdiction. The ACOE, as 
well as other Federal agencies, are required to consult with us when an 
action they permit, fund or authorize ``may affect'' a listed species. 
Additionally, habitats used by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (e.g., 
Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub, coastal sage scrub, alluvial fan 
scrub) are considered sensitive under California Environmental Quality 
Act and must be addressed during that process. We will continue to work 
with local landowners to protect and enhance kangaroo rat habitat.
    28. Comment: Consultations under section 7 of the Act are required 
for projects (e.g., building, development) on private property in 
critical habitat because an HCP is needed for these projects regardless 
of occupancy because there is a ``may effect'' to critical habitat.
    Our Response: We disagree with the commenter that any development 
project occurring in designated critical habitat for the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat would require a Federal permit. A consultation pursuant to 
section 7 of the Act would only be triggered if there was a Federal 
action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat. A Federal 
action is any action funded, permitted or otherwise authorized by a 
Federal action agency. Where there is no Federal nexus, a consultation 
pursuant to section 7 of the Act would not be triggered. If a Federal 
nexus does not exist, we would work with the project proponent on the 
development of a HCP and issuance of an incidental take permit for 
actions that may affect a federally listed species. As part of this 
process, we are required, pursuant to section 7 of the Act, to evaluate 
the issuance of the incidental take permit for the proposed action to 
ensure that the action as proposed would not jeopardize the continued 
existence of the species covered under the HCP, nor result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat designated 
within the planning area of the HCP such that it would appreciably 
reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species.
    29. Comment: The proposed critical habitat rule violates section 
4(b)(8) of the Act by not including (1) a summary of data used in the 
development of the proposal, (2) relationship of the data to proposed 
critical habitat, and (3) a description of activities that may 
adversely modify critical habitat.
    Our Response: We disagree with the commenter that we violated 
section 4(b)(8) of the Act by not including a summary of data used in 
the development of the proposal, did not provide a discussion of the 
relationship of the data to proposed critical habitat, and did not 
provide a description of activities that may adversely modify critical 
habitat. In the Background section of this final rule, and the 
proposal, we discuss at length the biology and ecology of the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat and the relationship of this information to 
proposed and final critical habitat. The relationship of this data to 
designated critical habitat is also discussed in the Primary 
Constituent Elements section and in the description of each of the

[[Page 19828]]

critical habitat units. Within these discussions, we cite references or 
data sources that our conclusions are based on. A list and copy of each 
data source used in the development of this rulemaking are within the 
supporting documentation and available for inspection at the Carlsbad 
Fish and Wildlife Office (please refer to ADDRESSES section). Further, 
the GIS data layers used in the development of critical habitat 
boundaries are discussed in the Methods and Criteria Used To Identify 
Critical Habitat sections of the proposed rule and this final rule. 
Copies of these data layers are also available for inspection at the 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. The description of activities that 
may adversely modify critical habitat is discussed in the Section 7 
section of this rule. Here we list those activities that would result 
in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for the 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
    30. Comment: Several commenters asserted that too much critical 
habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was being proposed on 
private land and that critical habitat should only be designated on 
Federal lands.
    Our Response: The definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A) 
of the Act includes ``(i) specific areas within the geographic area 
occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the 
Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require 
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific 
areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it 
is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species''. The term ``conservation'', as defined in 
section 3(3) of the Act, means ``to use and the use of all methods and 
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or 
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant 
to the Act are no longer necessary.''
    In designating critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo 
rat, we identified those areas that we know are essential to the 
conservation of this species, regardless of land ownership. The Act 
does not direct us to limit the designation to Federal lands, or take 
into consideration land ownership when developing the designation. 
Therefore, we analyzed the area within the current range of this San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat to determine which areas are biologically 
essential to its conservation. The areas designated as critical habitat 
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat provide those habitat components 
essential for the survival and conservation of this species.
    31. Comment: Critical habitat represents the Service's efforts to 
control local government land use and to usurp local governments' 
rights to regulate land uses.
    Our Response: The designation of critical habitat does not create a 
management plan, establish a preserve, reserve, or wilderness area 
where no actions are allowed, it does not establish numerical 
population goals, prescribe specific management actions (inside or 
outside of critical habitat), or directly affect areas not designated 
as critical habitat (as discussed in the Critical Habitat section of 
this rule). Critical habitat does not ``usurp'' local governments' 
rights to regulate land uses. However, the designation may result in 
some additional effort by the State and local jurisdictions to review 
proposed actions in designated critical habitat pursuant to the 
California Environmental Quality Act and other State or local land use 
regulations.
    32. Comment: One commenter asserted that we should account for the 
loss of critical habitat, and that this loss should be counted against 
the permissible ``take'' as per the California Department of Fish and 
Game's Natural Community Conservation Program guidelines.
    Our Response: The referenced NCCP guidelines directs habitat loss 
to areas with low long-term conservation potential that will not 
preclude development of adequate preserves and ensures that 
connectivity between areas of high habitat value will be maintained. 
Under the NCCP guidelines, jurisdictions that are participating in the 
program can authorize the loss of or ``take'' of up to five percent of 
coastal sage scrub vegetation within their planning area through a 
habitat loss permit that requires the concurrence of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game while 
they are developing their regional habitat conservation plan. In these 
enrolled subregions, habitat loss is regulated by the local 
jurisdiction and Service oversight is not dependent upon a Federal 
nexus. Therefore, the participating jurisdictions are responsible for 
tracking the habitat loss authorized under their habitat loss permit. 
Currently, the local jurisdictions in which critical habitat for the 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat is being designated are not participating 
in the NCCP program.
    Additionally, even though habitat loss under the NCCP is not 
applicable to consultations under section 7 of the Act, the loss of the 
habitat is analyzed in each section 7 consultation for effects to the 
baseline of listed species.

Issue 3: Economic Issues

    33. Comment: One commenter expressed concern over the use of 
Service files, in particular those of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office, to extrapolate future consultations, project modifications, and 
re-initiation of consultations based on consultation histories for the 
purpose of evaluating potential economic effects of the designation. 
The commenter cited the findings of a recent Government Accounting 
Office report that indicated that the files at the Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office were unorganized, incomplete, and poorly managed.
    Our Response: As a result of the Government Accounting Office's 
review of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office's files and the 
subsequent report indicating some weaknesses in file management, we 
have instituted an electronic file management system which has 
corrected many of the apparent weaknesses. Because the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat has only been listed since 1998, and it has been a highly 
scrutinized listed species, files and information relevant to the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat have been, and are, well organized, complete, 
and properly managed. Therefore, we have a high level of confidence in 
information extrapolated from those files. Additionally, as discussed 
in the draft economic analysis, values associated with future costs 
attributable to future consultations, project modifications, etc. are 
averaged from data collected at Fish and Wildlife Offices across the 
country.
    34. Comment: The public comment period for the Economic Analysis 
must be at least 60 days long.
    Our Response: According to Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 424.16 
(c)(2), we are required to have a public comment period of ``at least 
60 days * * * following publication in the Federal Register of a rule 
proposing the listing, delisting, or reclassification of a species, or 
the designation or revision of critical habitat.'' We published the 
proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat on December 8, 2000 (65 FR 77178), and accepted comments 
from the public for 60 days, until February 6, 2001. The comment period 
was reopened from September 4, 2001, to October 4, 2001 (66 FR 46251), 
to allow for additional comments on the proposed designation, and 
comments on the draft economic analysis on the proposed critical 
habitat. We have fulfilled our requirements under the Act and the CFR 
regarding the

[[Page 19829]]

public comment period for the proposed designation of critical habitat 
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
    35. Comment: We violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act by not 
preparing and providing for public comment a detailed initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis at the same time as the proposed rule.
    Our Response: The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, generally requires 
an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 
Administrative Procedure Act, or any other statute, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. We are certifying that this 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities and as a result, neither an initial or final 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Please refer to the 
sections, Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act for further 
discussions concerning the potential economic effects for this 
designation.
    36. Comment: Demographic and economic information regarding the 
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians was included in the Draft Economic 
Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat, yet they were not personally contacted regarding this 
information.
    Our Response: Although we try to contact as many stakeholders as 
possible, we are not able to contact every potential stakeholder in 
order for us to develop a draft economic analysis due to time and 
budget constraints. Especially in light of the limited resources and 
time available to us, we believe that we were adequately able to 
understand the issues of concern to local communities based on public 
comments submitted on the proposed rule, on transcripts from public 
hearings, and from detailed discussions among our staff and with 
representatives from other Federal, State, Tribal, and local government 
agencies, as well as some landowners. Information that was used in the 
draft Economic Analysis regarding the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians 
was obtained from existing documents available to the Service. Based on 
comments during the public comment period, we attempted to update the 
information in the Addendum to the Economic Analysis on the Soboba Band 
of Luiseno Indians. We obtained publicly available information 
regarding the Tribe from a U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs web site and 
included it in our Addendum. In addition, we met with the Tribe during 
the development of the critical habitat designation (September 19, 
2001) to discuss the potential impacts on Tribal lands. After 
discussions with the Tribe and analysis of our biological and physical 
data, we have revised the boundaries relative to Tribal lands.
    37. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
rule was not accompanied by an economic analysis as required by law.
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.19 requires 
us to consider the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We published our 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat in the Federal Register on December 8, 2000 (65 FR 77178). 
At that time, our Division of Economics and their consultants 
Industrial Economics, Inc. initiated the draft economic analysis. The 
draft Economic Analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation 
was made available for public comment and review beginning on September 
4, 2001 (66 FR 46251). Following a 30-day public comment period on the 
proposal and draft Economic Analysis, a final Addendum to the Economic 
Analysis was written based on public comments. Both the draft Economic 
Analysis and final Addendum were used in the development of this final 
designation of critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. 
Please refer to the Economic Analysis section of this final rule for a 
more detailed discussion of these documents.
    38. Comment: The draft Economic Analysis does not provide enough 
information to conduct an analysis pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act.
    Our Response: We disagree that the Economic Analysis does not 
provide sufficient information to make an informed decision under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We believe that the Economic Analysis very 
specifically discusses likely impacts to entities based on probable 
land use activities. Furthermore, the Addendum very specifically 
addresses weaknesses in the draft Economic Analysis that were 
identified during the public comment period. Taken together, we believe 
both documents adequately identify where the potential economic impacts 
of the proposed rule may lie and the assumptions that were necessary to 
generate these estimates. Therefore, they are sufficient to identify 
any areas where the economic costs may outweigh the biological benefits 
of the designation.
    39. Comment: Specific lands should be excluded from proposed 
critical habitat pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act because the 
economic effects of excluding particular areas outweigh the benefits.
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.19 requires 
us to consider the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an 
area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designating the area as critical 
habitat, unless that exclusion will lead to extinction of the species. 
As discussed in this final rule and our economic analyses for this 
rulemaking, we have determined that no significant adverse economic 
effects will result from this critical habitat designation. Further, 
based on our re-evaluation of lands proposed as critical habitat, we 
believe that the designation of the lands in this final rule as 
critical habitat outweigh the benefits of their exclusion from being 
designated as critical habitat. Consequently, none of the proposed 
lands have been excluded from the designation based on economic impacts 
or other relevant factors pursuant to section 4 (b)(2) of the Act.
    40. Comment: The Service is obligated to consider ``other relevant 
impacts'' in our analysis pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act for 
potential exclusions from critical habitat such as the ``projected'' 
housing crisis in southern California.
    Our Response: As previously discussed in this final rule, section 
4(b)(2) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.19 require us to consider the 
economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from 
critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designating the area as critical habitat, 
unless that exclusion will lead to extinction of the species.
    We are aware that some of the land that we have designated as 
critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat faces significant 
development pressure. Development activities can have a significant 
effect on the land and the species dependent on the habitat being 
developed. We also recognize that many large-scale development projects 
are subject to a Federal nexus. As a result, we expect that future 
consultations will, in part, include planned and future real estate 
development.
    However, we believe that these resulting consultations will not 
take

