[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 24, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78570-78610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31631]



[[Page 78569]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for Five Carbonate Plants From the San Bernardino Mountains in 
Southern California; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 78570]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AI27


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Five Carbonate Plants From the San Bernardino 
Mountains in Southern California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are 
designating critical habitat for five plants endemic (restricted) 
primarily to carbonate-derived soils in the San Bernardino Mountains of 
southern California. Four of the plants, Astragalus albens (Cushenbury 
milk-vetch), Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum (Cushenbury buckwheat), 
Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina (San Bernardino Mountains 
bladderpod), and Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana (Cushenbury 
oxytheca) are federally listed as endangered and one plant, Erigeron 
parishii (Parish's daisy), is federally listed as threatened. The 
following total area is designated as critical habitat for each of the 
following plants in San Bernardino County, California: A. albens, 
approximately 1,765 hectares (ha) (4,365 acres (ac)); Erigeron 
parishii, approximately 1,790 ha (4,420 ac); Eriogonum ovalifolium var. 
vineum, approximately 2,815 ha (6,955 ac); L. kingii ssp. bernardina, 
approximately 415 ha (1,025 ac); and O. parishii var. goodmaniana, 
approximately 1,275 ha (3,150 ac). Because of the considerable overlap 
of the areas designated as critical habitat for each of the five 
carbonate plants, the total area being designated as critical habitat 
is approximately 5,335 ha (13,180 ac).
    Federal agencies proposing, authorizing, or funding actions that 
may affect the areas designated as critical habitat must consult with 
us on the effects of the proposed actions pursuant to section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 23, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may inspect the supporting record for this rule at the 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6010 
Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92009, by appointment during normal 
business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 
at the above address; telephone 760/431-9440, facsimile 760/431-5902. 
Information regarding this designation is available in alternate 
formats upon request.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The five plants addressed in this designation of critical habitat, 
Astragalus albens (Cushenbury milk-vetch), Erigeron parishii (Parish's 
daisy), Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum (Cushenbury buckwheat), 
Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina (San Bernardino Mountains 
bladderpod), and Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana (Cushenbury 
oxytheca) (collectively called ``carbonate plants'' in this document), 
are restricted primarily to carbonate-derived soils in the San 
Bernardino Mountains of San Bernardino County, California (USFWS 1994). 
Collectively, these five species are found along a 56-kilometer (km) 
(35-mile (mi)) portion of the San Bernardino Mountains between 1,171 
and 2,682 meters (m) (3,842 and 8,800 feet (ft)) in elevation. This 
area contains outcrops of carbonate substrates (e.g., parent rock), 
primarily limestone and dolomite, in several bands running on an east-
west axis along the desert-facing slopes of the San Bernardino 
Mountains; it is generally known as the ``carbonate belt.'' Carbonate 
endemics are most uncommon in California, though well known worldwide 
(Kruckeberg 2002). With the exception of one northern California 
carbonate endemic species, the carbonate endemics of the San Bernardino 
Mountains of southern California, including the species addressed in 
this rulemaking, are the only ones in California.
    Limestone mining was cited as the primary threat to the five 
carbonate plants in the final rule listing these species as endangered 
or threatened (USFWS 1994). The threats to these plants continue to be 
population reduction and habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation 
from surface mining activities. The carbonate plants occur mainly on 
public lands with unpatented mining claims or on private lands that 
have been patented (converted from public to private). At the time of 
listing, a significant number of carbonate plant occurrences and 
carbonate plant habitats had been negatively affected (USFWS 1994). 
Carbonate plant losses and habitat destruction/degradation are expected 
to continue under ongoing and expanded limestone mining operations.
    The U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), and a number of 
private stakeholders (e.g., mining interests) are in the process of 
developing the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy (draft CHMS) to 
conserve four of the five subject carbonate plants while accommodating 
other land uses. The USFS is the lead agency for this action. The goals 
of the CHMS are: (1) To protect the listed plants and the habitat 
components they require; (2) to guide impact minimization and 
compensation for unavoidable impacts; (3) to streamline reviews of 
mining activities in carbonate plant habitat; (4) to guide habitat 
restoration; and (5) to plan and provide for long-term needs of both 
the mining industry and listed species conservation. One of the primary 
tasks of the CHMS is to identify and establish conservation areas for 
carbonate plant species. Other local or regional habitat conservation 
planning efforts within areas of carbonate plant habitat include the 
California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCA) and the West Mojave 
Plan. BLM is the lead agency for both plans.
    There are approximately 13,200 ha (32,600 ac) of carbonate 
substrates in the northeastern portion of the San Bernardino Mountains 
that may provide suitable habitat for, and may be associated with most 
of, the carbonate plants (USFWS 1994, Neel 2000, San Bernardino 
National Forest (SBNF) geographic information system (GIS) data 2001). 
This area of carbonate substrates is contained within the 64,900 ha 
(160,300 ac) draft CHMS planning area. According to the most current 
model being used in the CHMS process, the SBNF Carbonate Species 
Suitable Habitat Model (Redar and Eliason, in litt. 2001), there is a 
combined total of approximately 19,700 ha (48,669 ac) of suitable 
carbonate plant habitat for the carbonate plants, based on a 
combination of plant associations, carbonate substrate and soils 
derived from carbonate substrate (the modeled suitable habitat area is 
not equal to the sum of modeled suitable habitat area for each species 
because there is some overlap in the distribution of the species). 
Based on this model, the estimated suitable habitat for each species 
is: Astragalus albens, approximately 6,868 ha (16,964 ac); Erigeron 
parishii, approximately 8,428 ha (20,818 ac); Eriogonum ovalifolium 
var. vineum, approximately 8,949 ha (22,103 ac); Lesquerella kingii 
ssp. bernardina, approximately 6,753 ha (16,679 ac); and Oxytheca 
parishii var. goodmaniana, approximately 7,518 ha (18,570 ac). It 
should be noted that the SBNF habitat model is limited by mapping 
resolution, and therefore, may

[[Page 78571]]

contain some unsuitable habitat areas and may leave out some areas that 
may contain suitable habitat. The majority of known occurrences of the 
carbonate plants addressed by the draft CHMS are in the modeled habitat 
area.
    The California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and 
Endangered Plants of California (CNPS Inventory) (CNPS 2001) classifies 
each of the five carbonate plants as List 1B; which they define as 
rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. The CNPS 
Inventory further describes the rarity of all but one of the carbonate 
plants as ``one to several highly restricted occurrences'' (with 
Erigeron parishii ``distributed in a limited number of occurrences''). 
The CNPS Inventory also classifies each of the carbonate plants as 
``endangered throughout its range.''
    The five carbonate plant species in this rulemaking are treated as 
a group because they are generally restricted to soils that are 
ultimately derived from limestone, dolomite, or other substrates rich 
in calcium carbonate in the San Bernardino Mountains, California, and 
face similar threats. However, each of the five carbonate plants 
represents a distinct evolutionary lineage, and each has a unique set 
of ecological requirements and tolerances (Neel 2000).

Species Descriptions

Astragalus Albens (Cushenbury Milk-Vetch)

    Astragalus albens was described by Edward L. Greene (1885) based on 
a collection made by Samuel B. Parish and William F. Parish in 1882. 
Rydberg (1927) placed this species in the genus Hamosa. Rupert Barneby 
(1964) includes Hamosa in the genus Astragalus. Barneby (1959), Munz 
(1974), and Spellenberg (1993), all recognize this species as 
Astragalus albens.
    Astragalus albens is a small plant in the pea family (Fabaceae). 
Spellenburg (1993) describes the species as follows. Individual plants 
are annual to sometimes perennial. The slender silvery-white-haired 
stems are prostrate (lie flat on the ground), up to 30 centimeters (cm) 
(1 ft) long, with compound leaves consisting of 5 to 9 small leaflets. 
The plant's pink-purple flowers occur in 5 to 14 flowered terminal 
racemes (flower clusters). The upper petal of each flower is up to 1 cm 
(0.4 inch (in)) long. The fruits are 10 to 18 millimeters (mm) (0.4 to 
0.7 in) long and up to 3.5 mm (0.1 in) wide. The crescent shaped fruits 
are three sided, have two chambers, and become papery in maturity. The 
plants generally flower from March to May.
    Occurrences of Astragalus albens are scattered along the carbonate 
belt in the northeastern San Bernardino Mountains extending from Dry 
Canyon southeastward to the head of Lone Valley, a range of 24 km (15 
mi) (Barrows 1988a; California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), 
CDFG 2002; CNPS 2001; USFWS 1994). In the final rule to list Astragalus 
albens, we indicated that there were fewer than 20 known occurrences 
(USFWS 1994). The CNDDB (CDFG 2002) identifies 17 extant ``element 
occurrences'' (e.g., species occurrences). The SBNF mapped 103 site-
specific localities of this species for their detailed draft CHMS maps 
(SBNF, Unpublished GIS data, 2001).
    Astragalus albens is typically found within singleleaf pinyon-Utah 
juniper, blackbush scrub, singleleaf pinyon, pinyon woodland, pinyon-
juniper woodland, and Joshua tree woodland vegetation communities 
(Gonella 1994, Gonella and Neel 1995, Neel 2000). Plants closely 
associated with A. albens include Fremontodendron californicum 
(flannelbush), Coleogyne ramosissima (blackbush), Echinocereus 
triglochidiatus var. mojavensis (Mound cactus), Prunus fasciculatus 
(desert almond), and Yucca schidigera (Mojave yucca) (Gonella 1994, 
Gonella and Neel 1995).
    Astragalus albens is typically found on carbonate soils derived 
directly from decomposing limestone bedrock along dry flats and slopes, 
and occasionally rocky washes (Eliason 2002). The species may also be 
associated with disturbed sites since there have been a few localized 
occurrences of the species observed on long-disused roads and recently 
deposited slide materials (White 2002). Plants are generally found in 
areas with an open canopy cover, little accumulation of organic 
material, rock cover exceeding 75 percent, and gentle to moderate 
slopes (5 to 30 percent) (Neel 2000). Most Astragalus albens 
occurrences are found at elevations between 1,524 and 2,012 m (5,000 
and 6,600 ft) (USFWS 1994), but Neel (2000) documented the elevation 
range between 1,171 and 2,013 m (3,864 and 6,604 ft). This range is at 
the lowest elevational limit of the five carbonate plant species 
discussed in this rule (Gonella and Neel 1995). Known occupied habitat 
for this species is mostly correlated with the Bird Spring Formation, 
Permian and Pennsylvanian age carbonate rock (Redar and Eliason, in 
litt. 2001). Soils at sites associated with Astragalus albens have a 
higher percentage of calcium than soils not associated with this 
species (Gonella and Neel 1995).

Erigeron Parishii (Parish's Daisy)

    Erigeron parishii was described by Asa Gray (1884) based on 
specimens collected by Samuel B. Parish at Cushenbury Spring in 1882. 
Erigeron parishii is a perennial herb of the aster family (Asteraceae). 
Plants grow 10 to 35 cm (4 to 14 in) high (Nesom 1993). The simple, 
linear leaves are 3 to 6 cm (1 to 2 in) long and soft, silvery-hairy 
(Nesom 1993, Keck 1959). Flower heads are solitary borne at the tips of 
leafy stems, with bluish to pink or white ray flowers and yellow disk 
flowers (Nesom 1993, Keck 1959). Grayish-green, glandular bracts 
surround each flower head (Nesom 1993, USFWS 1994). The plants 
generally flower from May through June (CNPS 2001).
    Erigeron parishii has the widest geographic distribution of the 
five carbonate plants, with a range that spans approximately 56 km (35 
mi) along the carbonate belt in the northeastern San Bernardino 
Mountains, extending from Pioneertown in the east to the northern 
flanks of White Mountain in the west (USFWS 1994, Eliason 2002). Its 
range of occurrence includes Tip Top Mountain and in Arctic, 
Cushenbury, Arrastre, and Rattlesnake Canyons (Krantz 1979a, Barrows 
1988b, USFWS 1994, CDFG 2002). Recent surveys in Long Canyon (the 
historical eastern-most occurrence) did not locate any Erigeron 
parishii plants (Neel 2000). We identified 25 occurrences of Erigeron 
parishii in the final listing rule (USFWS 1994). The CNDDB (CDFG 2002) 
identifies 34 extant element occurrences. The SBNF has mapped 87 
localized occurrences of this species for their detailed draft CHMS 
maps (SBNF, Unpublished GIS data, 2001).
    Erigeron parishii is typically associated with singleleaf pinyon-
Utah juniper, singleleaf pinyon, pinyon-juniper woodlands, blackbush 
scrub, and creosote bush-bursage scrub vegetation communities (USFWS 
1994, Neel 2000, Neel and Ellstrand 2001). Plants closely associated 
with Erigeron parishii include Pinus monophylla (singleleaf pinyon), 
Juniperus californica (California juniper), Yucca brevifolia (Joshua 
tree), Coleogyne ramosissima, and Astragalus albens (Gonella 1994, 
Gonella and Neel 1995, CDFG 2002).
    Erigeron parishii typically grows on limestone or dolomite soils 
occurring on dry, rocky slopes, active washes and outwash plains on 
carbonate derived alluvium (USFWS 1994, White 2002). Some E. parishii 
occurrences grow on a

[[Page 78572]]

granite/limestone interface, usually when granitic parent material has 
been overlaid with limestone materials washed down from upslope (USFWS 
1994). Occurrences at the Burns Pinyon Ridge Reserve/Pioneertown area 
grows on quartz monzonite soils where there is no apparent limestone 
alluvium (Neel 2000). Erigeron parishii is generally found at 
elevations between 1,171 and 1,950 m (3,842 and 6,400 ft), which is at 
the lower elevations of the carbonate belt (USFWS 1994, Neel 2000). It 
is most commonly found in areas with slopes less than 10 degrees (Neel 
2000).