[[Page 19830]]

place solely with respect to critical habitat issues. While it is true 
that development activities can adversely affect designated critical 
habitat, we believe that our future consultations regarding new housing 
development will take place because such actions have the potential to 
adversely affect a federally listed species. We believe that such 
planned projects would require a section 7 consultation regardless of 
the critical habitat designation. Again, as we have previously 
mentioned, section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult 
with us whenever actions they fund, authorize, or carry out may affect 
a listed species or its critical habitat.
    41. Comment: Several commenters were concerned that the critical 
habitat designation would have significant adverse economic impacts to 
particular projects, agencies, and/or the economic recovery of entire 
region.
    Our Response: During the development of critical habitat for the 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat, we conducted an analysis of the economic 
impacts that were likely to occur as a result of the designation. The 
results of our analysis are contained in our draft Economic Analysis 
and the final Addendum to the Economic Analysis. Because the areas 
being designated are primarily occupied, our Economic Analysis 
concluded that the designation would not result in significant economic 
impacts to the lands being designated as critical habitat or the 
economic recovery of the region as a whole.
    42. Comment: The Draft Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat 
Designation for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat is flawed, inaccurate, 
contains numerous errors, and makes improper assumptions.
    Our Response: As previously discussed, section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
and 50 CFR 424.19 requires us to consider the economic impact, and any 
other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat. We published our proposed designation of critical habitat for 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat in the Federal Register on December 8, 
2000 (65 FR 77178). At that time, our Division of Economics and their 
consultants Industrial Economics, Inc., initiated the draft Economic 
Analysis. The draft Economic Analysis of the proposed critical habitat 
designation was made available for review and public comment during a 
30-day public comment period beginning on September 4, 2001 (66 FR 
46251). Based on the public comments received during the open comment 
period, a final Addendum to the Economic Analysis of critical habitat 
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was drafted. This final Addendum 
addressed the concerns raised through the comment period and took into 
consideration new data and a revised methodology. Please refer to the 
Economic Analysis section of this final rule for a more detailed 
discussion of these documents. Copies of both the draft Economic 
Analysis and the final Addendum are in the supporting record for this 
rulemaking and can be inspected by contacting the Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office (refer to the ADDRESSES section of this rule).
    43. Comment: The Economic Analysis failed to adequately estimate 
various potential economic impacts.
    Our Response: In the Addendum to the Economic Analysis of Critical 
Habitat Designation for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat we conducted a 
revised analysis to address all concerns that were brought up during 
the public comment process. In some instances we obtained additional 
data and increased our estimates, in other instances we presented 
arguments/rebuttals to concerns mentioned by particular commenters 
which explained why our estimate might be more accurate/appropriate. 
Please refer to the Addendum to the Economic Analysis for a more 
thorough discussion regarding potential economic impacts.
    44. Comment: The draft Economic Analysis had errors in the land 
ownership data.
    Our Response: In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we are directed to use the best 
scientific and commercial data available in determining which areas to 
propose as critical habitat. We recognize that data used in our 
analysis may not be the most accurate relative to land ownership. The 
data concerning land ownership is obtained from a variety of sources 
including Federal and State agencies, data clearing-houses, and local 
and county jurisdictions. Once data is obtained by the lead agency or 
data source, time is required to process and verify the data, which may 
take up to one to two years. Consequently, the data that we obtain for 
our analysis may be one to two years older than what is reflective of 
current land ownership. As best as possible, we attempt to correct 
discrepancies or errors that are detected in the data. However, there 
will most likely be some factor of error in the data.
    45. Comment: No monetary benefits for the survival of the species 
were included in the draft Economic Analysis.
    Our Response: While we have acknowledged the potential for society 
to experience such benefits in our economic analyses for critical 
habitat rulemakings, our ability to actually measure these benefits in 
any meaningful way is difficult and imprecise at best. While we are 
aware of many studies that attempt to identify the value (in monetary 
units) of listed species, open space, the use of public lands for 
recreational purposes, the cost of sprawl, etc.; few of these studies 
provide any meaningful information that can be used to develop 
estimates associated with a critical habitat designation. The 
designation of critical habitat does not necessarily inhibit 
development of private property, which makes it difficult to draw upon 
the literature of the economic values of open space to identify 
potential benefits of critical habitat designation. Also, while some 
economic studies attempt to measure the social value of protecting 
endangered species, the species that are often valued are well known 
and easy to identify (e.g. bighorn sheep) in contrast to other species 
such as the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Furthermore, the values 
identified in these studies would be most closely associated with the 
listing of a species as endangered or threatened because the listing 
serves to provide the majority of protection and conservation benefits 
under the Act.
    While we will continue to explore ways that will allow us to 
provide more meaningful descriptions of the potential benefits 
associated with a critical habitat designation, we believe that due to 
the current lack of available data specific to these rulemakings, along 
with the time and resource constraints imposed upon the Service, the 
benefits of a critical habitat designation are best expressed in 
biological terms that can then be weighed against the expected social 
costs of the rulemaking.
    46. Comment: The draft Economic Analysis violates the Endangered 
Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by limiting its scope 
to a ten year time frame.
    Our Response: Neither the Endangered Species Act nor the 
Administrative Procedure Act address limitations on a time frame for 
the scope of economic analyses for critical habitat rules. In 
developing the Economic Analysis we attempted to estimate the impacts 
of critical habitat designation on activities that are ``reasonably 
foreseeable.'' Small changes in current trends, plans, and projections 
(in land use and economic estimates) may have large effects on long-
range predictions. Independent of these uncertainties, the endangered 
status of the kangaroo rat may change in the future (e.g. from 
endangered to recovered). A change in status may reduce the need for 
the

[[Page 19831]]

critical habitat designation. Thus, in order to reduce uncertainty, the 
analysis bases estimates on activities that are likely to occur within 
a ten-year time horizon. Cost estimates beyond this ten-year time 
horizon are likely to be highly inaccurate because socioeconomic and 
other conditions may shift dramatically.
    47. Comment: The draft Economic Analysis is not a full analysis. It 
is still an incremental analysis, and it is not in compliance with the 
recent Tenth Circuit Court ruling on the southwestern willow flycatcher 
critical habitat.
    Our Response: On May 11, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 
Tenth Circuit issued a ruling that addressed the analytical approach 
used by the Service to estimate the economic impacts associated with 
the critical habitat designation for the southwestern willow 
flycatcher. Specifically, the court rejected the approach used by the 
Service to define and characterize baseline conditions. Defining the 
baseline is a critical step within an economic analysis, as the 
baseline in turn identifies the type and magnitude of incremental 
impacts that are attributed to the policy or change under scrutiny. In 
the flycatcher analysis, the Service defined baseline conditions to 
include the effects associated with the listing of the flycatcher and, 
as is typical of many regulatory analyses, proceeded to present only 
the incremental effects of the rule.
    The court's decision, in part, reflects the uniqueness of many of 
the more recent critical habitat rulemakings. Specifically, the 
flycatcher was initially listed by the Service as an endangered species 
in 1995, several years prior to designating critical habitat. Once a 
species has been officially listed as endangered under the Act, it is 
afforded special protection under Federal law. In particular, it is 
illegal to ``take'' a protected species without authorization once it 
is listed. Take is defined to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any 
such conduct. Implementing regulations promulgated by the Service 
further define ``harm'' to mean ``. . . an act which actually kills or 
injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat 
modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife 
by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including 
breeding, feeding, or sheltering.''
    Because the southwestern willow flycatcher was initially listed as 
endangered by the Service in 1995, several years before the designation 
of critical habitat, the flycatcher, along with its habitat, already 
received considerable protection before the designation of critical 
habitat in 1997. As a result, the economic analysis concluded that the 
resulting impacts of the designation would be insignificant. This 
conclusion was based on the facts that: (1) The designation of critical 
habitat only requires the Federal government to consider whether their 
actions could adversely modify critical habitat; and (2) the Federal 
government already was required to consult on actions that may 
adversely affect the flycatcher and to ensure that its actions did not 
jeopardize the flycatcher.
    For a Federal action to adversely modify critical habitat the 
action would have to adversely affect the critical habitat's 
constituent elements or their management in a manner likely to 
appreciably diminish or preclude the role of that habitat in the 
recovery of the species. The Service defines jeopardy, which was a pre-
existing condition prior to the designation of critical habitat, as to 
``engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or 
indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival 
and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the 
reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species.'' The recovery 
standard is used in the definition of both terms and as a result, the 
additional protection afforded the flycatcher due to the designation of 
critical habitat was determined to be negligible.
    The court, however, considered why Congress would want an economic 
analysis performed by the Service when making a decision about 
designating critical habitat if in fact the designation of critical 
habitat adds no significant additional protection to a listed species. 
In the court's mind, ``(b)ecause (the) economic analysis done using the 
Service's baseline model is rendered essentially without meaning by 50 
CFR 402.02, we conclude Congress intended that the Service conduct a 
full analysis of all of the economic impacts of a critical habitat 
designation, regardless of whether those impacts are attributable co-
extensively to other causes.''
    Even though the court's ruling applies only to the designation of 
critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher, this analysis 
attempts to comply with the court's instructions by revising the 
approach to defining baseline conditions within the areas of proposed 
critical habitat. Specifically, this analysis presents a detailed 
discussion of existing Federal, State, and local requirements and both 
current and planned activities within proposed critical habitat that 
are reasonably expected to occur regardless of whether the area is 
designated as critical habitat. Only after considering how these 
activities most likely will be affected given existing conditions, does 
the analysis estimate how the designation of critical habitat could 
impact forecasted activities.
    This approach to baseline definition employed in the analysis of 
the designation of critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat 
is similar to that employed in previous approaches, in that the goal is 
to understand the incremental effects of a designation. However, it 
does provide more extensive discussion of pre-existing baseline 
conditions than previous critical habitat economic analyses. Typical 
economic analyses concentrate mostly on identifying and measuring, to 
the extent feasible, economic effects most likely to occur because of 
the action being considered. Baseline conditions, while identified and 
discussed, are rarely characterized or measured in any detailed manner 
because by definition, these conditions remain unaffected by the 
outcome of the decision being contemplated. While the goal of this 
analysis remains the same as previous critical habitat economic 
analyses, that is to identify and measure the estimated incremental 
effects of the proposed rulemaking, the information provided in this 
analysis concerning baseline conditions is more detailed than that 
presented in previous studies. The final addendum to this analysis 
provided further information concerning the baseline and potential 
incremental effects of the designation of critical habitat for the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In the development of our final designation of critical habitat for 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat we made several significant changes to 
our proposed designation based on a review of public comments received 
on the proposed designation and the draft Economic Analysis and a re-
evaluation of lands proposed as critical habitat. As discussed in the 
Methods and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections of this 
final rule, we re-evaluated the lands proposed as critical habitat for 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat based on public comment, more recent 
aerial photography, and additional occurrence information obtained 
following the publication of the proposal. The refinements to the 
amount of land determined to be essential for the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat and incorporated into this final designation resulted in a 
net

[[Page 19832]]

reduction of approximately 8,938 ha (22,113 ac) lands. The primary 
changes for this final designation include the following: (1) The 
removal of the Jurupa Hills and Reche Canyon proposed critical habitat 
units (units 5 and 6, respectively), and the removal of the San Timoteo 
Canyon portion of proposed critical habitat unit 1; (2) the removal of 
the majority of lands within the former Norton Air Force Base from 
designated critical habitat; (3) a reduction in the lands being 
designated as critical habitat on the Soboba Tribal Reservation; and 
(4) a refinement in our mapping methodology.
    Based on available data and evaluation of more recent aerial 
photography, we determined that we did not have sufficient information 
to indicate that the lands within Jurupa Hills and Reche Canyon 
proposed as critical habitat units 5 and 6, respectively, and those 
lands within the San Timoteo Canyon portion of proposed critical 
habitat unit 1 are essential to the long-term conservation of the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat. Each of these areas contains small isolated 
populations of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. We believe these areas 
are not essential due to habitat disturbance and encroachment and the 
degree of isolation due to urban development. Consequently, these lands 
were removed from the final designation of critical habitat for the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat.
    Based on our re-evaluation and refinement during the development of 
this final rule, we determined that most of the land within the former 
NAFB was too highly degraded to provide for the conservation of the 
species and, therefore, was removed from this final designation. Those 
lands south of the runway and adjacent to the Santa Ana River channel 
have been determined to be essential to the long-term conservation of 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat due to the existing suitable habitat 
and current populations that occupy this area.
    In our proposed critical habitat rule, we indicated that 
approximately 465 ha (1,150 ac) of lands within the Soboba Band of 
Luiseno Indians Reservation in western Riverside County were essential 
for the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. In the 
development of the final critical habitat designation for the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we re-evaluated these Tribal lands to 
determine if they were essential to the conservation of the kangaroo 
rat and whether they should be designated as critical habitat. The 
result of this analysis and refinement was the reduction of critical 
habitat on Tribal land to 290 ha (710 ac). Please refer to our response 
to Comment 18 and the section Government-to-Government Relationship 
With Tribes for further information pertaining to the inclusion of 
lands within the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation in critical 
habitat.
    Lastly, for the proposed rule, we identified a line around those 
lands we believed to be essential to the conservation of the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat. We then described these essential habitat 
lines using a 100-meter UTM grid. By using this grid, lands not 
essential to the conservation of the species were included in critical 
habitat as a relic of the square grid cell. To better describe these 
lands we determined to be essential for this final designation, we 
defined our essential line using UTM coordinates instead of the 100-
meter UTM grid. We were able to use the UTM coordinates for the 
critical habitat designation due to the existence of readily 
identifiable urban features that defined the edge of the critical 
habitat. This resulted in a better refinement of the boundaries of 
critical habitat along the urban interface and a reduction and removal 
of approximately 2,024 ha (5,000 ac) of lands from the final 
designation that we determined not to be essential to the conservation 
of San Bernardino kangaroo rat.

Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available, and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of 
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas 
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such 
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical 
habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such 
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species.
    Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat 
designation, a draft Economic Analysis was conducted to estimate the 
potential economic effect of the proposed designation. The draft 
analysis was made available for public review on September 4, 2001 (66 
FR 46251). We accepted comments on the draft analysis until October 4, 
2001. Additionally we held two public hearings on the proposed 
designation and the draft Economic Analysis on September 20, 2001, in 
San Bernardino, California.
    Our draft Economic Analysis evaluated potential future effects 
associated with the listing of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as an 
endangered species under the Act, as well as any potential effect of 
the critical habitat designation above and beyond those regulatory and 
economic impacts associated with listing. To quantify the proportion of 
total potential economic impacts attributable to the critical habitat 
designation, the analysis evaluated a ``without critical habitat'' 
baseline and compared it to a ``with critical habitat'' scenario. The 
``without critical habitat'' baseline represented the current and 
expected economic activity under all modifications prior to the 
critical habitat designation, including protections afforded the 
species under Federal and State laws. The difference between the two 
scenarios measured the net change in economic activity attributable to 
the designation of critical habitat. The categories of potential costs 
considered in the analysis included the costs associated with (1) 
conducting section 7 consultations associated with the listing or with 
the critical habitat, including technical assistance; (2) modifications 
to projects, activities, or land uses resulting from the section 7 
consultations; (3) uncertainty and public perceptions resulting from 
the designation of critical habitat; and (4) potential offsetting 
beneficial costs associated with critical habitat including educational 
benefits.
    The majority of consultations resulting from the critical habitat 
designation for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat are likely to address 
land development, road construction or road expansion activities, sand 
and gravel mining activities, and water management activities. The 
draft analysis estimated that the critical habitat designation would 
not result in a significant economic impact, and estimated the 
potential economic effects due to the designation over a 10-year period 
ranging between $4.4 to $28.2 million.
    Following the close of the comment period on the draft economic 
analysis, a final addendum was completed which incorporated public 
comments on the draft analysis and a re-evaluation of the analysis of 
potential economic effects of the designation. Based on this new 
analysis, it was determined that there would be the potential for 
additional consultations and assistance over and above the estimate 
projected in the draft analysis. Subsequently, the addendum concluded 
that the designation may result in potential economic effects ranging 
from between $15.7 to $130.7 million over a 10-year period. The 
addendum concluded that economic impacts anticipated from the 
designation of critical habitat for the

[[Page 19833]]

San Bernardino kangaroo rat were not significant. Additionally, these 
values may be an overestimate of the potential economic effects of the 
designation because the analysis was based on the proposal, and the 
final critical habitat was reduced by approximately 8,900 ha (22,000 
ac), including several units proposed for designation.
    A more detailed discussion of our analyses are contained in the 
Draft Economic Analysis of Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (September 2001) and the Addendum to 
Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat (March 2002). Both documents are included in 
the supporting documentation for this rule making and available for 
inspection at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (refer to ADDRESSES 
Section).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This document is a significant rule and has been reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with Executive 
Order 12866.
    a. This rule, as designated, will not have an annual economic 
effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A 
cost-benefit and economic analysis therefore is not required. The San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat was listed as an endangered species in 1998. 
Since that time, we have conducted ten formal section 7 consultations 
with other Federal agencies to ensure that their actions would not 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
    The areas designated as critical habitat are within the geographic 
range occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and are considered 
predominately occupied, with less than 2.5 percent of the lands 
designated not known to be currently occupied. Under the Act, critical 
habitat may not be adversely modified by a Federal agency action; it 
does not impose any restrictions on non-Federal persons unless they are 
conducting activities funded or otherwise sponsored or permitted by a 
Federal agency. Section 7 requires Federal agencies to ensure that they 
do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Based upon 
our experience with this species and its needs, we conclude that any 
Federal action or authorized action that could potentially cause 
adverse modification of designated critical habitat would currently be 
considered as ``jeopardy'' under the Act. Accordingly, the designation 
of areas within the geographic range occupied by the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat has little, if any, incremental impacts on what actions 
may or may not be conducted by Federal agencies or non-Federal persons 
that receive Federal authorization or funding. Non-Federal persons who 
do not have a Federal ``sponsorship'' of their actions are not 
restricted by the designation of critical habitat although they 
continue to be bound by the provisions of the Act concerning ``take'' 
of the species. The designation of areas as critical habitat where 
section 7 consultations would not have occurred but for the critical 
habitat designation may have impacts on what actions may or may not be 
conducted by Federal agencies or non-Federal persons who receive 
Federal authorization or funding that are not attributable to the 
species listing. These impacts were evaluated in our economic analysis 
(under section 4 of the Act; see Economic Analysis section of this 
rule).
    b. This rule, as designated, will not create inconsistencies with 
other agencies' actions. As discussed above, Federal agencies have been 
required to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued 
existence of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat since the listing in 1998. 
The prohibition against adverse modification of critical habitat is not 
expected to impose any significant restrictions in addition to those 
that now exist in those areas currently known to be occupied by the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat, an estimated 97.5 percent of designated 
critical habitat. Because of the potential for impacts on other Federal 
agency activities, we will continue to review this action for any 
inconsistencies with other Federal agency actions.
    c. This rule, as designated, will not materially affect 
entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and 
obligations of their recipients. Federal agencies are required to 
ensure that their activities do not jeopardize the continued existence 
of the species, and, as discussed above, we do not anticipate that the 
adverse modification prohibition (resulting from critical habitat 
designation) will have any incremental effects in areas of occupied 
habitat.
    d. OMB has determined that this rule may raise novel legal or 
policy issues and, as a result, this rule has undergone OMB review. 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act (SBREFA) of 
1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking 
for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for 
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the 
effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small 
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
In this rule, we are certifying that the critical habitat designation 
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat will not have a significant effect 
on a substantial number of small entities. The following discussion 
explains our rationale.
    Small entities include small organizations, such as independent 
non-profit organizations, small governmental jurisdictions, including 
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 
50,000 residents, as well as small businesses. Small businesses include 
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, 
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and 
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general 
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in 
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual 
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to 
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of 
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule as 
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general, 
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical 
small business firm's business operations.
    Current activities with Federal involvement that may require 
consultation include: regulation of activities affecting waters of the 
United States by the ACOE under section 404 of the Clean Water Act; 
regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and channelization by 
any Federal agencies; regulation of grazing, mining, and recreation by 
the BLM, Forest Service, or the Service; road construction, 
maintenance, and right of way designation; regulation of agricultural 
activities; regulation of airport