Eriogonum Ovalifolium var. Vineum (Cushenbury Buckwheat)

    Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum was originally described as 
Eriogonum vineum by John Kunkel Small (1898) based on an 1894 
collection made by Samuel B. Parish near Rose Mine in the San 
Bernardino Mountains. Nelson (1911) treated the plant as a variety, 
Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum. This combination has incorrectly 
often been attributed to Jepson (1914), (Reveal 1989, Hickman 1993). 
Jepson (1914) did publish the combination but subsequently (Jepson 
1925) realized the priority of Nelson's combination, which was followed 
by Abrams (1944), Munz and Keck (1959), and Munz (1974).
    Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum is a perennial plant of the 
buckwheat family (Polygonaceae) that forms low, dense mats typically 3 
to 40 cm (1 to 16 in) in diameter (Hickman 1993, Munz and Keck 1959). 
The leaves are round to ovate, white-woolly on both surfaces, and are 
0.7 to 1.5 cm (0.3 to 0.6 in) long (Munz and Keck 1959). The flowers 
are whitish-cream borne on flowers stalks reaching 10 to 25 cm (4 to 10 
in) tall (Munz and Keck 1959). Plants flower from May through August 
(CNPS 2001). This species is primarily an outcrosser (pollen source for 
seed production is from another plant) (Neel and Ellstrand 2001).
    Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum occurs in the carbonate belt of 
the northeastern San Bernardino Mountains extending from Rattlesnake 
Canyon in the east to White Mountain in the west, a distance of 
approximately 40 km (25 mi) (CDFG 2002). This includes occurrences in 
Arctic and Cushenbury Canyons, Terrace and Jacoby Springs, along Nelson 
Ridge, and southeast to near Onyx Peak (Barrows 1988c, Gonella and Neel 
1995, Tierra Madre Consultants 1992, USFWS 1994, CDFG 2002). In the 
final listing rule, we identified 20 occurrences of E. ovalifolium var. 
vineum (USFWS 1994). The CNDDB (CDFG 2002) identifies 32 extant element 
occurrences. Subsequently, the SBNF has mapped 239 localized 
occurrences of this species for their detailed draft CHMS maps (SBNF, 
Unpublished GIS data, 2001).
    This species inhabits open areas in singleleaf pinyon-Utah juniper, 
singleleaf pinyon-mountain juniper, singleleaf pinyon, pinyon, pinyon-
juniper, Joshua tree woodlands, and blackbush scrub vegetation 
communities (Gonella 1994, Gonella and Neel 1995, USFWS 1994, Neel 
2000). Plants closely associated with Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum 
include Fremontodendron californicum, Arctostaphylos glauca (big-berry 
manzanita), A. patula (green-leaf manzanita), Phacelia douglasii 
(Douglas' phacelia), Yucca brevifolia, Pinus monophylla, Astragalus 
albens, and Erigeron parishii (Gonella 1994, Gonella and Neel 1995, 
CDFG 2002).
    Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum typically grows on soils derived 
from limestone or other carbonate substrates (Hickman 1993, USFWS 1994, 
CDFG 2002). It is generally found on gentle slopes to steep slopes 
mostly with north or west aspects (Neel 2000, White 2002). Other 
habitat characteristics include open areas with powdery fine soils and 
little accumulation of organic material, a canopy cover generally less 
than 15 percent, and rock cover exceeding 50 percent (Neel 2000). The 
species may also benefit from naturally unstable sites since it is 
often found on or adjacent to unstable talus, colluvium, or rock 
outcroppings (White 2002). Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum has the 
widest elevational range of all the carbonate plants, between 1,400 and 
2,400 m (4,600 and 7,900 ft) (USFWS 1994, Neel 2000). The known 
occupied habitat for Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum is correlated 
mostly with the Bird Spring and Bonanza King soil formations (Redar and 
Eliason, in litt. 2001).

Lesquerella Kingii ssp. Bernardina (San Bernardino Mountains 
Bladderpod)

    Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina is a member of the mustard 
family (Brassicaceae) and was first described by Munz (1932) as 
Lesquerella bernardina based on a collection made by Frank W. Peirson 
at the east end of Bear Valley in 1924. Munz (1958) subsequently 
reduced this to a subspecies and published the currently accepted 
combination Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina.
    Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina is silvery, with dense star-
shaped hairs, and is a short-lived perennial plant of the mustard 
family (Brassicaceae) (Munz and Keck 1959, Rollins 1993). It grows to 5 
to 15 cm (2 to 6 in) tall, often purplish in color (Munz 1974, Rollins 
1993). Leaves are wavy-margined to shallow toothed, the outer basal 
leaves are diamond shaped to round, and the inner leaves are elliptic 
with petioles 2 to 5 cm (0.8 to 2 in) long (Munz 1974, Rollins 1993). 
Flowers are borne in terminal racemes, and bloom from May to June (Munz 
1974, CNPS 2001). The yellow petals are 5.5 to 13 mm (0.2 to 0.5 in) 
long, and styles are 3 to 4 mm (0.12 to 0.16 in) long (Munz 1974, 
Rollins 1993). The spherical fruits are short-haired, 2-chambered, and 
contain 2 to 4 seeds per chamber (Rollins 1993).
    At the time of publication of the listing rule, Lesquerella kingii 
ssp. bernardina was known from two populations in the Big Bear area 
(USFWS 1994). One population is on the north side of Big Bear Lake near 
the east end of Bertha Ridge and adjacent to Big Bear City, and the 
other population is centered on the north-facing slope of Sugarlump 
Ridge south of Bear Valley, approximately 10 km (6.2 mi) south of the 
Bertha Ridge population (USFWS 1994, CDFG 2002). This species has the 
smallest known range of the five carbonate plants. Currently, the CNDDB 
(CDFG 2002) identifies four element occurrences. The SBNF has mapped 22 
localized occurrences within the aforementioned populations of this 
species for their detailed draft CHMS maps (SBNF, Unpubished GIS data, 
2001).
    Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina typically is found within 
singleleaf pinyon-mountain juniper, white fir forest, Jeffrey pine-
western juniper woodland, subalpine forest vegetation communities, and 
occasionally on old unpaved roads (Myers and Barrows 1988, USFWS 1994, 
Gonella 1994, Gonella and Neel 1995, Neel 2000, CDFG 2002). Plants 
closely associated with Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina include 
Pinus contorta ssp. murrayana (lodgepole pine), Pinus flexilis (limber 
pine), Pinus jeffreyi (Jeffrey pine), Pinus monophylla, Juniperus 
occidentalis ssp. australis (western juniper), and Eriogonum 
ovalifolium var. vineum (Gonella 1994, Neel 2000, CDFG 2002).
    Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina is generally found on dry flats 
and slopes on soil substrates derived from dolomite parent rocks 
associated with the Bonanza King Formation and other Cambrian age 
substrates (Rollins 1993; Redar and Eliason, in litt. 2001; Eliason 
2002). Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina occupies the narrowest 
elevational range of the five carbonate plants, between 2,098 and 2,700 
m (6,883 and 8,800 ft) (CDFG 2002).

[[Page 78573]]

Oxytheca Parishii var. Goodmaniana (Cushenbury Oxytheca)

    Barbara Ertter (1980) described the variety Oxytheca parishii var. 
goodmaniana based on material collected by S. P. Parish and W. F. 
Parish in 1882 near Cushenbury Spring. Collections of this species were 
previously identified as Oxytheca parishii var. abramsii or Oxytheca 
watsonii (Munz and Keck 1959, Munz 1974).
    Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana is a small, wiry annual plant 
belonging to the buckwheat family (Polygonaceae). Specimens grow 5 to 
60 cm (2 to 24 in) tall (Hickman 1993). The plants have a basal rosette 
of leaves, with each leaf 1 to 7 cm (0.4 to 3 in) long (Hickman 1993). 
The six small flowers have white to pink perianth segments 
(undifferentiated whorl of petals and sepals), occur in clusters of 3 
to 20, and are surrounded at their base by a funnel-shaped involucre 
(modified leaf) (Hickman 1993).
    Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana is an annual species, so the 
number and distribution pattern of individual standing plants 
fluctuates from year to year, depending on the seed bank dynamics and 
environmental conditions. In addition, because this species has few 
known occurrences, and the total number of individuals found within 
some occurrences is often low, this species may be more susceptible to 
localized extirpation from random events than the other four carbonate 
plant species (USFWS 1994).
    Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana is scattered along the carbonate 
belt in the northeastern San Bernardino Mountains extending from White 
Mountain in the west to approximately Rattlesnake Canyon in the east. 
Terrace Springs is the is the eastern most area where occurrences are 
pure Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana (Eliason 2002). From Terrace 
Springs west to Rattlesnake Canyon Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana 
occurs with Oxytheca parishii var. cienengensis and some morphological 
intermediates (potential hybrids) between the two (B. Ertter, pers. 
comm., 2002). This area likely represents an evolutionarily important 
zone, and therefore, is important for the long-term adaptability of the 
species. The distribution of Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana 
includes occurrences near Cushenbury Spring; Cushenbury, Marble, 
Arctic, Wild Rose, and Furnace Canyons; Blackhawk, Mineral, and Tip Top 
Mountains; Terrace Springs; Rose Mine and Green Lead gold mine (USFWS 
1994, CDFG 2002, CNPS 2001, Gonella and Neel 1995). This species 
occupies the second-smallest geographical area of the five carbonate 
plants. In the final listing rule, we identified seven known extant 
occurrences (USFWS 1994). The CNDDB (CDFG 2002) identifies 16 element 
occurrences. The SBNF has mapped 93 localized occurrences of this 
species for their detailed draft CHMS maps (SBNF, Unpublished GIS data, 
2001).
    Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana is typically found in singleleaf 
pinyon-Utah juniper, singleleaf pinyon-mountain juniper, singleleaf 
pinyon, and canyon live oak woodlands vegetation communities (USFWS 
1994, Neel 2000). Plants closely associated with Oxytheca parishii var. 
goodmaniana include Cercocarpus ledifolius (mountain mahogany), 
Arctostaphylos glauca, Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus (yellow 
rabbitbrush), and Achnatherum coronata (needlegrass) (CDFG 2002).
    Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana is typically found on soils 
derived from limestone, dolomite, or a mixture of limestone and 
dolomite substrates (Tierra Madre Consultants 1992, USFWS 1994, Neel 
2000). Hickman (1993) describes it as occurring on limestone talus. 
Neel (2000) found that it generally occurs in areas with gentle slopes 
between 10 and 25 degrees with no apparent preference for aspect. 
Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana is typically found at elevations 
between 1,440 and 2,372 m (4,724 and 7,782 ft) (Neel 2000). Known 
occupied habitat for this species is mostly correlated with the Bird 
Springs Formation, Bonanza King Formation, Monte Cristo Limestone, and 
Sultan Limestone, and Crystal Pass substrate (Redar and Eliason, in 
litt. 2001).

Habitat Descriptions

    The San Bernardino Mountains support a wide diversity of natural 
habitats that are the result of their geographic position between the 
desert and coastal environments, geological history, elevation, varied 
topography, and uncommon geological substrates such as carbonate 
outcrops (e.g., limestone and dolomite). The SBNF, which encompasses 
most of the San Bernardino Mountains, covers less than one percent of 
the land area within the State of California, yet reportedly contains 
populations of more than 25 percent of all native Californian plant 
species (Krantz 1994). The San Bernardino Mountains are also known to 
support one of the highest concentrations of endemic plants in the 
United States (Krantz 1994). This high rate of endemism includes a 
number of plants that are restricted to carbonate substrates in this 
area (Gonella 1994, Krantz 1994).
    Within the mountain range, carbonate substrates occur in several 
east-west bands that run along the desert-facing slopes, from 
approximately White Mountain in the west to Blackhawk Mountain and 
Terrace Springs in the east. From here, the band of carbonate 
substrates narrows and extends southeast to Rattlesnake Canyon and Tip 
Top Mountain. Disjunct (separate) outcrops occur on ridges to the north 
and south of the Big Bear Valley, and eastward to the Sawtooth Hills 
(USGS geologic substrate map 1995).
    Collectively, the ranges of these five species span 56 km (35 mi) 
and occupy elevations between 1,178 and 2,659 m (3,864 to 8,724 ft) in 
the San Bernardino Mountains (Neel 2000). Plant communities in this 
area vary greatly by substrate type and elevation and have been 
described by Holland (1986), Thorne (1995), Vasek and Barbour (1995), 
Vasek and Thorne (1995), and Neel (2000). Neel (2000) developed more 
detailed, quantitative descriptions of the vegetation types that are 
associated with the five carbonate plants using extensive vegetation 
sampling and found that most of the occurrences of each of the five 
carbonate plants are found in the following six vegetation communities: 
blackbush scrub; canyon live oak; singleleaf pinyon; singleleaf pinyon-
mountain juniper; singleleaf pinyon-Utah juniper; and white fir forest.
    Astragalus albens, Erigeron parishii, and Eriogonum ovalifolium 
var. vineum are associated with blackbush scrub vegetation. Blackbush 
scrub vegetation primarily occurs between 1,130 and 1,665 m (3,707 to 
5,463 ft) in this area and is increasingly abundant at the higher 
elevations. Coleogyne ramosissima (blackbush) is the dominant species. 
The sometimes quite dense shrub cover is generally under 1 m (3 ft) 
high. The generally open overstory canopy consists of Yucca brevifolia, 
Pinus monophylla (singleleaf pinyon), and Juniperus osteosperma (Utah 
juniper) (Neel 2000).
    Astragalus albens, Erigeron parishii, Eriogonum ovalifolium var. 
vineum, and Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana are associated with 
singleleaf pinyon dominated vegetation (Neel 2000). The singleleaf 
pinyon plant community primarily occurs between 1,420 and 2,440 m 
(4,659 to 8,005 ft) in this area.
    Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana is associated with canyon live 
oak dominated vegetation, including dominant species such as Quercus 
chrysolepis (canyon live oak) and Pinus

[[Page 78574]]

monophylla. The canyon live oak plant community primarily occurs 
between 1,793 and 2,440 m (5,883 and 8,005 ft) in this area. Tree cover 
in this vegetation type is the densest of all of the vegetation types 
mentioned in this document, while shrub cover is the sparsest (Neel 
2000).
    Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum, Lesquerella kingii ssp. 
bernardina, and Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana are associated with 
the singleleaf pinyon-mountain juniper vegetation community. This 
community type primarily occurs between 1,909 and 2,745 m (6,263 and 
9,005 ft) in this area, and is dominated by Pinus monophylla and 
Juniperus occidentalis ssp. australis. Cercocarpus ledifolius is the 
only characteristic understory species of singleleaf pinyon-mountain 
juniper vegetation (Neel 2000).
    Astragalus albens, Erigeron parishii, Eriogonum ovalifolium var. 
vineum, and Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana are associated with the 
singleleaf pinyon-Utah juniper dominated vegetation community. This 
community type primarily occurs between 1,212 and 2,390 m (3,976 and 
7,841 ft) in this area (Neel 2000). Ephedra viridis (green ephedra) and 
Achnatherum coronatum (needlegrass) are characteristic understory 
species of singleleaf pinyon-Utah juniper dominated vegetation (Neel 
2000).
    Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina and Oxytheca parishii var. 
goodmaniana are associated with the white fir forest vegetation 
community. This community type primarily occurs on steep north-facing 
slopes between 2,196 and 2,720 m (7,205 and 8,924 ft) in this area 
(Neel 2000). White fir forest vegetation is dominated by Abies concolor 
(white fir) and Pinus flexilis (limber pine) in the overstory (Neel 
2000).
    The carbonate plants have also been reported to occur in five other 
vegetation communities: Jeffrey pine-western juniper woodland; Joshua 
tree woodland; pinyon woodland; pinyon-juniper woodland; and subalpine 
forest (Krantz 1979a, 1979b; Neel 2000; CDFG 2002). Lesquerella kingii 
ssp. bernardina is reported to be associated with Jeffrey pine-western 
juniper woodland (CDFG 2002). Astragalus albens and Eriogonum 
ovalifolium var. vineum are reported to be associated with Joshua tree 
woodland and pinyon woodland (CDFG 2002). Astragalus albens, Erigeron 
parishii, and Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum are reported to be 
associated with Pinyon-juniper woodland (CDFG 2002).
    Some of these plant communities (e.g., singleleaf pinyon woodlands, 
canyon live oak woodland) are also known to occur on nearby soils that 
are not derived from carbonate parent material. Big sagebrush, pebble 
plains, riparian, and meadow communities are also known to occur nearby 
on soils not derived from carbonate parent material; however, they do 
not occupy large areas and are not associated with carbonate endemic 
plants.

Ecology

    Little is known about the life history and population dynamics of 
the five carbonate plants, including their pollination biology, seed 
dispersal agents and patterns, nature and dynamics of seed bank, seed 
dormancy requirements, and seedling ecology and establishment rates 
(Neel 2000). However, the distributions of each of these plants have 
been well studied through numerous independent botanical surveys, and 
botanical investigations and project-level surveys funded by Federal 
agencies and mining companies (Krantz 1979a, 1979b; Wilson and Bennett 
1980; Barrows 1988a, 1988b, 1988c; Tierra Madre Consultants 1992; and 
herbarium specimens at Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden). The general 
ranges of these species are described in Munz and Keck (1959), Barneby 
(1959), Munz (1974), Hickman (1993), Nessom (1993), Rollins (1993), 
Spellenberg (1993), in our final rule listing the species (USFWS 1994), 
and the draft Recovery Plan. The five carbonate plants consistently 
occur on soils that are at least partially derived from carbonate 
substrates (Neel and Ellstrand, in press), although some occurrences of 
Erigeron parishii have been noted on soils derived from quartz 
monzonite and mixed layers of granite and limestone. The carbonate 
plants do not appear to be specifically linked to early vegetation 
successional stages following natural disturbance; however, they are 
found on some surfaces that are naturally disturbed by landslides and 
substrate upheaval (Neel 2000). Primarily, they occur in habitat that 
is undisturbed by human activities, but instances of colonization onto 
human-disturbed surfaces have been observed for all of the carbonate 
plants (Eliason 2002, White 2002). However, there is no evidence to 
support that soil structure or habitat structure and function 
associated with disturbed surfaces are equivalent to those of 
undisturbed surfaces (Eliason 2002). Each of these plants appear to 
have specific habitat and microhabitat requirements, including parent 
geology, vegetation community type and associated species, soil pH, 
slope, and elevation (Neel 2000).
    Occurrences of carbonate plants likely shift over time within the 
range of suitable habitat. Historically, occurrences or portions of 
occurences likely have periodically been extirpated, while other 
suitable habitat may have been colonized by emigration from nearby 
occurrences. Given (1994) noted the need for enough suitable habitat to 
maintain equilibrium between naturally occurring local extirpations and 
colonizations. Not all habitat for a species is likely to be occupied 
at the same time, and failure to conserve enough suitable habitat could 
potentially reduce the size and viability of the metapopulation as 
surely as destruction of occupied habitat (Given 1994). A 
metapopulation has been described as ``* * * a set of populations 
(i.e., independent demographic units; Ehrlich 1965) that are 
interdependent over ecological time. That is, although member 
populations may change in size independently, their probabilities of 
existing at a given time are not independent of one another because 
they are linked by processes of extinction and mutual recolonization, 
processes that occur, say, on the order of every 10 to 100 
generations'' (Harrison et al. 1988). The persistence of such species 
depends on the interrelatedness of local extirpations and 
recolonizations, the availability of newly suitable habitat, and 
dispersal (Given 1994; Hanski 1997, 1999; Hanksi and Gilpin 1991). Very 
little is known about how the five carbonate plants may function as 
metapopulations (Neel and Ellstrand, in press). However, because 
metapopulation dynamics may be exhibited in some or all of the 
carbonate plant taxa, long-term persistence of the carbonate plants may 
require sufficient suitable habitat contiguous with areas that are 
currently occupied by the plants. Just how much suitable habitat would 
be sufficient remains unclear, however, based on anecdotal observations 
of Astragalus albens, some relatively sparse occurrences may provide 
``stepping-stones'' and facilitate gene flow among high density 
populations (Neel and Ellstrand, in press).
    Each of the five carbonate plant species is subject to several 
limiting ecological factors that likely increase the potential for 
extirpation (e.g., restricted and patchy distribution, habitat 
specialization). These factors may, among other things, limit gene flow 
by reducing pollen and seed dispersal among occurrences, and reduce the 
probability that new colonizations will occur. The amount of habitat 
required to sustain the five carbonate plant species may be larger than 
that required for species not subject to these limiting

[[Page 78575]]

ecological factors (see Burgman et al. 2001). Recent work on genetic 
variation completed for Astragalus albens (Neel 2000), Eriogonum 
ovalifolium var. vineum (Neel and Ellstrand, in press), Erigeron 
parishii (Neel and Ellstrand 2001) and Oxytheca parishii var. 
goodmaniana (Neel 2000) provide some insight into the population 
structure of these carbonate plant species. Neel and Ellstrand's work 
is limited by its temporal scope, but suggests that there may be 
extensive gene flow among populations of at least three of these 
species, and that the populations of these three species have not been 
sufficiently isolated to result in genetic divergence.

Previous Federal Action

    On December 15, 1980, we published a Notice of Review (NOR) of 
plants which included Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum and Lesquerella 
kingii ssp. bernardina as Category 1 candidate taxa and Erigeron 
parishii as a Category 2 taxon (USFWS 1980). The February 21, 1990, NOR 
of plants also included Astragalus albens as a Category 1 taxon and 
Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana as a Category 2 taxon (USFWS 1990). 
Category 1 taxa were those taxa for which substantial information on 
biological vulnerability and threats were available to support 
preparation of listing proposals. Category 2 candidates were taxa for 
which data in our possession indicated listing was possibly appropriate 
but for which substantial information on biological vulnerability and 
threats were not known or on file to support preparation of proposed 
rules.
    On November 19, 1991, we published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register to list the five plants as endangered (56 FR 58332). On August 
24, 1994, we published a final rule listing Erigeron parishii as 
threatened and Astragalus albens, Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum, 
Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina, and Oxytheca parishii var. 
goodmaniana as endangered (59 FR 43652). At that time, we indicated 
that designation of critical habitat for these plants was not prudent 
because such designation would likely increase the degree of threat 
from vandalism, over-collection, or other human activities.
    In September 1997, we published the San Bernardino Mountains 
Carbonate Plants Draft Recovery Plan. The draft recovery plan 
identified lands as important for the long-term conservation of the 
carbonate plants, and proposed criteria to recover the carbonate plants 
to the point where they can be downlisted or delisted.
    On June 15, 2000, the CNPS filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court 
for the Southern District of California for our failure to designate 
critical habitat for the five carbonate plants (California Native Plant 
Society v. Berg, et al., 00CV1207-L (LSP)). On April 27, 2001, the 
Court vacated our August 24, 1994, ``not prudent'' determination for 
critical habitat and ordered us to reevaluate its prudency, and if 
prudent to complete a proposed rule by January 31, 2002. The Court 
further ordered us to publish a final critical habitat designation on 
or before September 30, 2002.
    On January 29, 2002, we determined that designation of critical 
habitat was prudent, and on February 12, 2002, we published in the 
Federal Register a proposed rule to designate approximately 5,335 ha 
(13,180 ac) of land as critical habitat for the five carbonate plants 
(67 FR 6578). On September 20, 2002, we published a notice reopening 
the public comment period for 30 days on the proposed rule and 
announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis (67 FR 
59239). On September 16, 2002, we requested an 8-month extension from 
the court (until May 30, 2003) to allow us adequate time to complete an 
economic analysis, obtain public comment on the economic analysis, and 
complete the final designation. On October 7, 2002, California Native 
Plant Society filed a motion opposing the extension. A hearing date of 
December 9, 2002, was set by the court to hear the motions of both 
parties.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Endangered Species 
Act (Act), as amended, 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) which 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 
species 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 
with regard to actions carried out, funded, permitted, or authorized by 
a Federal agency. Section 7 of the Act also requires conferences on 
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. 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. Further, consultation under section 7 of the Act does not 
apply to activities on private or other non-Federal lands that lack a 
Federal nexus.
    In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the 
habitat must first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' 
Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the 
best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that 
provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which 
are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 
424.12(b)), and are, therefore, essential to the conservation of the 
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(e)) also state that, ``The 
Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the 
geographic area presently occupied by a species only when a designation 
limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the 
conservation of the species.'' Accordingly, when the best available 
scientific and commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation 
needs of the species require designation of critical habitat outside of 
its present range, we will not designate critical habitat in areas 
outside the geographic area occupied by the species.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires we take into consideration the 
economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical 
habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the 
exclusion will not result in extinction of the species. Section 4 of 
the Act also requires that we designate critical habitat, 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 will often not have sufficient information to identify 
all areas of critical habitat. We are required, nevertheless, to make a 
decision and thus must base our designations on what, at the time of 
designation, we know to be critical habitat.
    Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we will 
designate only areas currently known to be essential.

[[Page 78576]]

Essential areas should already have the features and habitat 
characteristics that are necessary to sustain the species. We will not 
speculate about what areas might be found to be essential if better 
information became available, or what areas may become essential over 
time. If the information available at the time of designation does not 
show that an area provides essential life cycle needs of the species, 
then the area should not be included in the critical habitat 
designation.
    Our 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 our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial 
data available. This policy requires our 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, at a minimum, be the listing package for 
the species. Additional information may be obtained from a recovery 
plan, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed 
by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, 
biological assessments, unpublished materials, and expert opinion.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat 
based on what we know at the time of designation. Habitat is often 
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. 
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not 
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to 
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, all 
should understand that critical habitat designations do not signal that 
habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required 
for recovery. Areas outside the critical habitat designation will 
continue to be subject to conservation actions that may be implemented 
under section 7(a)(1) and to the regulatory protections afforded by the 
section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the section 9 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 areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some 
cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat 
conservation plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if 
new information available to these planning efforts calls for a 
different outcome.

Methods

    As required by the Act and regulations (section 4(b)(2) and 50 CFR 
424.12), we used the best scientific and commercial data available to 
determine areas that contain the physical and biological features that 
are essential for the conservation of the five carbonate plants. This 
information included data from aerial photography (1995 Digital 
Orthorectified Quarter Quadrangles (DOQQ) and 2000 SPOT (Syst[egrave]me 
Pour l'Observation de la Terre) satellite imagery); U.S. Geological 
Services (USGS) topographic maps; the SBNF Carbonate Species Suitable 
Habitat Models and ranking system (Redar and Eliason, in litt. 2001); 
species occurrence and/or suitable habitat data from the SBNF, draft 
CHMS (Olsen 2002), and CNDDB (CDFG 2002); the final listing rule (59 FR 
43652); the Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Five Carbonate 
Plants From the San Bernardino Mountains in Southern California (67 FR 
6578); the San Bernardino Mountains Carbonate Plants Draft Recovery 
Plan (USFWS 1997); information in species background sections (USFWS, 
in prep.) being prepared for the revised draft San Bernardino Mountains 
Carbonate Endemic Plants Recovery Plan; research and survey 
observations published in peer-reviewed articles; regional GIS 
coverages (e.g., soils, occurrence data, vegetation, land ownership, 
and elevation); project-specific and other miscellaneous reports and 
public comments submitted to us; additional information from the BLM 
regarding a section 7 consultation (1-8-01-F-18) on the effects of the 
California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCA) on 10 plant species 
(BLM 2001); a section 7 consultation with the SBNF on various ongoing 
and related activities affecting carbonate habitats (USFWS 2001a); 
discussions with representatives of the SBNF and botanical and other 
knowledgeable experts; and geologic map coverage of the Cushenbury 
Canyon area. We also visited portions of the carbonate belt in the 
northeastern San Bernardino Mountains, San Bernardino County, 
California, within the SBNF. We concentrated our analysis on those 
areas with known occurrences for each of these species.
    The number of individuals of each carbonate plant species 
fluctuates over time and spatially (over an area) (Tierra Madre 1992, 
Krantz 1994, Neel 2000, CDFG 2002). Population estimates of each of the 
five carbonate plants from different time periods and surveyors also 
vary in precision and accuracy (S. Eliason, pers. comm., 2002). 
Therefore, comparing these data may yield misleading estimates of the 
number of individuals in a given area (Neel 2000). Additionally, the 
mapped occurrences of the carbonate plants have varied from year to 
year and surveyor to surveyor (Tierra Madre 1992, Krantz 1994, Neel 
2000, CDFG 2002). Therefore, estimates of the number of individuals are 
not given in this document.
    Names associated with the various groupings of carbonate plants 
also differ (e.g., population, aggregate occurrence (grouped 
occurrences), element occurrence (as used by the CDFG), and point 
location (which describes a detailed mapping area used by the SBNF)) 
(USFWS 1994, Neel 2000, CDFG 2002). For the purposes of describing 
areas essential to the conservation of the carbonate plants, and to 
standardize the variation in mapping scale presented by CNPS and the 
SBNF, we reclassified the occurrence data identified by the CNDDB (CDFG 
2002) and the SBNF into new groupings. These groupings were established 
based on likely hydrogeomorphic (e.g., same drainage and soil 
derivation) and/or topographic relationships, which allowed us to 
analyze the localized occurrences with respect to general assumptions 
about the potential biological and ecological dynamics of these 
groupings, such as seed banks, connectivity and gene flow, and 
pollinator and seed dispersal vectors. The groupings also allowed for 
ease in the description, mapping, and definitions of legal boundaries. 
Consequently, hereafter, we refer to each of these new groupings as an 
``aggregate occurrence,'' while distinct subunits of the aggregate 
occurrences are referred to as ``localized occurrences'' or simply 
``occurences.'' Furthermore, the term ``core occurrences'' is used 
below to describe a relatively large number of individual plants in a 
given geographic area.
    After analyzing all of the localized occurrence data from the CNDDB 
(CDFG 2002), the final listing rule, SBNF, and additional scientific 
and commercial sources, we grouped Astragalus albens into 20 aggregate 
occurrences, Erigeron parishii into 27 aggregate occurrences, Eriogonum 
ovalifolium var. vineum into 28 aggregate occurrences, Lesquerella 
kingii ssp. bernardina into 2 aggregate occurrences, and Oxytheca 
parishii var.