[[Page 19834]]

improvement activities by the Federal Aviation Administration; hazard 
mitigation and post-disaster repairs funded by the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency; construction of communication sites licensed by the 
Federal Communications Commission; and activities funded by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, or any other 
Federal agency. In the Economic Analysis for the proposed rule, we 
found that the proposed designation could potentially impose total 
economic costs for consultations and modifications to projects to range 
between $15.7 to $130.7 million dollars over a ten year period.
    In determining whether this rule could ``significantly affect a 
substantial number of small entities,'' the Economic Analysis first 
determined whether critical habitat could potentially affect a 
``substantial number'' of small entities in counties supporting 
critical habitat areas. While SBREFA does not explicitly define 
``substantial number,'' the Small Business Administration, as well as 
other Federal agencies, have interpreted this to represent an impact on 
20 percent or greater of the number of small entities in any industry. 
Based on the past consultation history of the kangaroo rat, the 
economic analysis anticipated that the designation of critical habitat 
could affect small businesses associated with six different industries, 
including residential, commercial, and industrial development; mining 
for sand and gravel, airport activities, and water conservation and 
supply activities.
    To be conservative (i.e., more likely overstate impacts than 
understate them), the economic analysis assumed that a unique company 
will undertake each of the consultations forecasted in a given year, 
and so the number of businesses affected is equal to the total annual 
number of consultations projected in the economic analysis. The number 
of small business estimated to be impacted from the proposed rule range 
from less than one percent of commercial/retail development firms to 
almost eight percent of water conservation and supply firms. Because 
these estimates are far less than the 20 percent threshold that would 
be considered ``substantial,'' the analysis concludes that this 
designation will not affect a substantial number of small entities as a 
result of the designation of critical habitat for the San Bernardino 
kangaroo rat. The draft Economic Analysis and final Addendum contain 
the factual bases for this certification and contain a complete 
analysis of the potential economic affects of this designation. Copies 
of these documents are in the supporting record for the rulemaking and 
are available at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (refer to 
ADDRESSES section).
    In general, two different mechanisms in section 7 of the Act 
consultations could lead to additional regulatory requirements. First, 
if we conclude in a biological opinion, that a proposed action is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species or adversely 
modify its critical habitat, we will make every effort to offer 
``reasonable and prudent alternatives.'' Reasonable and prudent 
alternatives are alternative actions that can be implemented in a 
manner consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal 
authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically 
feasible, and that would avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of 
listed species or destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. A 
Federal agency and an applicant may elect to implement a reasonable and 
prudent alternative associated with a biological opinion that has found 
jeopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat. An agency or 
applicant could alternatively choose to seek an exemption from the 
requirements of the Act or proceed without implementing the reasonable 
and prudent alternative. However, unless an exemption was obtained, the 
Federal agency or applicant would be at risk of violating section 
7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed without implementing the 
reasonable and prudent alternatives. Second, if we find that a proposed 
action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed 
animal species, we may identify reasonable and prudent measures 
designed to minimize the amount or extent of take and require the 
Federal agency or applicant to implement such measures through non-
discretionary terms and conditions. We may also identify discretionary 
conservation recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse 
effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, 
help implement recovery plans, or to develop information that could 
contribute to the recovery of the species.
    Based on our experience with consultations pursuant to section 7 of 
the Act for all listed species, virtually all projects--including those 
that, in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or 
adverse modification determinations--can be implemented successfully 
with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and prudent alternatives. 
These measures, by definition, must be economically feasible and within 
the scope of authority of the Federal agency involved in the 
consultation. Nonetheless, the economic analysis provided an estimate 
of the number of small businesses that could experience significant 
economic impact. The analysis conservatively assumed the unit cost to a 
private party for participating in a section 7 consultation and any 
associated project modification was the upper-bound estimate identified 
in the analysis. Under such an assumption, the analysis concluded that 
less than two percent of small business could be significantly impacted 
by the proposed designation.
    In summary, we have considered whether this rule could result in 
significant economic effects on a substantial number of small entities. 
We have determined, for the above reasons, that it will not affect a 
substantial number of small entities. Furthermore, we believe that the 
potential compliance costs for the number of small entities that may be 
affected by this rule will not be significant. Therefore, we are 
certifying that the designation of critical habitat for the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. A regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required.

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

    As discussed above, this rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 
804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This 
final designation of critical habitat: (a) does not have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not cause a major 
increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, 
Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; 
and (c) does not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. As 
discussed in the economic analysis, the designation is anticipated to 
have a total estimated economic effect ranging between $15.7 to $130.7 
million over a 10-year period. Assuming that these costs are spread 
evenly over the period of analysis, annual effects to the economy could 
range between $1.6 and $13 million. Additionally, these values are very 
likely to be an overestimate of the potential economic effects of the 
designation because the economic analysis evaluated potential impacts 
associated with the area proposed as critical habitat and this area has 
been significantly reduced in this final rule.

[[Page 19835]]

    Proposed and final rules designating critical habitat for listed 
species are issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Competition, employment, 
investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based 
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises are not affected 
by this action and will not be affected by the final rule designating 
critical habitat for this species. Therefore, we anticipate that this 
final rule will not place significant additional burdens on any entity.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O. 
13211) which applies to regulations that significantly affect energy 
supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies 
to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain 
actions. The primary land uses within designated critical habitat 
include urban and agricultural development, water management and 
conservation facilities, and sand and gravel mining operations. 
Significant energy production, supply, and distribution facilities are 
not included within designated critical habitat. Therefore, this action 
does not represent a significant action effecting energy production, 
supply, and distribution facilities; and no Statement of Energy Effects 
is required. Additionally, the area designated as critical habitat is 
predominately considered to be occupied by the listed species, with 
only an estimated 2.5 percent of the designation not known to be 
currently occupied. Therefore, any consultation required pursuant to 
section 7 of the Act by a Federal agency undertaking an action in this 
area would likely be triggered by the presence of the listed species 
and not solely by this designation of critical habitat.

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

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

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
designating 13,485 ha (33,295 ac) of lands in Riverside and San 
Bernardino counties, California as critical habitat for the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat. The takings implications assessment concludes 
that this final designation of critical habitat does not pose 
significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the 
designation of critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. We will coordinate the designation of critical habitat for 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat with the appropriate State agencies. 
The designation of critical habitat in areas currently occupied by the 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat imposes no additional restrictions to those 
currently in place and, therefore, has little significant incremental 
impact on State and local governments and their activities. The 
designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the 
areas essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly 
defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary 
to the survival and conservation of the species are specifically 
identified. While making this definition and identification does not 
alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur, it may 
assist these local governments in long-range planning (rather than 
waiting for case-by-case consultations under section 7 of the Act to 
occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order. We designate critical habitat in accordance with the 
provisions of the Act. The rule uses standard property descriptions and 
identifies the primary constituent elements within the designated units 
to assist the public in understanding the habitat and conservation 
needs of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.

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

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not 
impose new record-keeping or reporting requirements on State or local 
governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may 
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
Control Number.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we 
are coordinating with federally recognized Tribes on a Government-to-
Government basis. Further, Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian 
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 
Endangered Species Act'' (1997) provides that critical habitat should 
not be designated in an area that may impact Tribal trust resources 
unless it is determined to be essential to the conservation of a listed 
species. The Secretarial Order further states that in designating 
critical habitat, ``the Service shall evaluate and document the extent 
to which the conservation needs of a listed species can be achieved by 
limiting the designation to other lands''.
    In our proposed critical habitat rule, we indicated that 
approximately 465 ha (1,150 ac) of lands within the Soboba

[[Page 19836]]

Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation in western Riverside County were 
essential for the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. In 
the development of the final critical habitat designation for the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we re-evaluated these Tribal lands to 
determine if they were essential to the conservation of the kangaroo 
rat and whether they should be designated as critical habitat. Based on 
distribution information for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat in the San 
Jacinto Wash, the continuity of kangaroo rat habitat extending up the 
tributaries adjacent to occupied habitat, and slope, vegetation, and 
disturbance information; we have re-defined the area designated as 
critical habitat on the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation. 
Additionally, we refined the 100 meter grid line used in the proposal 
to the essential critical habitat line along the edges of the two 
washes and the main portion of the river on Tribal land and removed 
from the designation a non-essential disturbed area on the western edge 
of Tribal lands on the north side of the river that is proposed for 
economic development. The result of this analysis and refinement was 
the reduction of critical habitat on Tribal land to 290 ha (710 ac). 
The remaining area on Tribal lands is essential to the conservation of 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat because it supports several populations 
and provides continuity between two adjacent areas of essential 
habitat.
    Currently the Soboba Band of LuiseNo Indians does not have a 
resource management plan which provides protection or conservation for 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and its' habitat. We are committed to 
maintaining a positive working relationship with the Tribe and will 
continue our attempts to work with them on developing a resource 
management plan for the Reservation including conservation measures for 
the kangaroo rat. However, due to time constraints for completing this 
final rule, the lack of an existing resource management plan covering 
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, we were required to finalize the 
designation based on our own analysis of the relative importance of the 
lands within the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation for the 
conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available upon request from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see 
ADDRESSES section).

Authors

    The primary authors of this designation are Douglas Krofta and Mark 
A. Elvin , Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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


    2. In Sec. 17.11(h) revise the entry for ``Kangaroo rat, San 
Bernardino Merriam's'' under ``MAMMALS'' to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Species                                                Vertebrate
----------------------------------------------------                      population where                                      Critical       Special
                                                       Historic range       endangered or       Status       When listed        habitat         rules
          Common name              Scientific Name                           threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Mammals
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Kangaroo rat, San Bernardino     Dipodomys merriami  U.S.A., CA........  Entire............  E             632E, 645        17.95(a)                  NA
 Merriam's..                      parvus.
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    3. Amend Sec. 17.95(a) by adding critical habitat for the San 
Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) in the same 
alphabetical order as this species occurs in Sec. 17.11 (h) to read as 
follows.


Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.

    (a) Mammals.
* * * * *
    San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus)
    (1) Critical Habitat Units are depicted for San Bernardino and 
Riverside counties, California, on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements for the 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat are those habitat components that are 
essential for the primary biological needs of the species. Based on our 
current knowledge of this species, the primary constituent elements 
include:
    (i) Soil series consisting predominantly of sand, loamy sand, sandy 
loam, or loam;
    (ii) Alluvial sage scrub and associated vegetation, such as coastal 
sage scrub and chamise chaparral, with a moderately open canopy.
    (iii) River, creek, stream, and wash channels; alluvial fans; 
floodplains; floodplain benches and terraces; and historic braided 
channels that are subject to dynamic geomorphological and hydrological 
processes typical of fluvial systems within the historical range of the 
San Bernardino kangaroo rat. These areas may include a mosaic of 
suitable and unsuitable soils and vegetation that either (A) occur at a 
scale smaller than the home range of the animal, or (B) form a series 
of core areas and linkages between them.
    (iv) Upland areas proximal to floodplains with suitable habitat 
(e.g., floodplains that support the soils, vegetation, or 
geomorphological, hydrological and aeolian processes essential to this 
species). These areas are essential due to their geographic proximity 
to suitable habitat and the functions they serve during flooding 
events. These areas may include marginal habitats such as agricultural 
lands that are disced annually, out-of-production vineyards, margins of 
orchards, areas of active or inactive industrial or resource extraction 
activities, and urban/wildland interfaces.