[[Page 78577]]

goodmaniana into 19 aggregate occurrences.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we must consider those physical and biological features 
(primary constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation 
of the species, and that may require special management considerations 
or protection. These include, but are not limited to: space for 
individual and population growth; food, water, air, light, minerals, or 
other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover; sites for 
pollination, reproduction, germination, or seed dispersal and dormancy; 
and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative 
of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species. 
All areas proposed as critical habitat for Astragalus albens, Erigeron 
parishii, Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum, Lesquerella kingii ssp. 
bernardina, and Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana are within their 
respective historical ranges and contain one or more of the physical or 
biological features (primary constituent elements) essential for the 
conservation of each species.
    Habitat components that are essential for each of the five 
carbonate plants are primarily found in, but not limited to, pinyon 
woodland, pinyon-juniper woodland and forests, Joshua tree woodland, 
white fir forests, subalpine forest, canyon live oak woodlands and 
forests, and blackbush scrub vegetation communities in the San 
Bernardino Mountains. These habitat components likely provide for: (1) 
Individual and population growth, including sites for germination, 
pollination, reproduction, pollen and seed dispersal, and seed 
dormancy; (2) areas that allow for and maintain gene flow between 
localized occurrences through pollinator activity and seed dispersal 
mechanisms; (3) areas that provide basic requirements for growth such 
as water, light, minerals; and (4) lands that support pollinators and 
seed dispersal vectors.
    The following has been identified as important to the conservation 
of the five carbonate plants or narrow endemic plants in general: the 
conservation and management of existing populations (USFWS 1997); the 
conservation and management of suitable habitat that is not known to be 
currently occupied to maintain natural equilibrium between local 
extirpations and colonizations (Harrison et al. 2000); the protection 
and maintenance of upslope or upstream geologic features that provide 
the necessary materials to replace the soils continually lost to 
natural processes (USFWS 2002b); conservation and adequate connectivity 
of undisturbed areas between localized occurrences to allow and 
maintain gene flow among aggregate occurrences through pollen and seed 
dispersal vectors (Neel and Ellstrand, in press; Neel 2002; Neel 2000; 
USFWS 2001b); the conservation and maintenance of sites that may allow 
for pollen and seed dispersal (USFWS 2001b); the conservation of 
suitable micro-habitat that could be colonized to allow localized 
occurrences to expand and contract, or maintain normal population 
dynamics (Neel and Ellstrand, in press; Neel 2002; Neel 2000; Harrison 
et al. 2000); and the maintenance of normal ecological functions within 
all localized occurrences. The small fragmented range of the five 
carbonate plants and limiting ecological factors that reduce the 
chances of their survival make these species particularly vulnerable to 
natural and human disturbance (e.g., non-native species, wildfire, 
livestock grazing, forest product harvesting, and mining) (Burgman et 
al. 2001; USFWS 2001b).
    We considered the biological and ecological factors identified 
above while developing primary constituent elements for the proposed 
rule and this final rule. As stated earlier in the rule, there is 
limited available ecological information about the five carbonate 
plants. However, we were able to utilize in our determination of 
primary constituent elements specific information regarding soil types, 
vegetation associations, geographic distribution, geomorphic 
relationships and other habitat conditions in which these plants are 
commonly found. The resulting primary constituent elements are expected 
to capture significant aspects of the above ecological factors.
    Based on our current knowledge of these species, the primary 
constituent elements of critical habitat for each species is listed 
below and consist of, but are not limited to:

Astragalus Albens

    (1) Soils derived primarily from the upper and middle members of 
the Bird Spring Formation and Undivided Cambrian parent materials that 
occur on dry flats and slopes or along rocky washes with limestone 
outwash/deposits at elevations between 1,171 and 2,013 m (3,864 and 
6,604 ft);
    (2) Soils with intact, natural surfaces that have not been 
substantially altered by land use activities (e.g., graded, excavated, 
re-contoured, or otherwise altered by ground-disturbing equipment); and
    (3) Associated plant communities that have areas with an open 
canopy cover and little accumulation of organic material (e.g., leaf 
litter) on the surface of the soil.

Erigeron Parishii

    (1) Soils derived primarily from upstream or upslope limestone, 
dolomite, or quartz monzonite parent materials that occur on dry, rocky 
hillsides, shallow drainages, or outwash plains at elevations between 
1,171 and 1,950 m (3,842 and 6,400 ft);
    (2) Soils with intact, natural surfaces that have not been 
substantially altered by land use activities (e.g., graded, excavated, 
re-contoured, or otherwise altered by ground-disturbing equipment); and
    (3) Associated plant communities that have areas with an open 
canopy cover.

Eriogonum Ovalifolium var. Vineum

    (1) Soils derived primarily from the upper and middle members of 
the Bird Spring Formation and Bonanza King Formation parent materials 
that occur on hillsides at elevations between 1,400 and 2,400 m (4,600 
and 7,900 ft);
    (2) Soils with intact, natural surfaces that have not been 
substantially altered by land use activities (e.g., graded, excavated, 
re-contoured, or otherwise altered by ground-disturbing equipment); and
    (3) Associated plant communities that have areas with an open 
canopy cover (generally less than 15 percent cover) and little 
accumulation of organic material (e.g., leaf litter) on the surface of 
the soil.

Lesquerella Kingii ssp. Bernardina

    (1) Soils derived primarily from Bonanza King Formation and 
Undivided Cambrian parent materials that occur on hillsides or on large 
rock outcrops at elevations between 2,098 and 2,700 m (6,883 and 8,800 
ft);
    (2) Soils with intact, natural surfaces that have not been 
substantially altered by land use activities (e.g., graded, excavated, 
re-contoured, or otherwise altered by ground-disturbing equipment); and
    (3) Associated plant communities that have areas with an open 
canopy cover and little accumulation of organic material (e.g., leaf 
litter) on the surface of the soil.

Oxytheca Parishii var. Goodmaniana

    (1) Soils derived primarily from upslope limestone, a mixture of 
limestone and dolomite, or limestone talus substrates with parent 
materials

[[Page 78578]]

that include Bird Spring Formation, Bonanza King Formation, middle and 
lower members of the Monte Cristo Limestone, and the Crystal Pass 
member of the Sultan Limestone Formation at elevations between 1,440 
and 2,372 m (4,724 and 7,782 ft);
    (2) Soils with intact, natural surfaces that have not been 
substantially altered by land use activities (e.g., graded, excavated, 
re-contoured, or otherwise altered by ground-disturbing equipment); and
    (3) Associated plant communities that have areas with a moderately 
open canopy cover (generally between 25 and 53 percent (Neel 2000)).

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    The downlisting and delisting sections of the revised draft San 
Bernardino Mountains Carbonate Endemic Plants Recovery Plan (USFWS, in 
prep.) for the five carbonate plants, in concert with the draft CHMS 
(Olsen 2002), identify the specific recovery needs of these species and 
facilitated the identification of areas essential to their 
conservation. The published and revised draft recovery plans identify 
lands as important for the long-term conservation of the carbonate 
plants that: (1) Contain known occurrences that must be conserved to 
recover the species; (2) include habitats that were part of a 
historical population distribution adjacent to occupied areas and are 
needed for the expansion and stability of additional occurrences; and 
(3) provide landscape connectivity between occurrences that are 
required to maintain genetic exchange and the natural processes of 
extirpations and colonizations. To recover the carbonate plants to the 
point where they can be downlisted or delisted, it is essential to 
preserve the species' genetic diversity, as well as their habitat.
    During the development of the programmatic consultation for the 
four southern California National Forests (USFWS 2001c) and the draft 
CHMS (Olsen 2002), the SBNF delineated the distribution of each of the 
five carbonate species and developed a model of potential suitable 
habitat based on geology, soil substrates, elevation range, and plant 
communities. The SBNF ranked the relative importance of the known 
localized occurrences of carbonate plants by evaluating the size, 
density, location, configuration, associated species, defensibility 
(i.e., against threats) of each occurrence, and a general assessment of 
habitat conditions. Priority was also given to localized occurrences 
that represented the limits of ecological and geographical variability 
of the species (e.g., highest and lowest in elevation, westernmost and 
easternmost in distribution).
    We used the distribution and occurrence data from outside sources, 
our aggregate occurrence groupings, and the SBNF occurrence ranking 
information and modeled suitable habitat maps to determine habitat 
areas essential to the conservation of the five carbonate plants. We 
used 1996 and 2000 aerial photography to identify areas for removal 
from critical habitat designation that have (1) urban development; (2) 
active mining; and (3) other ongoing disturbances. The 1996 imagery 
provided 1-m resolution, while the 2000 imagery provided more recent 
information, but at a lower resolution. We also reviewed previous 
consultations completed under section 7 of the Act for the carbonate 
plants to remove any additional lands that were previously determined 
to be non-essential. The delineated localized occurrence boundaries 
were refined to include: (1) Potential adjacent seed banks; (2) habitat 
to maintain natural equilibrium between local extirpation and 
colonization events; (3) connectivity of suitable habitat to maintain 
potential gene flow among sites through pollen and seed dispersal; and 
(4) upslope or upstream geologic substrates that provide the necessary 
materials to replace the soils which are continually lost to natural 
processes. To map these essential lands, we overlaid them with a 100-m 
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid. Because the grid captured 
lands deemed non-essential, we then evaluated all grid cells adjacent 
to disturbed areas and eliminated grid cells where either the entire 
cell or the majority of the cell was within a disturbed area. Cells 
that had documented localized occurrences of the carbonate plants were 
retained even if the majority of the cell was disturbed.
    In defining critical habitat boundaries, we made an effort to 
exclude all developed areas, such as towns, buildings, active mines, 
and lands unlikely to contain the primary constituent elements 
essential for the conservation of each of the five carbonate plants. 
Our 100-m UTM grid minimum mapping unit was designed to minimize the 
amount of non-essential lands included in our designation. However, as 
an artifact of the mapping process, critical habitat may include some 
disturbed areas and undisturbed areas that do not contain primary 
constituent elements. Though mapped as such, existing features and 
structures, such as buildings, mines that are active at the time of 
this publication, paved or unpaved roads, other paved or cleared areas, 
lawns, and other urban landscaped areas are unlikely to contain one or 
more of the primary constituent elements. Federal actions limited to 
those areas, therefore, would not trigger a section 7 consultation, 
unless they may affect the species or the primary constituent elements 
in adjacent critical habitat.
    The critical habitat units described below constitute our best 
assessment of areas that are essential for the species' conservation. 
New information obtained in the time between the proposed rule and this 
final rule, including additional information received during the two 
public comment periods, did not result in a refinement of our critical 
habitat boundaries for this final rulemaking.

Critical Habitat Designation

    The acreage of designated critical habitat land ownership is shown 
in Table 1.

     Table 1.--Designated Critical Habitat in Hectares (ha) (Acres (ac)) by Species and Land Ownership, San
                                          Bernardino County, California
     [Area estimates reflect critical habitat unit boundaries, not primary constituent elements within \1\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Species                   Federal \2\            Private                       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Astragalus albens................  1,565 ha (3,870 ac)  200 ha (495 ac)....  1,765 ha (4,365 ac).
Erigeron parishii................  1,330 ha (3,280 ac)  460 ha (1,140 ac)..  1,790 ha (4,420 ac).
Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum  2,440 ha (6,025 ac)  375 ha (930 ac)....  2,815 ha (6,955 ac).
Lesquerella kingii ssp.            405 ha (1,005 ac)..  10 ha (20 ac)......  415 ha (1,025 ac).
 bernardina.
Oxytheca parishii var.             1,085 ha (2,675 ac)  190 ha (475 ac)....  1,275 ha (3,150 ac).
 goodmaniana.

[[Page 78579]]

 
    Total \3\....................  4,565 ha (11,280     770 ha (1,900 ac)..  5,335 ha (13,180 ac).
                                    ac).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hectares have been converted to acres (1 ha = 2.47 ac). Based on the level of imprecision of mapping at this
  scale, hectares and acres have been rounded to the nearest 5.
\2\ Federal lands include SBNF and BLM lands.
\3\ Because of overlapping boundaries, the sum of designated critical habitat for each carbonate plant species
  does not equal the total area that has been designated as critical habitat for each species.

    The designated critical habitat areas described below constitute 
our best assessment of the areas essential for the conservation of each 
of the five carbonate plants. Each polygon (e.g., closed mapped area) 
representing critical habitat for each species is considered to be 
occupied by standing plants and seeds as part of the seed bank and 
contains one or more of their primary constituent elements. We are 
designating approximately 5,335 ha (13,180 ac) of land as critical 
habitat for the five carbonate plants.
    The lands designated as critical habitat have been divided into 
three critical habitat units: the Northeastern Slope Unit (Unit 1), 
Bertha Ridge Unit (Unit 2), and Sugarlump Ridge Unit (Unit 3). The 
Northeastern Slope Unit contains Astragalus albens, Erigeron parishii, 
Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum, and Oxytheca parishii var. 
goodmaniana. The Bertha Ridge Unit contains Eriogonum ovalifolium var. 
vineum and Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina. The Sugarlump Ridge Unit 
contains Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina. Lands designated as 
critical habitat are under Federal and private ownership. Federal lands 
include areas owned or managed by the SBNF and BLM.
    We are designating all or part of the following aggregate 
occurrences: 15 of 20 for Astragalus albens, 20 of 27 for Erigeron 
parishii, 22 of 28 for Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum, 18 of 19 for 
Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana, 2 of 2 for Lesquerella kingii ssp. 
bernardina. Based on public comment, we reviewed our aggregate grouping 
classification. As a result, the number of aggregate occurrences that 
we are designating may differ from those in the proposed rule, however, 
the extent of areas included in our designation has not changed. We are 
not including all or part of some aggregate occurrences because the 
habitat in those areas is considered to be too degraded, or so small 
and isolated as to not have long-term viability, and therefore, not 
essential to the conservation of the species.
    A brief description of each unit and reasons for designating it as 
critical habitat are presented below.

Unit 1: Northeastern Slope Unit, San Bernardino County, California 
(4,850 ha (11,980 ac))

    The Northeastern Slope Unit includes 115 separate polygons 
(subunits) around important occurrences of the carbonate plants. The 
unit extends from White Mountain at the western edge to Rattlesnake 
Canyon at the eastern edge, a distance of approximately 40 km (25 mi). 
The lands within this unit contain the majority of the carbonate 
substrates in the carbonate belt that spans the north to northeastern 
slope of the San Bernardino Mountains. This unit includes occurrences 
of four of the five carbonate plants: Astragalus albens, Erigeron 
parishii, Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum, and Oxytheca parishii var. 
goodmaniana. This unit contains the majority of the known range of 
occurrences for each of these four carbonate plants, including all or 
part of the following aggregate occurrences: 17 of 20 for Astragalus 
albens; 22 of 27 for Erigeron parishii; 22 of 28 for Eriogonum 
ovalifolium var. vineum; 18 of 19 for Oxytheca parishii var. 
goodmaniana.
    This unit contains localized occurrences of the carbonate plants 
that the SBNF ranked as important for their survival and conservation 
(S. Eliason, in litt. 2001). The SBNF's ranking was instrumental in our 
determining which aggregate occurrences of each carbonate plant were 
essential within this critical habitat unit. Additionally, the revised 
draft San Bernardino Mountains Carbonate Endemic Plants Recovery Plan 
(USFWS, in prep.) specifically mentions that the permanent protection 
of (1) a large number of core (a relatively large number of individual 
plants in a given geographic area) occurrences, and (2) the majority of 
the remaining additional occurrences of each of these four carbonate 
plants are necessary for their downlisting and/or delisting.
    This unit contains proposed management areas on public and private 
lands that, among other functions, would provide conservation benefits 
to the four carbonate plant species in this unit. These proposed 
management areas, at least in part, are intended to satisfy the CHMS 
conservation goals for the carbonate plants. These lands would include 
a proposed SBNF Special Management Area (SMA), a proposed BLM Area of 
Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), and additional proposed reserve 
lands currently held by private mining interests. It is anticipated 
that these special land designations would occur sometime after the 
implementation of the CHMS through the provisions of a consultation 
between the SBNF and the Service. These lands, however, currently do 
not have approved management provisions for the carbonate plants and 
their habitat, and habitat degradation may still be occurring due to 
ongoing activities identified in the final listing rule for these 
species (see USFWS 2001b). Therefore, the subject lands continue to 
require special management and protection to ensure the conservation of 
the carbonate plants and their habitat.
    The persistence of the carbonate plant populations likely depends 
on the combined dynamics of local extirpations and new colonizations by 
dispersal (Given 1994, Hanski 1999, Hanksi and Gilpin 1991). Every 
carbonate plant occurrence in this unit is important to maintain the 
natural population dynamics of local extirpation and colonization 
events that are necessary for the conservation of the species. Every 
carbonate plant occurrence in this unit is important as a seed source 
to colonize unoccupied sites and therefore maintain an equilibrium 
between colonization and extirpation events. Every carbonate plant 
occurrence in this unit potentially provides important genetic material 
through cross pollination and seed dispersal which may help maintain 
genetic diversity and thus reduce the likelihood of extirpation.
    Lands within this unit are essential to the conservation of these 
four carbonate

[[Page 78580]]

plants because they provide (1) suitable carbonate substrates and 
carbonate-derived soils with intact, natural surfaces associated with 
each of these species; (2) associated plant communities for each of 
these species; and (3) habitat conditions that support the majority of 
known plant occurrences of these species, including a number of 
important core occurrences.
    The acreage of critical habitat for Unit 1 by land ownership is 
shown in Table 2.

          Table 2.--Critical Habitat for Unit 1 in Hectares (ha) (Acres (ac)) by Species and Land Ownership, San Bernardino County, California
                         [Area estimates reflect critical habitat unit boundaries, not primary constituent elements within \1\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Species                          BLM                    USFS               Federal total             Private                 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Astragalus albens..................  345 ha (850 ac).......  1,220 ha (3,020 ac)...  1,565 ha (3,870 ac)..  200 ha (495 ac)......  1,765 ha (4,365 ac).
Erigeron parishii..................  390 ha (960 ac).......  940 ha (2,320 ac).....  1,330 ha (3,280 ac)..  460 ha (1,140 ac)....  1,790 ha (4,420 ac).
Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum..  175 ha (430 ac).......  2,120 ha (5,230 ac)...  2,290 ha (5,660 ac)..  375 ha (930 ac)......  2,665 ha (6,590 ac).
Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana.  35 ha (85 ac).........  1,050 ha (2,590 ac)...  1,085 ha (2,675 ac)..  190 ha (475 ac)......  1,275 ha (3,150 ac).
                                    -------------------------
    Total \2\......................  640 ha (1,585 ac).....  3,450 ha (8,515 ac)...  4,090 ha (10,100 ac).  760 ha (1,880 ac)....  4,850 ha (11,980 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hectares have been converted to acres (1 ha = 2.47 ac). Based on the level of imprecision of mapping at this scale, hectares and acres have been
  rounded to the nearest 5.
\2\ Because of overlapping boundaries, the sum of designated critical habitat for each carbonate plant species does not equal the total area that has
  been designated as critical habitat for each species.

Unit 2: Bertha Ridge Unit, San Bernardino County, California (275 ha 
(685 ac))

    The Bertha Ridge Unit includes four separate polygons encompassing 
important occurrences of the carbonate plants. This unit is located on 
the north side of Big Bear Lake adjacent to Big Bear City, California. 
It is near the east end of Bertha Ridge on its south facing slope. The 
majority of lands within this unit contain soils derived from carbonate 
substrates (particularly dolomite) that are essential to the survival 
and conservation of both carbonate plant species. This unit contains 
important core occurrences of two of the five carbonate plants: 
Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum and Lesquerella kingii ssp. 
bernardina.
    This unit contains one of the two Lesquerella kingii ssp. 
bernardina aggregate occurrences. It is a core occurrence that may be 
large enough to maintain the natural dynamics of local extirpation and 
colonization events. This unit also contains a disjunct Eriogonum 
ovalifolium var. vineum aggregate occurrence, and the only Eriogonum 
ovalifolium var. vineum aggregate occurrence found on soils primarily 
derived from dolomite parent material. This aggregate occurrence may 
contain plants that harbor genetic characteristics essential to overall 
long-term conservation of the species.
    Each of the localized occurrences contained in this unit has been 
identified by the SBNF as being important core occurrences for the 
survival and conservation for each carbonate plant species. 
Additionally, the revised draft San Bernardino Mountains Carbonate 
Endemic Plants Recovery Plan (USFWS, in prep.) specifically mentions 
that the permanent protection of each of the localized occurrences in 
this unit of these two carbonate plants are necessary for their 
downlisting and/or delisting.
    The SBNF is planning a revision of their Resource Management Plan 
in the near future that, among other functions, would provide 
conservation benefits to the two carbonate plant species and their 
habitat in this unit. These lands, however, currently do not have 
approved management provisions for the carbonate plants and their 
habitat, and habitat degradation may still be occurring due to ongoing 
activities identified in the final listing rule for these species (see 
USFWS 2001b). Therefore, the subject lands continue to require special 
management and protection to ensure the conservation of these species 
and their habitat.
    The core occurrences of the two carbonate plants in this unit are 
important as potential sources for the colonization events (e.g., seed 
dispersal) necessary to maintain the natural population dynamics of the 
species. Every carbonate plant occurrence in this unit is important as 
a seed source to colonize unoccupied sites and therefore maintain an 
equilibrium between local colonization and extirpation events. Every 
carbonate plant occurrence in this unit potentially provides important 
genetic material through pollen and seed dispersal which may help 
maintain genetic diversity and reduce the likelihood of regional 
extirpation events.
    Lands within this unit are essential to the conservation of both of 
these carbonate species because they provide (1) suitable carbonate 
substrates and carbonate derived soils with intact, natural surfaces 
associated with each of these species; (2) associated plant communities 
for each of these species; and (3) habitat conditions that support the 
majority of known plant occurrences of these species, including a 
number of important core occurrences.
    The acreage of critical habitat for Unit 2 by land ownership is 
shown in Table 3.

          Table 3.--Critical Habitat for Unit 2 in Hectares (ha) (Acres (ac)) by Species and Land Ownership, San Bernardino County, California
                           [Area estimates reflect critical habitat unit boundaries, not primary constituent elements within1]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Species                          BLM                    USFS               Federal total             Private                 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum..  0 ha (0 ac)...........  150 ha (365 ac).......  150 ha (365 ac)......  0 ha (0 ac)..........  150 ha (365 ac).

[[Page 78581]]

 
Lesquerella kingii ssp.  bernardina  0 ha (0 ac)...........  195 ha (490 ac).......  195 ha (490 ac)......  10 ha (20 ac)........  205 ha (510 ac).
                                    -------------------------
    Total \2\......................  0 ha (0 ac)...........  265 ha (665 ac).......  265 ha (665 ac)......  10 ha (20 ac)........  275 ha (685 ac).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hectares have been converted to acres (1 ha = 2.47 ac). Based on the level of imprecision of mapping at this scale, hectares and acres have been
  rounded to the nearest 5.
\2\ Because of overlapping boundaries, the sum of designated critical habitat for each carbonate plant species does not equal the total area that has
  been designated as critical habitat for each species.

Unit 3: Sugarlump Ridge Unit, San Bernardino County, California (210 ha 
(515 ac))

    The Sugarlump Ridge Unit includes two separate polygons 
encompassing an important core occurrence of the Lesquerella kingii 
ssp. bernardina. This unit is centered on the north-facing slope of 
Sugarlump Ridge south of Bear Valley, approximately 10 km (6.2 mi) 
south of the Bertha Ridge unit. The soils in this unit are primarily 
derived from dolomite instead of limestone. Lesquerella kingii ssp. 
bernardina is the only carbonate plant in this unit.
    This unit contains one of the two known Lesquerella kingii ssp. 
bernardina aggregate occurrences, and has been identified by the SBNF 
as being a very important core occurrence for the survival and 
conservation of Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina. Additionally, the 
revised draft San Bernardino Mountains Carbonate Endemic Plants 
Recovery Plan (USFWS, in prep.) specifically mentions that the 
permanent protection of this occurrence is necessary for its 
downlisting or delisting.
    The SBNF is planning a revision of their Resource Management Plan 
in the near future that, among other functions, would provide 
conservation benefits to Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina and its 
habitat in this unit. These lands, however, currently do not have 
approved management provisions for the carbonate plants and their 
habitat, and habitat degradation may still be occurring due to ongoing 
activities identified in the final listing rule for these species (see 
USFWS 2001b). Therefore, the subject lands continue to require special 
management and protection to ensure the conservation of Lesquerella 
kingii ssp. bernardina and its habitat.
    The core Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina occurrence in this unit 
is important as a source for potential colonization events (e.g., seed 
dispersal) that may be necessary to maintain the natural population 
dynamics of local extirpation and colonization. Every occurrence of 
this carbonate plant in this unit is important as a potential seed 
source to colonize unoccupied sites. Every occurrence of this species 
in this unit may provide important genetic material through pollen and 
seed dispersal which may maintain long-term viability and genetic 
diversity, and thereby potentially reduce the likelihood of 
extirpation.
    Lands within this unit are essential to the conservation of 
Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina because they provide (1) suitable 
carbonate substrates and carbonate derived soils with intact, natural 
surfaces associated with this species; (2) associated plant communities 
for this species; and (3) habitat conditions that support the majority 
of known plant occurrences of this species, including an important core 
occurrence.
    The acreage of critical habitat for Unit 3 by land ownership is 
shown in Table 4.