[[Page 19837]]

    (3) Existing features and structures, such as buildings, roads, 
railroads, airports, other paved areas, lawns, and other urban 
landscaped areas, do not contain one or more of the primary constituent 
elements. Federal actions limited to those areas, therefore, would not 
trigger a consultation under section 7 of the Act unless they affect 
the species and/or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical 
habitat.
    (4) Critical Habitat Map Units-Index Map Follows.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AP02.001
    
(5) Unit 1: Santa Ana River and Wash, San Bernardino County, California
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Harrison Mountain (1980), 
Yucaipa (1988), Redlands (1980), and San Bernardino South (1980), 
California, lands in the Santa Ana Wash bounded by the following 
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum 1927 (NAD27) 
coordinates (E, N): 482376, 3776863; 482520, 3777020; 482425, 3777267; 
482403, 3777426; 482590, 3777477; 482714, 3777417; 482755, 3777375; 
482793, 3777315; 482847, 3777277; 482942, 3777261; 482977, 3777201; 
483050, 3777175; 483142, 3777191; 483238, 3777159; 483282, 3777128; 
483285, 3777023; 483257, 3777023; 483250, 3776778; 483168, 3776763; 
483088, 3776797; 483003, 3776807; 482965, 3776855; 482885, 3777007; 
482841, 3777032; 482603, 3777036; 482552, 3776943; 482558, 3776715; 
482692, 3776286; 482708, 3776201; 482717, 3775426; 482568, 3775426; 
482435, 3775170; 482428, 3774953; 482444, 3774750; 482574, 3774556; 
483247, 3774550; 483244, 3773978; 484038, 3773981; 484038, 3773734; 
484746, 3773730; 484752, 3774140; 485628, 3774128; 485628, 3774419; 
485787, 3774423; 485787, 3774391; 486009, 3774391; 486006, 3774492; 
486073, 3774489; 486298, 3774362; 486270, 3774286; 486222, 3774267; 
486149, 3774267; 486108, 3774238; 486079, 3774194; 486076, 3774149; 
486197, 3774162; 486463, 3774356; 486717, 3774438; 486873, 3774496; 
486994, 3774578; 487038, 3774715; 487044, 3774848; 487022, 3774953; 
486994, 3774988; 487159, 3774981; 487194, 3774889; 487244, 3774788; 
487191, 3774543; 487111, 3774435; 486879, 3774229; 486848, 3774127; 
488140, 3773892; 488251, 3773835; 488324, 3773775; 488394, 3773680; 
488467, 3773622; 488546, 3773578; 488649, 3773548; 488651, 3773549; 
490156, 3773511; 490219, 3773476; 490121, 3773435; 490019, 3773387; 
489994, 3773356; 489896, 3773311; 489778, 3773356; 489730, 3773403; 
488597, 3773435; 488378, 3773286; 488384, 3773257; 488356, 3773124; 
488499, 3772708; 488645, 3772622; 489184, 3772616; 489762, 3772965; 
489816, 3773035; 490029, 3773124; 490134, 3773086; 490327, 3773191; 
490324, 3773372; 490296, 3773432; 490264, 3773480; 490248, 3773495; 
490334, 3773572; 490429, 3773562; 490585, 3773657; 490769, 3773784; 
490804, 3773934; 490826, 3774080; 490832, 3774172; 490804, 3774229; 
490762, 3774267; 490734, 3774330; 490937, 3774334; 490978, 3774105; 
490940, 3774038; 490943, 3773915;

[[Page 19838]]

490921, 3773870; 490921, 3773657; 490873, 3773613; 490845, 3773508; 
490842, 3773426; 490819, 3773381; 490769, 3773349; 490727, 3773267; 
490642, 3773241; 490569, 3773184; 490505, 3773175; 490442, 3773086; 
490346, 3773057; 490359, 3772927; 490340, 3772806; 490258, 3772683; 
490267, 3772549; 490458, 3772568; 490464, 3772540; 490496, 3772530; 
490540, 3772530; 490616, 3772521; 490629, 3772451; 490661, 3772416; 
490613, 3772368; 490581, 3772333; 490575, 3772273; 490518, 3772273; 
490458, 3772152; 490340, 3772156; 490302, 3772206; 490096, 3772210; 
490026, 3772159; 489896, 3772108; 489813, 3772063; 489692, 3772006; 
489686, 3771879; 489564, 3771905; 489632, 3771749; 489686, 3771495; 
489819, 3771419; 489857, 3771340; 490219, 3771117; 490331, 3771079; 
490442, 3770990; 490648, 3770905; 490661, 3770847; 490908, 3770813; 
491010, 3770670; 491029, 3770546; 491112, 3770517; 491162, 3770578; 
491334, 3770581; 491341, 3770971; 494610, 3770971; 494613, 3770968; 
494972, 3770971; 494972, 3770352; 494814, 3770279; 494690, 3770346; 
494509, 3770320; 494404, 3770295; 494261, 3770336; 494137, 3770295; 
494048, 3770279; 493950, 3770289; 493886, 3770266; 493712, 3770244; 
493591, 3770178; 493458, 3770152; 493375, 3770117; 493302, 3770162; 
493172, 3770162; 493128, 3770181; 493036, 3770105; 492909, 3770120; 
492883, 3770197; 492813, 3770197; 492709, 3770155; 492134, 3770149; 
492134, 3770091; 490908, 3770079; 490905, 3769879; 490851, 3769847; 
490762, 3769835; 490750, 3769676; 490334, 3769679; 490334, 3769768; 
490242, 3769812; 489473, 3769825; 489476, 3769895; 489381, 3769917; 
489384, 3770105; 489305, 3770105; 489308, 3770308; 489130, 3770482; 
488901, 3770496; 488892, 3771333; 488086, 3771340; 488079, 3770917; 
488010, 3770917; 488006, 3771006; 487810, 3771013; 487810, 3771359; 
487705, 3771384; 487689, 3771314; 487268, 3771322; 487289, 3771375; 
487260, 3771394; 487260, 3771428; 485895, 3771419; 485898, 3771359; 
485965, 3771355; 485965, 3771241; 486556, 3771254; 486555, 3770949; 
485673, 3770955; 485670, 3771346; 485568, 3771349; 485492, 3771305; 
485362, 3771216; 485327, 3771254; 485241, 3771209; 485212, 3771219; 
484946, 3771219; 484822, 3771289; 484705, 3771317; 484492, 3771314; 
484432, 3771277; 484311, 3771273; 484149, 3771336; 484101, 3771336; 
483952, 3771292; 483790, 3771289; 483663, 3771314; 483460, 3771384; 
483428, 3771359; 482958, 3771352; 482958, 3771590; 483060, 3771565; 
483079, 3771676; 482736, 3771752; 482723, 3771717; 482555, 3771806; 
482434, 3771863; 482384, 3771863; 482374, 3771914; 482234, 3771921; 
482207, 3771948; 482206, 3772010; 482142, 3772010; 482050, 3772111; 
481555, 3772114; 481549, 3772016; 481399, 3772010; 481263, 3771981; 
481104, 3771908; 480841, 3771816; 480834, 3772000; 480780, 3771952; 
480720, 3771930; 480710, 3771886; 480609, 3771911; 480517, 3772168; 
480250, 3772165; 479914, 3772133; 479637, 3772089; 479282, 3772025; 
479231, 3771987; 479221, 3771808; 479056, 3771752; 478859, 3771749; 
478793, 3771708; 478602, 3771616; 478367, 3771619; 478285, 3771568; 
477843, 3771295; 477777, 3771241; 477688, 3771216; 477605, 3771187; 
477389, 3771124; 477250, 3771070; 477250, 3771016; 477189, 3771016; 
477094, 3770968; 476993, 3770914; 476869, 3770886; 476735, 3770847; 
476583, 3770933; 476488, 3770955; 476459, 3770892; 476354, 3770876; 
476192, 3770714; 476103, 3770607; 476097, 3770613; 475954, 3770609; 
475856, 3770625; 475802, 3770584; 475732, 3770539; 475618, 3770498; 
475551, 3770466; 475345, 3770441; 475288, 3770406; 475183, 3770298; 
475094, 3770206; 475069, 3770130; 474992, 3770108; 474983, 3770054; 
474954, 3770031; 474910, 3769895; 474910, 3769714; 474837, 3769676; 
474789, 3769714; 474770, 3769695; 474773, 3769673; 474726, 3769628; 
474691, 3769631; 474707, 3769679; 474630, 3769679; 474618, 3769641; 
474376, 3769638; 474380, 3769755; 474107, 3769714; 474043, 3769720; 
473703, 3769673; 473640, 3769673; 473468, 3769619; 473462, 3769514; 
473351, 3769476; 473354, 3769390; 472983, 3769374; 472970, 3769438; 
472960, 3769784; 473268, 3769777; 473313, 3769793; 473322, 3769825; 
473395, 3769889; 473706, 3769885; 474348, 3769962; 474392, 3770019; 
474938, 3770327; 475043, 3770498; 475132, 3770590; 475367, 3770765; 
475497, 3770873; 475789, 3771032; 475980, 3771136; 476123, 3771187; 
476147, 3771188; 476151, 3771273; 476132, 3771397; 476151, 3772200; 
476373, 3772200; 476373, 3771873; 476608, 3771752; 476621, 3771686; 
476615, 3771622; 476631, 3771502; 476866, 3771508; 476869, 3771692; 
477113, 3771692; 477062, 3771508; 477602, 3771505; 477609, 3771667; 
477742, 3771759; 477777, 3771797; 478307, 3772086; 478291, 3772156; 
478320, 3772203; 477942, 3772197; 477732, 3772137; 477310, 3771968; 
477224, 3771902; 476910, 3771787; 476786, 3771768; 476697, 3771787; 
476561, 3772054; 476520, 3772130; 476475, 3772162; 476415, 3772197; 
476427, 3772210; 476805, 3772219; 476805, 3772140; 476831, 3772105; 
476958, 3772079; 476983, 3772019; 478345, 3772489; 478421, 3772356; 
478466, 3772375; 478399, 3772508; 479386, 3772864; 479386, 3772865; 
479860, 3773022; 479841, 3773105; 479901, 3773184; 479872, 3773264; 
479866, 3773391; 480034, 3773384; 480028, 3773784; 480809, 3773743; 
480809, 3773391; 481009, 3773572; 481628, 3774302; 481626, 3774304; 
481726, 3774429; 481707, 3774543; 481803, 3774556; 482047, 3774997; 
482076, 3775099; 482079, 3775324; 482168, 3775331; 482228, 3775531; 
482438, 3776058; 482447, 3776499; 482422, 3776705; returning to 482376, 
3776863.
    (ii) Map Unit 1 follows.