          Table 4.--Critical Habitat for Unit 3 in Hectares (ha) (Acres (ac)) by Species and Land Ownership, San Bernardino County, California
                         [Area estimates reflect critical habitat unit boundaries, not primary constituent elements within \1\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Species                          BLM                    USFS               Federal total             Private                 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lesquerella kingii ssp.  bernardina  0 ha (0 ac)...........  210 ha (515 ac).......  210 ha (515 ac)......  0 ha (0 ac)..........  210 ha (515 ac).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hectares have been converted to acres (1 ha = 2.47 ac). Based on the level of imprecision of mapping at this scale, hectares and acres have been
  rounded to the nearest 5.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    The regulatory effects of a critical habitat designation under the 
Act are triggered through the provisions of section 7, which applies 
only to activities conducted, authorized, or funded by a Federal agency 
(Federal actions). Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 402. 
Individuals, organizations, States, local governments, and other non-
Federal entities are not affected by the designation of critical 
habitat unless their actions occur on Federal lands, require Federal 
authorization, or involve Federal funding.
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including us, 
to insure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat. This requirement is met 
through section 7 consultation under the Act. Our regulations define 
``jeopardize the continued existence'' 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 (50 CFR 402.02). ``Destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical

[[Page 78582]]

habitat'' is defined as a direct or indirect alteration that 
appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for both the 
survival and recovery of the species (50 CFR 402.02). Such alterations 
include, but are not limited to, adverse changes to the physical or 
biological features (i.e., the primary constituent elements) that were 
the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.
    Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with us on any 
action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 
proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat. Conference reports provide conservation 
recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may 
be caused by the proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a 
conference report are advisory.
    We may issue a formal conference report, if requested by the 
Federal action agency. Formal conference reports include an opinion 
that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species was 
listed or critical habitat designated. We may adopt the formal 
conference report as the biological opinion when the species is listed 
or critical habitat designated, if no substantial new information or 
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 
402.10(d)).
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) 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 (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, we 
would ensure that the permitted actions do not destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat.
    If we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, we would 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 Service's Regional Director believes would avoid 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 conference with us on actions for which formal 
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated 
critical habitat.
    Activities on Federal lands that may affect the five carbonate 
plants or their critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. 
Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal 
agency, such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit under section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the Service, or some other Federal action, 
including funding (e.g., from the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA)); permits from the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD); activities by Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) on their land or land under their jurisdiction; 
activities funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
Department of Energy (DOE), or any other Federal agency; regulation of 
airport improvement activities by FAA; and construction of 
communication sites licensed by the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC) will also continue to be subject to the section 7 consultation 
process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical 
habitat and actions on non-Federal lands that are not federally funded, 
authorized, or permitted do not require section 7 consultation.
    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 result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat include those that alter the primary constituent 
elements to an extent that the value of critical habitat for the 
conservation of the five carbonate plants 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 directly or indirectly destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Removing, thinning, or destroying the five carbonate plants 
habitat (as defined in the primary constituent elements discussion), 
whether by burning, mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g., 
plowing, grubbing, grading, grazing, woodcutting, construction, road 
building, mining, herbicide application, etc.);
    (2) Activities that appreciably degrade or destroy the five 
carbonate plants' habitat (and their primary constituent elements), 
including, but not limited to, livestock grazing, clearing, discing, 
farming, residential or commercial development, introducing or 
encouraging the spread of nonnative species, off-road vehicle use, and 
heavy recreational use; and
    (3) Appreciably decreasing habitat value or quality through 
indirect effects (e.g., edge effects, invasion of exotic plants or 
animals, or fragmentation).
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
constitute 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 plants, 
and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species, 911 NE. 
11th Ave., Portland, OR 97232 (telephone 503/231-6131; facsimile 503/
231-6243).

Relationship to Habitat Conservation Plans and Other Planning Efforts

    Only one habitat conservation plan (HCP), Habitat conservation plan 
for the federally threatened desert tortoise, Cushenbury sand and 
gravel quarry, San Bernardino, California (Lilburn Corporation 1994), 
has been completed within the area where these five carbonate plants 
occur. This HCP addresses the federally listed as threatened desert 
tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). While Erigeron parishii occurs within 
the area addressed by this HCP, neither this species nor any other 
carbonate plant addressed in this proposal is covered under this HCP. 
In the event that future HCPs are developed within the boundaries of 
designated critical habitat in which one or more of the carbonate 
plants is included as a covered species, we will work with applicants 
to ensure that the HCPs provide for protection and

[[Page 78583]]

management of habitat areas essential for their conservation by either 
directing development and habitat modification to non-essential areas 
or appropriately modifying activities within essential habitat areas so 
that such activities will not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat.
    The HCP development process provides an opportunity for more 
intensive data collection and analysis regarding the use of particular 
habitat areas by the five carbonate plants. 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 preserves. We 
fully expect that any HCPs undertaken by local jurisdictions (e.g., 
counties, cities) and other parties will identify, protect, and provide 
appropriate management for those specific lands within the boundaries 
of the plans that are essential for the long-term conservation of the 
species. We believe and fully expect that our analyses of these 
proposed HCPs and proposed permits under section 7 will show that 
covered activities carried out in accordance with the provisions of the 
HCPs and biological opinions will not result in destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the February 12, 2002, proposed critical habitat designation (67 
FR 6578), 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 initial 60-day comment period closed on April 15, 2002. 
The comment period was reopened from September 20, 2002, to October 21, 
2002 (67 FR 59239), to allow for additional comments on the proposed 
designation, and comments on the draft economic analysis of the 
proposed critical habitat.
    We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, county 
governments, elected officials, and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment. In addition, on February 18, 2002, we invited 
public comment through the publication of a legal notice in the San 
Bernardino Sun newspaper in southern California. We also provided 
notification of the draft economic analysis to all interested parties. 
This was accomplished through telephone calls, letters, and news 
releases faxed or mailed to affected elected officials, media outlets, 
local jurisdictions, and interest groups. We posted the proposed rule 
and draft economic analysis and associated material on our Carlsbad 
Fish and Wildlife Office Internet site following the reopening of the 
public comment period on September 20, 2002.
    We received a total of 120 comment letters from 193 separate 
parties (4 letters contained multiple signatures) during the two public 
comment periods. Comments were received from Federal and local 
agencies, and private organizations or individuals. No response was 
received from State agencies. Of these 120 comment letters, 10 were in 
favor of the designation, and 110 against it. We reviewed all comments 
received for substantive issues and comments, and new information 
regarding the five carbonate plants.

Peer Review

    We requested six biologists, who have knowledge of the five 
carbonate plants, to provide peer review of the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for the five carbonate plants. Five independent peer 
reviewers submitted comments on our proposed critical habitat 
designation. Each reviewer generally endorsed the proposal. Four of the 
reviewers expressed some reservations as to the adequacy of the 
proposed designation. More specifically, they advocated the inclusion 
of additional lands to address the following issues: connectivity, 
outlying occurrences, edge effects, and the importance of protecting 
genetic diversity for the survival of the five carbonate plants. The 
fifth reviewer supported the designation as proposed.
    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 were either 
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

    Comment 1: Several commenters, including four peer reviewers, 
recommended revising the critical habitat boundaries to increase 
connectivity, and reduce the edge-to-area ratio to improve the 
biological or ecological defensibility of critical habitat. A few 
commenters suggested that the proposed rule ignores the principles of 
species composition and reserve design, citing that habitat in 
contiguous blocks is better than fragmented habitat. Another commenter, 
citing recent studies relating to fragmentation effects, suggested we 
failed to use the best available scientific information to propose 
adequate unoccupied critical habitat.
    Our Response: In our proposed critical habitat designation for the 
five carbonate plants, we identified those areas that currently contain 
or provide populations and habitat components essential to the 
conservation of the five carbonate plants. We did not include some 
habitat areas where the five carbonate plants had not been observed 
recently because we did not believe that these areas were essential to 
the conservation of the species. We included those areas we believe to 
be essential, including core populations and habitat that provides the 
principal biological and physical components necessary for the 
conservation of the species.
    One of the commenters cited recent studies that concluded that 
fragmentation effects are diminished if fragments are joined together 
by a corridor connecting two or more fragments. We believe that the 
configuration of areas in the designation may substantively reduce 
fragmentation effects. Although all of the designated occurrences of 
each of the five carbonate plants are not ``connected'' by the 
boundaries of the designation, many localized occurrences and some 
aggregate occurrences were designated within the same critical habitat 
area or polygon, thereby decreasing the likelihood of fragmentation 
effects and improving management defensibility and opportunities for 
genetic exchange. Please refer to the Criteria Used to Identify 
Critical Habitat section of this rulemaking for additional discussion 
regarding criteria used in the development of the critical habitat for 
the carbonate plants this.
    During the process of developing this final rule, we re-evaluated 
our methodology and the boundaries defining proposed critical habitat. 
Following that re-evaluation, we believe that what we had proposed for 
the five carbonate plants is based on the best scientific and 
commercial information available and defines what we consider to be 
essential to the conservation of the five carbonate species. 
Consequently, we did not modify the designation for the final rule or 
believe that it was warranted to withdraw the designation and re-
propose a new designation.
    Comment 2: Two peer reviewers recommended including outlying 
localized occurrences of Erigeron parishii on BLM and University of 
California Burns Reserve lands into the designation.
    Our Response: When we proposed critical habitat for Erigeron 
parishii,

[[Page 78584]]

information regarding one of the subject occurrences on BLM land was 
not available to us. We received information about this occurrence 
during the initial 60-day public review period for the proposed rule. 
After reviewing the location, size, and status of this occurrence, we 
have determined that the habitat encompassing this occurrence is likely 
to be too small and isolated to be considered as essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    We evaluated the information that we had available concerning the 
known occurrences on the BLM and University of California Burns Reserve 
lands during the development of the proposed critical habitat 
designation. Based on the results of this review we determined that 
these areas were too isolated from the remaining occurrences and small 
in area to be considered as essential for the conservation of the 
species. Consequently, they were not proposed as critical habitat.
    Comment 3: One commenter expressed concern that significant amounts 
of proposed critical habitat on BLM lands are not occupied by Erigeron 
parishii and do not contain constituent elements (e.g., soils), and 
recommended that we modify critical habitat for this species to exclude 
areas shown in two maps provided by the commenter.
    Our Response: During the development of this final designation we 
reviewed the SBNF occurrence data for Eriogonum parishii and were able 
to confirm that all of the proposed critical habitat in question 
include the SBNF mapped occurrences of the species. In subsequent 
discussions with staff at the BLM's Barstow Field Office, it became 
evident that BLM did not have the most current and accurate information 
in their database concerning occurrences of the subject species. In 
addition, we reviewed our proposed designation and found no aberrations 
to the methodology we used to determine the critical habitat boundaries 
in relation to the delineated occurrences on BLM lands.
    The commenter also suggested that the subject critical habitat 
polygons do not contain primary constituent elements (e.g., soils), 
though no evidence was provided to support the commenter's claim, 
making it difficult to provide a specific response. However, as defined 
in the Primary Constituent Elements section of the proposed rule, the 
species Erigeron parishii is associated with soils derived primarily 
from upstream or upslope limestone, dolomite, or quartz monzonite 
parent materials. Also, as discussed in the Ecology section of the 
proposed rule and this final rule, this species is occasionally 
associated with a granitic/limestone interface. Several occurrences of 
this species are associated with granitic substrates overlaid by 
limestone soils (CDFG 2002). If the commenter was using a rock 
substrate map, it would reveal only the granitic substrate in those 
areas. Also, by our use of the 100-m UTM grid to delineate critical 
habitat, the designation likely results in the inclusion of exposed 
granitic substrates and granitic derived soils in these interface 
areas. Nevertheless, each critical habitat polygon designated for 
Erigeron parishii is known to include the primary constituent elements 
for the species.
    Comment 4: Two commenters suggested that substantial portions of 
proposed critical habitat contain non-carbonate rock, and should not be 
considered habitat for the five carbonate plants. One commenter 
specifically claimed that the proposed critical habitat included lands 
adjacent to the ``3N88 or Crystal Creek haul road'' which contained 
granitic substrate and relatively small, degraded and isolated plant 
occurrences, and therefore, should be removed from the proposed 
critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: The commenter refers to critical habitat within Unit 
1 that includes Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum occurrences. As 
discussed in the Species Descriptions section of the proposed rule and 
this final rule, occurrences of some of the five carbonate plants have 
been described on granitic parent material that has been overlaid with 
soils derived from carbonate substrates washed down from upslope areas. 
A review of the geologic map provided by the commenter that includes 
the topography of the area around the subject haul road suggests that 
carbonate substrates do occur, and in fact are being actively mined, 
upslope from the subject haul road. Therefore, it is conceivable, if 
not likely, that carbonate soils overlay the granitic substrate in this 
particular area. Furthermore, as this species (including these 
occurrences) has not been recorded to occur on non-carbonate soils, it 
would not be unreasonable to assume that the granitic substrate in this 
area is overlaid with soils derived from carbonate substrates.
    The commenter also claimed that four of the five mapped, localized 
occurrences immediately adjacent to the subject haul road are 
considered to be lost, extirpated, disturbed, declining, or difficult 
to protect. While reviewing this information, we noted that the fifth 
occurrence appears much larger and is presumably intact, and that all 
five occurrences are relatively close together. As discussed in the 
Ecology and Critical Habitat Designation sections of this final rule, 
there is some evidence to support that relatively sparse or small 
occurrences in close proximity to larger ones may help facilitate gene 
flow among larger populations. Therefore, we consider each carbonate 
plant occurrence in the subject critical habitat area to be important 
to maintaining the natural population dynamics of local extirpation and 
colonization events that are necessary for the conservation of the 
species. Furthermore, as we noted in the Ecology section of the 
proposed rule and this final rule, persistence of the carbonate plants 
requires sufficient suitable habitat contiguous with areas that are 
currently occupied by the plants.
    Finally, as stated in the Primary Constituent Elements section of 
the proposed rule and this final rule, all areas designated as critical 
habitat for Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum contain one or more of 
the primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of the 
species. After evaluating the information provided by the commenter 
regarding habitat components, plant occurrences, and rock substrates on 
lands adjacent to the Crystal Creek (3N88) road, we were able to 
confirm that primary constituent elements are present in the subject 
area, it contains habitat components tied to the species, and the area 
is occupied by the species. Therefore, we consider the lands designated 
as critical habitat in subject area of Unit 1 to be essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    Comment 5: A few commenters were concerned that the critical 
habitat proposal lacked documented science, particularly with respect 
to conclusions made about why lands proposed for designation are 
essential to the conservation of the species. One commenter further 
argued that determinations made about the number and configuration of 
acres or plant occurrences essential to the long-term persistence of 
these species in the proposed rule was based strictly on intuition 
rather than through a scientific analysis of population parameters.
    Our Response: In developing our proposed designation of critical 
habitat for the five carbonate plants, we used the best commercial and 
scientific data available. As discussed in the Critical Habitat section 
of the proposed rule and this final rule, critical habitat designations 
identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial 
data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs 
of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent 
elements,