[[Page 19839]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AP02.002

(6) Unit 2: Lytle and Cajon Creeks, San Bernardino County, California
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps San Bernardino South (1980), 
San Bernardino North (1988), Devore (1988), and Cajon (1988), 
California. Subunit 2a: Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 
coordinates (E,N): 459113, 3789417; 459304, 3789431; 459431, 3789507; 
459586, 3789387; 459850, 3789253; 459989, 3788993; 460389, 3788590; 
460586, 3788491; 460786, 3788294; 460888, 3788218; 461088, 3788082; 
461196, 3787990; 461826, 3787406; 461831, 3787409; 461999, 3787259; 
462221, 3787075; 462412, 3786923; 462533, 3786856; 462701, 3786742; 
463028, 3786459; 463101, 3786027; 463079, 3785989; 463291, 3785821; 
463555, 3785580; 463799, 3785084; 463907, 3784954; 464007, 3784892; 
464444, 3784653; 464577, 3784557; 464717, 3784399; 464780, 3784281; 
464898, 3783910; 464974, 3783770; 465104, 3783608; 465231, 3783510; 
465565, 3783252; 465473, 3782871; 465504, 3782792; 465806, 3782557; 
465850, 3782579; 466040, 3782336; 466174, 3782446; 465946, 3781582; 
466523, 3781300; 466555, 3781373; 467520, 3781351; 467581, 3781265; 
466800, 3780408; 466500, 3780067; 466581, 3779690; 466679, 3779392; 
466733, 3779382; 466790, 3779293; 466882, 3779236; 466882, 3779125; 
466917, 3779115; 466914, 3779058; 466978, 3779039; 466987, 3778992; 
467139, 3778992; 467149, 3778738; 467387, 3778725; 467597, 3778496; 
467752, 3778493; 467759, 3778339; 468060, 3778026; 468174, 3777982; 
468181, 3777512; 468387, 3776995; 468476, 3776804; 469061, 3775917; 
469184, 3775791; 469235, 3775769; 469775, 3775232; 469756, 3775201; 
469660, 3775245; 469705, 3775074; 469752, 3775026; 469752, 3774632; 
469781, 3774505; 469787, 3774296; 469822, 3774175; 469857, 3774172; 
469857, 3774035; 469787, 3774020; 469711, 3773972; 469619, 3773883; 
469492, 3773835; 469371, 3773845; 469206, 3773858; 469051, 3773861; 
468676, 3773864; 468721, 3773959; 468778, 3774035; 468876, 3774175; 
468924, 3774286; 468806, 3774512; 468736, 3774620; 468711, 3774712; 
468609, 3774909; 468524, 3775067; 468524, 3775107; 468432, 3775140; 
468244, 3775290; 468111, 3775410; 468086, 3775483; 467927, 3775480; 
467822, 3775620; 467822, 3775759; 467511, 3776109; 467409, 3776210; 
467298, 3776293; 467279, 3776468; 467219, 3776566; 467139, 3776652; 
467130, 3776922; 467060, 3777055; 467076, 3777088; 467720, 3777090; 
466571, 3777823; 466444, 3777664; 466492, 3777566; 466324, 3777539; 
466333, 3777480; 466165, 3777626; 466019, 3777741; 465958, 3777861; 
465860, 3777918; 465774, 3777982; 465730, 3778071; 465777, 3778103; 
465920, 3777985; 465955, 3777979; 465971, 3777963; 466012, 3777938; 
466035, 3777950; 466038, 3777985; 466006, 3778058; 465755, 3778449; 
465727, 3778442; 465688, 3778465; 465669, 3778519; 465685, 3778550; 
465787, 3778512; 465930, 3778449; 466041, 3778382; 466139, 3778315; 
466254, 3778246; 466311, 3778223; 466349, 3778312; 466416, 3778239; 
466447, 3778220; 466374, 3778315; 466295, 3778407; 466190, 3778487; 
465888, 3778630; 465644, 3778734; 465406, 3778830; 465269, 3778858; 
465158, 3778852; 464914, 3778785; 464831, 3778938; 464723,

[[Page 19840]]

3778950; 464733, 3779049; 464542, 3779074; 464526, 3778944; 464336, 
3779004; 464164, 3779077; 463841, 3779195; 463717, 3779033; 463391, 
3779251; 463390, 3779249; 461605, 3780611; 461205, 3780906; 460802, 
3781211; 460285, 3781589; 460291, 3779531; 461520, 3779519; 461513, 
3778728; 458277, 3778734; 458265, 3777938; 457072, 3777928; 457078, 
3778754; 456268, 3778757; 456268, 3779023; 456916, 3779662; 457415, 
3780160; 457805, 3780547; 458294, 3780982; 458196, 3781046; 458459, 
3781446; 458537, 3781640; 458554, 3781636; 458672, 3781776; 458789, 
3781894; 458872, 3781913; 458929, 3781967; 459154, 3782059; 459192, 
3782141; 459240, 3782205; 459240, 3782236; 459281, 3782316; 459361, 
3782319; 459491, 3782383; 459631, 3782671; 459033, 3784051; 458605, 
3784586; 458377, 3784681; 458300, 3784792; 458246, 3784830; 458132, 
3784929; 458094, 3785030; 457964, 3785189; 457884, 3785411; 457898, 
3785557; 457875, 3785586; 457786, 3785678; 457754, 3785739; 457710, 
3785761; 457621, 3785780; 457532, 3785821; 457475, 3785894; 457519, 
3786046; 457459, 3786085; 457440, 3786227; 457392, 3786227; 457319, 
3786313; 457297, 3786367; 457173, 3786424; 457110, 3786510; 456999, 
3786574; 456995, 3786669; 456980, 3786786; 456891, 3786888; 456865, 
3787028; 456786, 3787082; 456675, 3787170; 456633, 3787256; 456525, 
3787339; 456478, 3787399; 456392, 3787370; 456208, 3787466; 455938, 
3787488; 455865, 3787456; 455738, 3787612; 455671, 3787634; 455525, 
3787713; 455640, 3787815; 455754, 3787847; 456059, 3787764; 456157, 
3787704; 456332, 3787653; 456472, 3787567; 456570, 3787590; 456754, 
3787586; 456935, 3787523; 457014, 3787466; 457065, 3787351; 457129, 
3787158; 457167, 3787018; 457164, 3786910; 457136, 3786794; 457237, 
3786701; 457192, 3786647; 457205, 3786564; 457411, 3786459; 457576, 
3786269; 457586, 3786132; 457640, 3786034; 457767, 3785929; 457926, 
3785843; 458059, 3785678; 458091, 3785596; 458043, 3785485; 458097, 
3785377; 458100, 3785243; 458208, 3785065; 458294, 3784980; 458361, 
3784916; 458450, 3784888; 458523, 3784846; 458596, 3784783; 458681, 
3784745; 458705, 3784707; 458707, 3784710; 458888, 3784659; 458999, 
3784589; 459027, 3784500; 459065, 3784478; 459126, 3784510; 459199, 
3784494; 459256, 3784424; 459265, 3784342; 459342, 3784265; 459367, 
3784192; 459440, 3784148; 459548, 3784021; 459653, 3783967; 459742, 
3783884; 459831, 3783751; 459891, 3783707; 459958, 3783592; 459932, 
3783529; 459945, 3783440; 460012, 3783405; 460072, 3783357; 460174, 
3783449; 460358, 3783424; 460526, 3783405; 460685, 3783389; 460704, 
3783313; 461224, 3783532; 461437, 3783640; 461539, 3783824; 461437, 
3784119; 461342, 3784119; 461342, 3784335; 461256, 3784408; 461126, 
3784415; 461123, 3784453; 461158, 3784449; 461183, 3784503; 460894, 
3784649; 460818, 3784710; 460707, 3784738; 460561, 3784872; 460459, 
3784903; 460437, 3784983; 460380, 3784999; 460297, 3785059; 460231, 
3785065; 460237, 3785164; 460370, 3785164; 460370, 3785218; 460408, 
3785224; 460497, 3785157; 460599, 3785091; 460739, 3785018; 460904, 
3784938; 460915, 3784876; 461053, 3784796; 461158, 3784792; 461256, 
3784710; 461377, 3784691; 461482, 3784688; 461580, 3784732; 461707, 
3784691; 461783, 3784630; 461736, 3784516; 462031, 3784421; 462117, 
3784338; 462079, 3784278; 462040, 3784021; 462085, 3783922; 462063, 
3783824; 462190, 3783691; 462244, 3783624; 462231, 3783560; 462225, 
3783491; 462120, 3783478; 462021, 3783418; 462025, 3783386; 462050, 
3783332; 462059, 3783256; 462088, 3783227; 462171, 3783249; 462253, 
3783195; 462259, 3783157; 462345, 3783125; 462406, 3783106; 462488, 
3783078; 462520, 3783030; 462504, 3782973; 462567, 3782948; 462640, 
3782998; 462688, 3782967; 462720, 3782913; 462752, 3782805; 462834, 
3782798; 462891, 3782751; 462971, 3782633; 463136, 3782550; 463190, 
3782405; 463231, 3782271; 463361, 3782179; 463399, 3782065; 463498, 
3781973; 463698, 3781884; 463749, 3781897; 463834, 3781830; 463888, 
3781668; 464022, 3781560; 464037, 3781481; 464028, 3781392; 464123, 
3781303; 464161, 3781306; 464184, 3781338; 464145, 3781392; 464193, 
3781401; 464241, 3781440; 464307, 3781379; 464323, 3781341; 464253, 
3781278; 464339, 3781160; 464393, 3781208; 464457, 3781157; 464520, 
3781274; 464603, 3781395; 464574, 3781763; 465028, 3781932; 464907, 
3782252; 464269, 3782910; 464190, 3783084; 464193, 3783145; 464101, 
3783376; 464111, 3783440; 464171, 3783532; 464225, 3783529; 464241, 
3783500; 464326, 3783487; 464266, 3783649; 464238, 3783776; 464247, 
3783868; 464215, 3783967; 464174, 3784068; 464066, 3784218; 464003, 
3784364; 463863, 3784526; 463803, 3784675; 463717, 3784773; 463599, 
3784846; 463305, 3784949; 463329, 3785011; 463006, 3785227; 462847, 
3785361; 462691, 3785459; 462602, 3785446; 462412, 3785259; 462228, 
3785504; 462085, 3785592; 461939, 3785993; 461186, 3786878; 461063, 
3787052; 460069, 3787796; 459742, 3788031; 459446, 3788285; 459278, 
3788456; 459183, 3788777; 459124, 3788860; 458713, 3789091; 458329, 
3789295; 457795, 3789745; 457700, 3789815; 457484, 3789895; 457268, 
3789996; 457059, 3790177; 456986, 3790282; 456900, 3790431; 456837, 
3790555; 456786, 3790634; 456748, 3790828; 456719, 3791025; 456719, 
3791139; 456767, 3791254; 456849, 3791320; 456979, 3791307; 457103, 
3791234; 457103, 3791079; 457145, 3790911; 457233, 3790736; 457389, 
3790561; 457576, 3790368; 457878, 3790180; 458180, 3790069; 458456, 
3790037; 458548, 3789955; 458846, 3789790; returning to 459113, 
3789417.
    (ii) Subunit 2b: Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 465795, 3784148; 464554, 3785327; 463276, 3786555; 
463400, 3786918; 463325, 3786939; 463416, 3787252; 463416, 3787310; 
463445, 3787388; 463849, 3787384; 463804, 3787314; 463869, 3787268; 
463948, 3787260; 464187, 3787194; 464389, 3786988; 464385, 3786901; 
464389, 3786815; 464286, 3786695; 464298, 3786638; 464381, 3786605; 
464488, 3786695; 464541, 3786811; 464438, 3786856; 464541, 3786984; 
464673, 3786984; 464682, 3786889; 465081, 3786885; 465090, 3786786; 
465288, 3786691; 465490, 3786592; 465461, 3786559; 465283, 3786242; 
465292, 3786102; 465263, 3785962; 465366, 3785891; 465292, 3785702; 
465527, 3785558; 465572, 3785652; 465704, 3785586; 465626, 3785166; 
465799, 3784939; 465997, 3784778; 466128, 3784700; 465906, 3784280; 
465881, 3784300; returning to 465795, 3784148.
    (iii) Subunit 2c: Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 469615, 3782014; 469536, 3782017; 469485, 3782090; 
469415, 3782141; 469345, 3782214; 469298, 3782239; 469263, 3782293; 
469193, 3782309; 469117, 3782335; 469025, 3782325; 468942, 3782370; 
468844, 3782401; 468812, 3782417; 468777, 3782376; 468625, 3782490; 
468564, 3782643; 468548, 3783024; 468558, 3783141; 468609, 3783195; 
468609, 3783281; 468723, 3783446; 468859, 3783671; 468910, 3783700; 
468913, 3783789; 468936, 3783881; 469012, 3783894; 469021, 3784090; 
469107, 3784087; 469209, 3784198; 469231, 3784284; 469599, 3784284; 
469625, 3784173; 469901, 3783989; 469980, 3783881; 469898, 3783811; 
469968, 3783735; 470009, 3783773; 470187, 3783732; 470209, 3783662; 
470295, 3783646;