[[Page 78585]]

as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). As described in the Methods section of 
this rulemaking, we were able to utilize available data (i.e., known 
occurrences, soils, and vegetation associations) to assist in making 
our determination. As the commenter asserted, there is almost no data 
on population dynamics and stability of the five carbonate plant 
species. Nevertheless, we are required to designate, when prudent, 
critical habitat for listed species and believe our approach used the 
best scientific and commercial information available to delineate those 
areas essential to the conservation of the species.
    Comment 6: A few commenters expressed concern that no definition of 
``essential'' was provided in the proposed rule.
    Our Response: As described in the Critical Habitat section of the 
proposed rule and this final rule, to be included in a critical habitat 
designation, the habitat must first be ``essential to the conservation 
of the species.'' Since the word ``essential'' is not a defined term in 
the Act or regulations governing the Act, it is interpreted the same as 
in common usage, i.e. a necessary component of the process leading to 
recovery. Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known 
using the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas 
that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on 
which are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 
424.12(b)). Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we will 
not designate areas that do not, at the time of the designation, have 
the primary constituent elements that provide essential life cycle 
needs of the species. The best available scientific and commercial 
information regarding the five carbonate plants was used in determining 
the essential life cycle needs of each species. This information was 
then utilized to determine the primary constituent elements on which 
the designation was based.
    Comment 7: Several commenters expressed concern that lands proposed 
for designation include significant portions of known mineral reserves 
where listed species are not present.
    Our Response: As indicated in the Critical Habitat section of this 
final rule, each polygon representing critical habitat for each species 
is considered to be occupied by standing plants or seeds and contains 
one or more of their primary constituent elements. As described in the 
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat section of the proposed rule 
and this final rule, the mapped localized occurrences were refined to 
include: (1) Potential adjacent seed banks; (2) sites to maintain 
natural equilibrium between local extirpation and colonization events; 
(3) connectivity of suitable habitat to maintain potential gene flow 
among sites through pollen and seed dispersal; and (4) upslope or 
upstream geologic substrates that provide the necessary materials to 
replace the soils which are continually lost to natural processes. To 
map these essential lands, we overlaid them with a 100-m UTM grid. 
Because the grid included some areas that were deemed to be non-
essential, we then evaluated all grid cells adjacent to disturbed areas 
and eliminated grid cells where either the entire cell or the majority 
of the cell was within a disturbed area. Cells that had documented 
occurrences of the carbonate plants were retained even if the majority 
of the cell was disturbed. Since the five carbonate plants occur on 
carbonate substrates and carbonate derived soils, there is bound to be 
overlap with mineral reserves.
    Comment 8: A few commenters suggest that the proposed rule does not 
incorporate related scientific and commercial information generated by 
the draft CHMS. One commenter indicated that most of the lands 
identified for future mining on draft CHMS maps are included within the 
proposed critical habitat, even though biologists involved in the CHMS 
have largely agreed that the mining on these lands would not threaten 
long-term conservation goals, providing that the mining effects were 
offset by setting aside occupied habitat elsewhere in the region.
    Our Response: We support the CHMS stakeholders ongoing efforts to 
resolve conflicts between mining and listed species conservation needs. 
This type of regional conservation effort will likely reduce 
expenditures of time and resources for all parties involved relative to 
that expended when these types of conflicts are resolved in a piecemeal 
fashion. However, the details of the plan have not been finalized 
(Olson 2002) at this time and the court-ordered time frame for 
completing this critical habitat designation does not allow the 
flexibility to wait for the plan's completion.
    In preparation of the proposed rule and this final rule, we 
utilized the available scientific and commercial information generated 
by SBNF for the draft CHMS to assist in making our critical habitat 
designation. As discussed in the Background and Methods sections of the 
proposed rule and this final rule, SBNF provided us with a GIS data 
layer from their detailed draft CHMS maps that included the SBNF 
Carbonate Species Suitable Habitat Model and ranking system, SBNF 
mapped carbonate plant occurrence data, mapped areas of existing 
disturbance by mining activities, and mapped proposed mining and 
conservation areas (SBNF GIS data 2001), all of which we considered in 
our determination of critical habitat. We do not believe that this 
designation should deter those participating in the CHMS and are 
confident that the plan will be compatible with this designation.
    Comment 9: Two commenters expressed concern about the designation 
of lands adjacent to existing mining areas. One commenter stated that 
the designation may result in greater costs to the environment by 
limiting expansion of existing mines thereby increasing the development 
of new mining areas. Conversely, another commenter felt that carbonate 
plant habitat adjacent to existing mining operations is expendable 
since other lands remain unthreatened by mining disturbance.
    Our Response: Adjacency to existing mining areas was not a criteria 
used in determining which habitat was essential to the conservation of 
the species. The economic analysis assumes that all acres of 
undisturbed potentially viable carbonate reserve are of equal value, 
irrespective of their distance from existing mining and transportation 
infrastructure. In reality, mining activities--particularly those 
activities likely to be initiated within the next 20 years--are more 
likely to expand in concentric circles around existing infrastructure. 
Many acres within critical habitat that are considered potentially 
viable reserves are located significant distances from existing 
infrastructure; conversely, many acres outside critical habitat that 
are considered viable reserves are much closer to existing 
infrastructure. To avoid underestimating the potential impact of the 
rulemaking, however, the economic analysis assigned an equal 
probability of future mining to all potentially viable reserves.
    Comment 10: One commenter suggested that proposed designation of 
the boundary lines using UTM coordinates is not based on biology and 
results in the inclusion of lands not containing primary constituent 
elements.
    Our Response: As described in the Criteria Used to Identify 
Critical Habitat section of the proposed rule and this final rule, we 
recognize that not all parcels of land designated as critical habitat 
will contain the habitat components essential to the conservation of 
the five carbonate

[[Page 78586]]

plants. A 100-m grid is used to minimize areas that do not contain the 
primary constituent elements for the carbonate plants being included in 
the designation and to provide the public a precise description of the 
boundaries of the designation. Though mapped as such, existing features 
and structures, such as buildings, mines that are active at the time of 
this publication, paved or unpaved roads, other paved or cleared areas, 
lawns, and other urban landscaped areas are unlikely to contain one or 
more of the primary constituent elements. 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 may affect the species or primary constituent 
elements in adjacent critical habitat.
    Comment 11: A few commenters interpreted the proposed designation 
to suggest that all, or nearly all, known occurrences of the five 
carbonate plants were placed into designated critical habitat. The 
commenters suggested that (1) there is no scientific data generated by 
CHMS, SBNF, or any other source, that supports the designation of all 
or nearly all occupied habitat, (2) that it appeared arbitrary to 
designate all occurrences that were captured by 100-m UTM grid cells, 
and (3) that such methods of determining critical habitat does not 
consider which stands are essential.
    Our Response: As described in the Critical Habitat Designation 
section of this final rule, we did not propose to designate all known 
occurrences of the five carbonate plants. In our proposed and final 
designation of critical habitat, we selected essential habitat areas 
based on occurrence data, soils, vegetation, elevation, topography, and 
current land uses. To a great extent, this data was obtained from the 
SBNF, including their work on the CHMS. During the analysis, it was 
determined that some areas containing one or more primary constituent 
elements did not represent suitable habitat or were otherwise 
determined not to be essential for the conservation of the species. For 
example, lands containing several aggregate occurrences or portions of 
aggregate occurrences of each species were not designated, because they 
were either too small or isolated or disturbed by ongoing mining 
activities. Therefore, they were determined not to be essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    Comment 12: A few commenters interpreted the language in the 
proposed rule to suggest that any proposed impacts to designated 
critical habitat would result in an adverse modification and/or 
jeopardy determination.
    Our Response: The commenters refer to specific language in the 
Critical Habitat section of the proposed rule and this final rule that 
defines a Federal agency's responsibilities under section 7(a)(2) of 
the Act and 50 CFR 402.02 of the implementing regulations. One 
commenter, however, incorrectly interpreted the language in the 
proposed rule and the Act by assuming that ``destruction,'' per the 
definition, and ``degradation,'' per the commenters paraphrasing of the 
critical habitat definition, have the same meaning.
    In 50 CFR 402.02 of the implementing regulations, destruction and 
adverse modification is defined as a ``direct or indirect alteration 
that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the 
survival and recovery of a listed species.'' Therefore, during a 
consultation on a proposed project in critical habitat we would 
evaluate the potential direct and indirect impacts of the project on 
the survival and recovery of the species. Projects that did not 
``appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat'' for the survival 
and recovery of the species would not trigger an adverse modification 
determination.
    Similarly, ``jeopardize the continued existence'' is defined as 
``engag[ing] in an action that reasonable would be expected, directly 
or indirectly, to reduce appreciable the likelihood of both the 
survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the 
reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the at species.'' Therefore, 
when evaluating whether a proposed project would result in jeopardy we 
evaluate the potential direct and indirect impacts of the project and 
how likely the project is to appreciably reduce the survival and 
recovery of the species.
    Comment 13: One commenter wondered how in the absence of general 
ecological information we can adequately assess what habitat is 
critical to the conservation of the species.
    Our Response: As described in detail in the Critical Habitat 
section of the proposed rule and this final rule, section 4 of the Act 
requires that we designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable. We are required to base our designations on 
what, at the time of designation, we know to be essential and therefore 
critical habitat. Please refer to the Critical Habitat section of this 
proposed rule for further explanation.
    Comment 14: Several commenters stated that the designation was not 
necessary to protect the five carbonate plants.
    Our Response: As discussed in the Prudency Determination section of 
the proposed rule, Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and 
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum 
extent prudent and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the 
time a species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical 
habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations 
exist--(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species, or (2) such designation of 
critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
    As described in our proposed rule to designate critical habitat for 
the five carbonate plants, we determined that it is prudent to propose 
the designation of critical habitat for these species. We made this 
determination, in part, because there may be some additional 
conservation benefits to the species by designating critical habitat on 
lands essential to the conservation of the five carbonate plants.
    Comment 15: A few commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
rule understates the success of re-vegetation/reclamation efforts on 
reclaimed mining lands, and natural colonization by carbonate plants on 
disturbed sites. One commenter concluded that mining (and grazing) is 
compatible with the life histories of these species.
    Our Response: As explained in the Ecology section of this 
rulemaking, the carbonate plants do not appear to be specifically 
linked to early vegetation successional stages following natural 
disturbance; however, they are found on some surfaces that are 
naturally disturbed by landslides and substrate upheaval (Neel 2000). 
Primarily, they occur in habitat that is undisturbed by human 
activities, but instances of colonization onto human-disturbed surfaces 
have been observed for all of the carbonate plants (Eliason 2002, White 
2002). One of the subject commenters cited a USDA 2000 article that 
addressed the introduction of two of the carbonate plant species on 
disturbed sites, and claimed that this article clearly shows that re-
vegetation/re-establishment of the listed plants is beyond the 
experimental stage. While we understand that there have been some 
successful efforts at reintroducing carbonate plant species on 
disturbed sites, and that some instances of natural recolonization has 
been observed, there is no evidence at this time to support

[[Page 78587]]

that soil structure, and/or habitat structure and function, and/or 
population dynamics associated with carbonate plant occurrences on 
disturbed surfaces are equivalent to those of undisturbed surfaces. 
Consequently, we are unable to ascertain whether disturbance from 
mining activities is compatible with the life histories of the five 
carbonate plants.
    Comment 16: One commenter concluded that there is no evidence that 
present populations are at or near a minimum threshold for long-term 
persistence, and that the listed plants can continue to sustain 
population declines associated with mining operations well into the 
future.
    Our Response: Although the carbonate plant species may have some 
ability to occupy reclaimed areas, mining operations have and continue 
to impact the viability of populations needed to conserve the species. 
The final listing rule for the five carbonate plants documented the 
species decline and why they were considered to be threatened or 
endangered. Limestone mining was cited as the primary threat to these 
species (59 FR 43652) and the primary threats to these plants continue 
to include population reduction and habitat loss, degradation, and 
fragmentation from surface mining activities. While listing the species 
and designating critical habitat provides significant regulatory 
protections for the species, they do not automatically halt the loss of 
individuals of the species. The goal of planning efforts such as the 
CHMS is to maximize the species recovery potential while providing 
opportunities for future mining activities.
    Comment 17: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule 
makes a case for connectivity of plant occurrences to allow for gene 
flow, though there is no evidence presented that gene flow for the 
listed species is reduced across the naturally geologically fragmented 
habitat.
    Our Response: Although anecdotal evidence indicates that the five 
carbonate plants may behave as metapopulations, the scope of the 
designation may, in fact, be limited to a great degree by the lack of 
adequate evidence of these relationships. Though we have not designated 
critical habitat based on speculation about what might be learned about 
the five carbonate plants in the future, the commenter poses an 
interesting question. We do know that within the naturally geologically 
fragmented landscape, there may be extensive gene flow among 
populations of at least three of the carbonate plant species, and that 
the populations of these three species have not been sufficiently 
isolated to result in genetic divergence (Neel 2002). While it is true 
that very little is known about how the five carbonate plants may 
function as metapopulations, these dynamic relationships may be 
exhibited in some or all of the carbonate plant species.
    Just how much additional, if any, suitable habitat would be 
sufficient to ensure long-term persistence of the carbonate plants 
remains unclear. One distinction that may result from future work is 
that the geologically fragmented landscape, as well as naturally 
fragmented plant communities in the landscape, may not limit pollen and 
seed dispersal across the landscape, however, large-scale disturbances 
from mining operations may be shown to limit the movement of pollen and 
seeds, and result in fragmentation effects detrimental to relationships 
among populations of the five carbonate plants. Future information 
regarding ecological relationships or population structure and other 
factors may support linking aggregate occurrences across lands that at 
this time cannot be identified as containing primary constituent 
elements (e.g., those lands with non-carbonate substrates or non-
carbonate derived soils, or those lands with plant communities not 
known to be associated with carbonate plant occurrences).
    Comment 18: One commenter suggested that potential threats of 
habitat and population losses to the five carbonate plant species 
attributable to mining activities have not been shown to be evident on 
lands where these activities are not anticipated to occur.
    Our Response: Although areas included in the critical habitat 
designation may not face threats attributable to mining, they do 
contain features essential to the conservation of the species and, 
therefore, we have included them in the designation.
    Comment 19: Several commenters suggested we propose a new draft 
designation that does not include unoccupied habitat.
    Our Response: As indicated in our proposed rule and again in this 
final rule, we consider each polygon representing critical habitat for 
each of the five carbonate plants to be occupied by standing plants and 
seed as part of the seed bank. During the process of developing this 
final rule, we re-evaluated our methodology and the boundaries defining 
proposed critical habitat. Following that re-evaluation, we believe 
that what we had proposed for the five carbonate plants is based on the 
best scientific and commercial information available and defines what 
we consider to be essential to the conservation of the five carbonate 
species. Consequently, we did not modify the designation for the final 
rule or believe that it was warranted to withdraw the designation and 
re-propose a new designation.