[[Page 19841]]

470295, 3783547; 470402, 3783528; 470498, 3783484; 470580, 3783436; 
470669, 3783427; 470761, 3783354; 470783, 3783325; 470933, 3783252; 
470980, 3783236; 471003, 3783192; 471164, 3783093; 471244, 3783068; 
471330, 3783036; 471333, 3783001; 471218, 3782941; 471111, 3782966; 
470907, 3782951; 470841, 3782925; 470803, 3782931; 470749, 3782855; 
470720, 3782843; 470742, 3782763; 470701, 3782773; 470688, 3782709; 
470730, 3782643; 470730, 3782624; 470695, 3782535; 470822, 3782439; 
470749, 3782312; 470710, 3782325; 470669, 3782363; 470564, 3782414; 
470469, 3782411; 470406, 3782439; 470352, 3782471; 470314, 3782500; 
470263, 3782538; 470250, 3782652; 470196, 3782671; 470123, 3782649; 
470056, 3782611; 469996, 3782614; 469907, 3782703; 469882, 3782744; 
469872, 3782824; 469828, 3782833; 469694, 3782808; 469618, 3782776; 
469653, 3782646; 469688, 3782420; 469685, 3782214; 469704, 3782144; 
returning to 469615, 3782014.
    (iv) Map Unit 2 follows.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AP02.003
    
(7) Unit 3: San Jacinto River and Bautista Creek, Riverside County, 
California.
    (i) From USGS quadrangle maps Blackburn Canyon (1988), Hemet 
(1979), Lake Fulmor (1988), San Jacinto (1979), and Lakeview (1979), 
California, land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 
493757, 3745718; 494287, 3745394; 494490, 3745290; 494890, 3745061; 
495084, 3744988; 495258, 3744978; 495389, 3744997; 495671, 3745096; 
495938, 3745159; 496074, 3745175; 496284, 3745159; 496494, 3745077; 
496601, 3744994; 496605, 3744994; 496884, 3744791; 497078, 3744689; 
497287, 3744588; 497468, 3744524; 498024, 3744420; 498386, 3744293; 
498541, 3744264; 499291, 3743826; 499484, 3743673; 499767, 3743564; 
499780, 3744556; 499840, 3744728; 499846, 3744832; 499980, 3744820; 
500081, 3744769; 500189, 3744693; 500278, 3744610; 500389, 3744572; 
500564, 3744359; 500722, 3744178; 500872, 3743931; 500811, 3743943; 
500745, 3743924; 500716, 3743762; 500751, 3743600; 500840, 3743489; 
500789, 3743419; 500735, 3743213; 501688, 3742689; 502148, 3742442; 
502262, 3742356; 502402, 3742293; 502415, 3742359; 502551, 3742273; 
502650, 3742257; 502824, 3742232; 502932, 3742194; 503088, 3742086; 
503164, 3742197; 503285, 3742095; 503358, 3742061; 503443, 3742073; 
503548, 3741994; 503650, 3741956; 503758, 3741788; 503875, 3741689; 
503964, 3741651; 503967, 3741594; 504028, 3741553; 504155, 3741530; 
504171, 3741489; 504218, 3741467; 504275, 3741407; 504282, 3741302; 
504666, 3741140; 504742, 3741076; 504872, 3740959; 505126, 3740886; 
505282, 3740778; 505475, 3740676; 505522, 3740595; 505529, 3740594; 
505612, 3740521; 505701, 3740400; 505853, 3740261; 505888, 3740191; 
505920, 3740064; 505710, 3739854; 505787, 3739594; 505891, 3739286; 
505971, 3739076; 506107, 3739054; 506145, 3738987; 506250, 3738876; 
506247, 3738686;

[[Page 19842]]

506285, 3738495; 506282, 3738310; 506514, 3737927; 506580, 3737886; 
506695, 3737835; 506822, 3737844; 506911, 3737879; 506799, 3737711; 
506841, 3737495; 508047, 3736292; 508323, 3736200; 508514, 3736285; 
508812, 3736886; 508812, 3736889; 508911, 3737082; 509012, 3737187; 
509114, 3737387; 509212, 3737489; 509311, 3737587; 509412, 3737692; 
509635, 3737848; 509714, 3737889; 509835, 3737997; 509857, 3737968; 
509927, 3737956; 510241, 3738168; 510194, 3738248; 510311, 3738292; 
510416, 3738387; 510517, 3738686; 510613, 3738886; 510727, 3738991; 
510724, 3739178; 510740, 3739264; 510886, 3739194; 510990, 3738991; 
511175, 3738956; 511181, 3738873; 511155, 3738784; 511048, 3738768; 
510917, 3738819; 510813, 3738829; 510749, 3738781; 510746, 3738552; 
510695, 3738432; 510690, 3738316; 510295, 3737921; 510155, 3737632; 
510098, 3737613; 510041, 3737603; 509978, 3737622; 509800, 3737629; 
509755, 3737600; 509692, 3737540; 509673, 3737428; 509508, 3737394; 
509479, 3737336; 509406, 3737301; 509339, 3737238; 509260, 3737152; 
509266, 3737092; 509206, 3737003; 509193, 3736917; 509171, 3736870; 
509104, 3736822; 509012, 3736806; 509009, 3736765; 508990, 3736717; 
508895, 3736644; 508838, 3736549; 508793, 3736517; 508708, 3736314; 
509292, 3736095; 509581, 3735990; 510067, 3735958; 510089, 3736000; 
510038, 3736057; 510238, 3736000; 510333, 3735987; 510419, 3736063; 
510492, 3736028; 510492, 3735971; 510584, 3735952; 510733, 3735863; 
510743, 3735803; 511019, 3735758; 511140, 3735755; 511381, 3735479; 
511629, 3735457; 511803, 3735485; 511898, 3735523; 512064, 3735543; 
512238, 3735549; 512448, 3735520; 512616, 3735520; 512702, 3735504; 
512832, 3735517; 512908, 3735584; 513013, 3735638; 513305, 3735685; 
513410, 3735784; 513508, 3735892; 513613, 3735990; 513673, 3736133; 
513692, 3736276; 513711, 3736384; 513813, 3736489; 513851, 3736568; 
514004, 3736574; 514137, 3736520; 514188, 3736393; 514175, 3736305; 
514118, 3736193; 514140, 3736101; 514115, 3736016; 513794, 3736016; 
513689, 3735917; 513667, 3735828; 513616, 3735733; 513569, 3735673; 
513505, 3735530; 513454, 3735485; 513369, 3735444; 513235, 3735406; 
513162, 3735352; 513108, 3735273; 512978, 3735212; 512851, 3735231; 
512626, 3735216; 512467, 3735231; 512410, 3735311; 512197, 3735327; 
512095, 3735289; 511975, 3735219; 511822, 3735235; 511733, 3735266; 
511600, 3735279; 511419, 3735343; 511359, 3735343; 511308, 3735320; 
511311, 3735282; 511343, 3735216; 511435, 3735139; 511546, 3735076; 
511638, 3735009; 511648, 3735009; 511800, 3734866; 511899, 3734806; 
511933, 3734739; 512051, 3734692; 512184, 3734581; 512387, 3734390; 
512578, 3734346; 512683, 3734285; 513191, 3734155; 513292, 3734082; 
513448, 3734028; 513581, 3734028; 513664, 3733980; 513800, 3733888; 
513905, 3733860; 514054, 3733844; 514188, 3733765; 514283, 3733688; 
514362, 3733663; 514381, 3733580; 514483, 3733479; 514740, 3733476; 
514800, 3733447; 515013, 3733431; 515067, 3733469; 515156, 3733460; 
515181, 3733358; 515489, 3733288; 515769, 3733272; 515855, 3733263; 
516004, 3733155; 516086, 3733088; 516290, 3732980; 516566, 3732964; 
516680, 3732866; 517020, 3732860; 517087, 3732774; 517194, 3732685; 
517277, 3732583; 517385, 3732491; 517458, 3732396; 517636, 3732228; 
517868, 3732193; 517931, 3732266; 518134, 3732174; 518058, 3732069; 
517979, 3732037; 517956, 3731993; 517899, 3731974; 517880, 3731879; 
517909, 3731796; 517972, 3731733; 518160, 3731720; 518220, 3731745; 
518347, 3731748; 518439, 3731704; 518557, 3731602; 518576, 3731494; 
518664, 3731440; 518703, 3731364; 518833, 3731348; 518839, 3731307; 
518776, 3731278; 518718, 3731218; 518718, 3731174; 518798, 3731110; 
518899, 3731066; 519007, 3731047; 519087, 3730993; 519150, 3730961; 
519188, 3730894; 519280, 3730790; 519334, 3730751; 519468, 3730688; 
519547, 3730669; 519719, 3730675; 519763, 3730624; 519782, 3730494; 
519820, 3730421; 519900, 3730377; 519988, 3730393; 520062, 3730342; 
520087, 3729986; 520112, 3729955; 520071, 3729920; 520004, 3729939; 
519814, 3730120; 519652, 3730135; 519614, 3730209; 519515, 3730316; 
519417, 3730415; 519052, 3730434; 519014, 3730513; 518915, 3730612; 
518817, 3730710; 518718, 3730758; 518391, 3730853; 518315, 3730910; 
518249, 3730999; 518017, 3731228; 517988, 3731345; 517810, 3731520; 
517585, 3732015; 517469, 3732053; 517287, 3732275; 517198, 3732333; 
517121, 3732412; 516766, 3732447; 516706, 3732517; 516607, 3732517; 
516528, 3732495; 516410, 3732523; 516315, 3732571; 516261, 3732641; 
516172, 3732714; 516016, 3732812; 515623, 3732812; 515432, 3732831; 
515216, 3732923; 515007, 3733012; 514610, 3733114; 514315, 3733209; 
514312, 3733206; 514312, 3733209; 513911, 3733314; 513553, 3733387; 
513546, 3733555; 513521, 3733653; 513473, 3733663; 513403, 3733638; 
513213, 3733634; 513203, 3733787; 512762, 3733790; 512759, 3733647; 
512407, 3733825; 512394, 3733869; 512143, 3734063; 512041, 3734114; 
511689, 3734133; 511686, 3734238; 511591, 3734276; 511410, 3734414; 
511219, 3734419; 511219, 3734511; 511111, 3734609; 511013, 3734708; 
510940, 3734815; 510822, 3735015; 510781, 3735015; 510743, 3735250; 
510717, 3735409; 510679, 3735489; 510559, 3735619; 509971, 3735641; 
509971, 3735523; 509419, 3735520; 509333, 3735571; 509324, 3735641; 
509035, 3735758; 508825, 3735758; 508825, 3735708; 508657, 3735708; 
508650, 3735257; 508692, 3735114; 508768, 3734993; 508835, 3734758; 
508885, 3734657; 509041, 3734438; 509146, 3734393; 509165, 3734311; 
509238, 3734250; 509279, 3734241; 509362, 3734155; 509371, 3734120; 
509714, 3733777; 509716, 3733777; 509800, 3733561; 509790, 3733003; 
509841, 3732783; 509965, 3732568; 510248, 3732228; 510429, 3731977; 
511070, 3731974; 511076, 3731901; 511187, 3731647; 511279, 3731494; 
511486, 3731291; 511689, 3731183; 512076, 3731145; 512391, 3730986; 
512603, 3730942; 512683, 3730885; 512835, 3730840; 512867, 3730767; 
512845, 3730663; 512791, 3730599; 512718, 3730574; 512572, 3730551; 
512419, 3730593; 512286, 3730643; 512051, 3730640; 511984, 3730612; 
511949, 3730510; 512029, 3730472; 512035, 3730409; 511959, 3730345; 
512010, 3730297; 512168, 3730224; 512267, 3730142; 512410, 3730091; 
512591, 3729993; 512788, 3729885; 512978, 3729767; 513280, 3729497; 
513714, 3729078; 513781, 3729056; 513858, 3728977; 513962, 3728935; 
513972, 3728802; 514159, 3728535; 514175, 3728297; 514331, 3727986; 
514296, 3727897; 514305, 3727764; 514350, 3727627; 514350, 3727576; 
514391, 3727507; 514632, 3727494; 514683, 3727392; 514696, 3727297; 
514845, 3727275; 514870, 3727100; 514845, 3727084; 514797, 3727145; 
514740, 3727145; 514740, 3727034; 514769, 3726945; 514835, 3726907; 
514937, 3726780; 514950, 3726662; 515012, 3726596; 515029, 3726497; 
515083, 3726395; 515210, 3726335; 515251, 3726300; 515331, 3726329; 
515429, 3726291; 515477, 3726205; 515391, 3726151; 515394, 3726056; 
515423, 3725979; 515429, 3725903; 515502, 3725770; 515563, 3725713; 
515617, 3725694; 515766, 3725681; 515782, 3725656; 515829, 3725643; 
515845, 3725598; 515744, 3725598; 515661, 3725608; 515661, 3725567;

[[Page 19843]]

515696, 3725490; 515750, 3725475; 515782, 3725433; 515763, 3725376; 
515766, 3725313; 515804, 3725233; 515867, 3725233; 515855, 3725176; 
515794, 3725119; 515817, 3725055; 515896, 3724960; 515988, 3724887; 
516058, 3724906; 516096, 3724884; 516147, 3724836; 516204, 3724681; 
516315, 3724617; 516388, 3724589; 516487, 3724481; 516566, 3724440; 
516566, 3724386; 516490, 3724316; 516464, 3724252; 516407, 3724233; 
516226, 3724319; 516147, 3724300; 516039, 3724351; 516042, 3724389; 
515829, 3724617; 515626, 3724805; 515528, 3724894; 515540, 3724979; 
515566, 3725014; 515563, 3725176; 515585, 3725259; 515569, 3725376; 
515512, 3725522; 515423, 3725563; 515445, 3725659; 515359, 3725770; 
515318, 3725843; 515255, 3725935; 515251, 3726068; 515242, 3726129; 
515191, 3726198; 515102, 3726243; 515020, 3726303; 514956, 3726383; 
514880, 3726510; 514832, 3726606; 514835, 3726738; 514651, 3726853; 
514616, 3727011; 514559, 3727173; 514486, 3727338; 514397, 3727338; 
514286, 3727361; 514220, 3727453; 514210, 3727522; 514169, 3727576; 
514134, 3727576; 514102, 3727519; 514051, 3727526; 514010, 3727608; 
513943, 3727621; 513921, 3727691; 513940, 3727894; 513915, 3728015; 
513848, 3728129; 513785, 3728278; 513686, 3728342; 513626, 3728421; 
513610, 3728507; 513416, 3728735; 513321, 3728770; 513302, 3728815; 
513213, 3728856; 513156, 3728907; 513016, 3728992; 512940, 3729056; 
512908, 3729119; 512793, 3729145; 512749, 3729186; 512638, 3729234; 
512603, 3729313; 512502, 3729323; 512378, 3729485; 512238, 3729558; 
512207, 3729605; 512172, 3729643; 512184, 3729974; 511597, 3730437; 
511051, 3731015; 510727, 3731390; 510724, 3731390; 510724, 3731393; 
510254, 3732104; 509952, 3732472; 509813, 3732685; 509755, 3732869; 
509730, 3733041; 509733, 3733476; 509720, 3733618; 509689, 3733676; 
509505, 3733822; 509247, 3733824; 509247, 3734057; 509095, 3734190; 
508854, 3734200; 508825, 3734463; 508743, 3734584; 508670, 3734733; 
508590, 3734939; 508498, 3735177; 508419, 3735352; 508333, 3735450; 
508374, 3735530; 508431, 3735584; 508422, 3735733; 508288, 3735855; 
508000, 3735892; 507828, 3735958; 507180, 3735955; 506825, 3736327; 
506952, 3736460; 506911, 3736495; 506876, 3736470; 506850, 3736492; 
506822, 3736470; 506752, 3736543; 506682, 3736470; 506358, 3736768; 
506288, 3736863; 506250, 3736940; 506225, 3737311; 505895, 3737632; 
505714, 3737629; 505714, 3738003; 505806, 3738010; 505893, 3738055; 
505850, 3738416; 505787, 3738559; 505320, 3739638; 505212, 3739835; 
505079, 3740063; 504901, 3740276; 504688, 3740486; 504501, 3740664; 
504498, 3740663; 504498, 3740667; 504097, 3741019; 503964, 3740889; 
503650, 3741092; 503653, 3741445; 503482, 3741613; 503320, 3741708; 
502783, 3741978; 502538, 3741916; 502535, 3741918; 502056, 3741911; 
502037, 3742391; 501951, 3742432; 501713, 3742429; 501700, 3742569; 
500545, 3743165; 500503, 3743213; 499532, 3743550; 499529, 3743553; 
499408, 3743616; 499214, 3743715; 498910, 3743908; 498802, 3743975; 
498643, 3744042; 497684, 3744045; 497678, 3744334; 497341, 3744413; 
496992, 3744578; 496644, 3744813; 496643, 3744816; 496538, 3744880; 
496214, 3745013; 496084, 3745032; 495890, 3745007; 495589, 3744909; 
495414, 3744851; 495331, 3744820; 495093, 3744836; 494935, 3744893; 
494909, 3744909; 494792, 3744950; 494608, 3745109; 494303, 3745315; 
494008, 3745509; 493661, 3745699; 493661, 3745702; 493509, 3745801; 
493309, 3745912; 493014, 3746109; 492712, 3746309; 492509, 3746413; 
492236, 3746452; 491322, 3746452; 491318, 3747677; 491449, 3747680; 
491483, 3747817; 491642, 3747826; 491760, 3747849; 491795, 3747880; 
492014, 3747874; 492090, 3747690; 492280, 3747452; 492499, 3747274; 
493198, 3746585; 493354, 3746560; 493550, 3746433; 493661, 3746274; 
493646, 3746163; 493779, 3745959; 493757, 3745899; returning to 493757, 
3745718.
    (ii) Map Unit 3 follows.

[[Page 19844]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AP02.004

(8) Unit 4: Etiwanda Alluvial Fan and Wash, San Bernardino County, 
California
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Devore (1988) and Cucamonga 
Peak (1988), California, land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 449195, 3781261; 449359, 3781273; 449455, 3781238; 
449550, 3781270; 449715, 3781238; 449785, 3781184; 450509, 3781194; 
450909, 3781295; 451007, 3781362; 451963, 3781353; 452099, 3781270; 
452376, 3781251; 452490, 3781191; 452788, 3781092; 452884, 3781003; 
452896, 3780864; 453004, 3780860; 453881, 3780857; 453877, 3780816; 
453988, 3780791; 454706, 3780785; 454757, 3780876; 455017, 3780886; 
455217, 3781099; 455224, 3781251; 455150, 3781432; 455166, 3781559; 
455081, 3781657; 455090, 3781683; 455281, 3781676; 455281, 3781483; 
455344, 3781368; 455360, 3781273; 455376, 3781222; 455366, 3781022; 
455347, 3781003; 455312, 3780905; 455290, 3780800; 455281, 3780689; 
455189, 3780502; 455116, 3780140; 455087, 3780101; 455081, 3779987; 
455052, 3779813; 455024, 3779419; 455008, 3778819; 454931, 3778809; 
454865, 3778781; 454801, 3778797; 454757, 3778778; 454719, 3778797; 
454671, 3778787; 454608, 3779009; 454516, 3779203; 454487, 3779282; 
454509, 3779403; 454516, 3779600; 454652, 3780171; 454614, 3780232; 
454446, 3780263; 454271, 3780270; 454271, 3780432; 453852, 3780435; 
453861, 3780060; 453782, 3780003; 453855, 3779898; 453858, 3778752; 
454255, 3778743; 454243, 3777913; 453611, 3777517; 453601, 3777263; 
453046, 3777273; 453033, 3778181; 452957, 3778181; 452953, 3778244; 
452242, 3778266; 452242, 3778746; 451860, 3778746; 451852, 3779565; 
451509, 3779568; 450763, 3778822; 450763, 3778781; 451033, 3778755; 
451029, 3778295; 450934, 3778171; 450807, 3778168; 450791, 3777962; 
450734, 3777958; 450718, 3777362; 450629, 3777396; 450553, 3777396; 
450229, 3777273; 450010, 3777273; 450017, 3777819; 449804, 3777987; 
449244, 3778007; 449242, 3778120; 449194, 3778305; 449089, 3778466; 
448581, 3778463; 448578, 3778016; 448334, 3778009; 448331, 3778174; 
448299, 3778197; 448432, 3778555; 448445, 3778701; 448435, 3779371; 
448385, 3779476; 448327, 3779549; 448210, 3779613; 448207, 3780168; 
448397, 3780102; 448356, 3780232; 448283, 3780368; 448242, 3780419; 
447032, 3780410; 447035, 3781480; 447305, 3781483; 447477, 3781394; 
447562, 3781340; 447613, 3781340; 447737, 3781422; 447743, 3781467; 
448007, 3781473; 448096, 3781384; 448489, 3781181; 448705, 3781156; 
448731, 3780994; 448893, 3781003; 449074, 3781102; returning to 449195, 
3781261; excluding land bounded by 452900, 3779300; 453300, 3779300; 
453300, 3779000; 453200, 3779000; 453200, 3778900; 453000, 3778900; 
453000, 3779200; 452900, 3779200; 452900, 3779300.
    (ii) Map Unit 4 follows.

[[Page 19845]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AP02.005


    Dated: April 12, 2002.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-9596 Filed 4-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P