Issue 2: Policy and Regulations

    Comment 20: Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
critical habitat could negate the efforts of the draft CHMS, and 
requested that we withdraw, modify, and resubmit the critical habitat 
proposal, or otherwise make the critical habitat proposal consistent 
with the draft CHMS.
    Our Response: We recognize that critical habitat is only one of 
many conservation tools for federally listed species, and the 
designation of critical habitat should not deter participation in the 
CHMS process. Regional planning, such as the proposed CHMS, are often 
the most important tools for reconciling land use with the conservation 
of listed species on Federal lands. We anticipate that future Federal 
land management plans in the range of the five carbonate plants will 
include it as a covered species and management will be provided for its 
long-term conservation. We expect that our future analyses of Federal 
actions under section 7 of the Act will show that activities carried 
out in accordance with the provisions of those consultations will not 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
designated for the five carbonate plants. The take minimization and 
conservation measures provided under these consultations are expected 
to adequately protect the essential habitat lands designated as 
critical habitat in this rule, such that the value of these lands for 
the conservation of the five carbonate plants is not appreciably 
diminished through direct or indirect alterations. If the CHMS is 
ultimately approved through a section 7 consultation, we may reassess 
the critical habitat boundaries in light of the consultation and as 
funds allow.
    During the process of developing this final rule, we re-evaluated 
our methodology and the boundaries defining proposed critical habitat. 
Following that re-evaluation, we believe that what we had proposed for 
the five carbonate plants is based on the best scientific and 
commercial information available and defines what we consider to be 
essential to the conservation of the five carbonate species.
    Comment 21: One commenter suggested that the designation of 
critical

[[Page 78588]]

habitat is an unnecessary ``duplicative'' layer of regulation.
    Our Response: Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, requires 
that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we designate 
critical habitat at the time a species is determined to be endangered 
or threatened. Therefore, if it is determined to be prudent, we are 
required by statute to designate critical habitat. As described in the 
proposed critical habitat rule, we determined that critical habitat was 
prudent for the carbonate plants and was necessary under the Act.
    Comment 22: One commenter expressed concern over the clarity of 
language in the proposed rule regarding the exclusion of features such 
as active mines and roads that will remain within the proposed critical 
habitat due to mapping scale limitations. The commenter wondered if 
active mines, existing roads, active quarries, waste/overburden piles, 
processing facilities and surfaces undergoing reclamation would be 
excluded if one or more primary constituent elements were present.
    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 five carbonate plants. In developing the 
proposed and final designation, we made an effort to minimize the 
inclusion of non-essential areas that do not contain the primary 
constituent elements for the plants. However, due to the mapping scale, 
some areas not essential to the conservation of the five carbonate 
plants were included within the boundaries of final critical habitat. 
These areas, such as active mines, existing roads, active quarries, 
processing facilities, and other surfaces with ongoing disturbance are 
unlikely to provide habitat for the plants. Disturbed surfaces 
undergoing reclamation, while they may eventually provide some benefit 
to the species, are not considered essential to the conservation of the 
five carbonate plants.
    As discussed in the Critical Habitat and Primary Constituent 
Elements sections of the proposed rule and this final rule, we will not 
designate areas that do not now have the primary constituent elements, 
as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b), that provide essential life cycle needs 
of the species. Therefore, the primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat for each species include (among other elements) soils with 
intact, natural surfaces that have not been substantially altered by 
land use activities. Lands having been altered by land use activities 
are further defined to include those that are graded, excavated, re-
contoured, or otherwise altered by ground-disturbing equipment. Even 
though these lands may be within the boundaries of designated critical 
habitat, are considered to be critical habitat, and may contain one or 
more of the primary constituent elements (e.g., rock substrate or 
soils) for the species, Federal actions limited to those specific areas 
will not likely trigger a section 7 consultation due to the existing 
and ongoing disturbance regime, unless they may affect the species or 
primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
    Comment 23: One commenter suggested that the Service can exclude 
active mine sites and all other private lands from the designation 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Another commenter suggested that the 
economic cost of the designation should outweigh the benefits to the 
species and critical habitat should be ``further curtailed'' under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    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. 
To address the commenters' concerns, we re-evaluated lands proposed as 
critical habitat for economic costs under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 
In the development of final critical habitat, we considered the 
following factors: (1) Results of our economic analyses and final 
addendum of this rulemaking; (2) the narrow endemic nature and 
sensitivity of these species and their habitat; (3) the significant 
correlation between active mines and private lands containing limestone 
deposits and occurrences of the carbonate plants; (4) the relationship 
of active mines and private lands to proposed critical habitat; and (5) 
the relationship between proposed critical habitat and CHMS. Based on 
our analysis, we believe that the designation of critical habitat will 
not have a significant economic impact on active mining operations or 
private lands, and will help focus the mining industry and other 
stakeholders to areas being identified by the CHMS for future mining to 
non-essential areas. Furthermore, as discussed in this final rule and 
our economic analyses and final addendum for this rulemaking, we have 
determined that no significant adverse economic effects should result 
from this critical habitat designation. Finally, we do not feel that 
the designation will have significant negative impact to private lands, 
the mining industry or the CHMS process. Therefore, we believe that the 
benefits of designating the lands in this final rule as critical 
habitat, including private lands and those within the boundaries of 
active mines, 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. 
Additionally, please refer to our response to Comment 22 for a 
discussion of lands within active mines that may have on-going or 
active disturbance.
    Comment 24: Two commenters indicated opposition to any critical 
habitat designation that would lead to a takings of their mining claims 
without compensation or that would impose limitations on private 
property not supported by law.
    Our Response: As discussed in the Takings section of the proposed 
rule and this final rulemaking, 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 approximately 5,335 ha (13,180 ac) 
of land in San Bernardino County, California, in three units of 
critical habitat for the five carbonate plants. The takings 
implications assessment concludes that this rule does not pose 
significant takings implications. A copy of the Taking Implications 
Assessment has been included in the supporting record for this 
rulemaking.
    The designation of critical habitat alone does not deny anyone 
economically viable use of their property. The Act does not 
automatically restrict all uses of critical habitat, but only imposes 
restrictions under section 7(a)(2) on Federal agency actions that may 
result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical 
habitat. Use of land is not categorically prohibited, but rather 
certain restrictions are imposed upon Federal agency actions that may 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    We believe that the takings implications associated with this 
critical habitat designation will be insignificant, even though private 
lands are included as well as Federal lands. Impacts of critical 
habitat designation may occur on private lands where there is Federal 
involvement (e.g., Federal funding or

[[Page 78589]]

permitting) subject to section 7 of the Act. Impacts on private 
entities may also result if the decision on a proposed action on 
federally owned land designated as critical habitat could affect 
economic activity on adjoining non-Federal land. Each action would be 
evaluated by the involved Federal agency, in consultation with us, in 
relation to its impact on the five carbonate plants and their 
designated critical habitat.
    The Act provides mechanisms, through section 7 consultation, to 
resolve apparent conflicts between proposed Federal actions, including 
Federal funding or permitting of actions on private land, and the 
conservation of the species, including avoiding the destruction or 
adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Based on our 
experience with section 7 consultations for all listed species, most 
projects, including those that in their initial proposed form would 
result in jeopardy or adverse modification determinations in section 7 
consultations, can be implemented successfully with, at most, the 
adoption of reasonable and prudent alternatives. These measures must be 
economically feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal 
agency involved in the consultation. Therefore, we anticipate that this 
critical habitat designation for the five carbonate plants will not 
result in significant takings implications on these lands.
    Comment 25: One commenter expressed concern that the regulatory 
burden to Federal agencies will be increased by the proposed 
designation in unoccupied critical habitat areas.
    Our Response: Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 
of the Act through the prohibition against destruction or adverse 
modification with regard to actions carried out, funded, permitted, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. If a Federal action may affect a listed 
species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action 
agency) must enter into consultation with us. Through this 
consultation, we would ensure that the permitted actions do not destroy 
or adversely modify critical habitat. In the proposed rule and draft 
economic analysis, we indicated that we do not expect that the 
designation of critical habitat would provide significant additional 
regulatory or economic burdens or restrictions to those afforded the 
five carbonate plants pursuant to the Act. This conclusion is based on 
the existing regulatory protections afforded the five carbonate plants 
from their being listed as threatened or endangered and the fact that 
the lands designated as critical habitat are considered occupied by the 
species. However, there may be specific circumstances where critical 
habitat may trigger an incremental regulatory burden. Please refer to 
our draft economic analysis for a discussion of these specific cases.
    Comment 26: One commenter suggested that the highly fragmented 
proposed critical habitat designation ignores both the legal direction 
under the Act mandating promotion of species recovery and basic 
scientific understanding of requirements for effective species 
conservation. The commenter further suggested that these views are 
supported by case law (Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 3936 (5th Cir. 2001)).
    Our Response: The commenter refers to a recent Fifth U.S. Circuit 
Court of Appeals case in which the Court determined that requirements 
to designate critical habitat are aimed at preventing extinction (i.e., 
jeopardy) and promoting recovery of the listed species. Critical 
habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act, as amended, to include 
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. Failure to conserve enough 
suitable habitat could potentially reduce the size and viability of 
fragmented populations as surely as destruction of occupied habitat. 
However, we believe that based on the current available information 
concerning the carbonate plants, we are designating lands that we 
believe are essential to the conservation of these species.
    As discussed in the Critical Habitat section of this rulemaking, 
our regulations state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as critical 
habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied by a 
species only when a designation limited to its present range would be 
inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.'' (50 CFR 
424.12(e)). We are required to base our designations on what, at the 
time of designation, we know to be essential to the conservation of the 
species. Recent genetic work on the five carbonate plants (Neel 2000; 
Neel and Ellstrand 2001; Neel and Ellstrand, in press) indicate that 
there is potentially extensive gene flow among populations, and that 
these fragmented populations have not been sufficiently isolated to 
undergo divergence. Nevertheless, more precise information on gene flow 
among carbonate plant populations is needed to justify that additional 
suitable habitat not currently occupied by the species is essential to 
the conservation of the five carbonate plants.
    Comment 27: One commenter suggested that the critical habitat 
proposal should include environmental documentation in response to 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 
commenter further suggested that the Service's reliance on a 1983 
Federal Register Notice to make the determination for not doing an 
Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to NEPA is inappropriate and 
inadequate.
    Our Response: As we indicated in our proposed rule, we have 
determined that an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact 
Statement, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining our 
reason for this determination was published in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position has been upheld by the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 
1495 (9th Cir. 1995).
    Comment 28: One commenter felt that the critical habitat legal 
descriptions in the Federal Register were not appropriate for public 
comment, as the legal descriptions could not easily be compared to 
section, range and township descriptions usually found on property 
ownership maps.
    Our Response: This final rule contains the legal descriptions of 
areas designated as critical habitat required under 50 CFR 424.12(c). 
These regulations specify that each critical habitat will be defined by 
specific points and lines as found on standard topographic maps. We 
also made available a public viewing room where the proposed critical 
habitat units 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. The 
accompanying maps are for illustration purposes only. If additional 
clarification is necessary, contact the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    Comment 29: One commenter stated that the private lands occupied by 
the five carbonate plants are not the most significant or most critical 
to the continued existence of the five carbonate plants.

[[Page 78590]]

    Our Response: As required by the Act and regulations (section 
4(b)(1)(A) and 50 CFR 424.12), we used the best scientific and 
commercial data available to determine areas that contain the physical 
and biological features that are essential for the conservation of the 
five carbonate plants. Therefore, we are designating lands that contain 
the physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) 
that are essential to the conservation of the species regardless of 
landownership.
    Comment 30: One commenter indicated critical habitat designation on 
private lands was not necessary, because mining companies are already 
subject to aggressive California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and 
Surface Mining Reclamation Act (SMARA) requirements to address these 
species.
    Our Response: Pursuant to subsection 4(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 
424.12, we must, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
designate critical habitat for species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act. Our proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat for the five carbonate plants and this final rule are in 
compliance with the Act and implementing regulations. While we 
recognize that California State law includes clear references to 
habitat values, we do not find that the provisions of CEQA and SMARA 
make the designation of critical habitat on privately owned lands 
unnecessary under the Act. Even with the provisions of CEQA and SMARA, 
we believe that the units designated continue to require special 
management and protection to ensure the conservation carbonate plants 
and their habitat.
    As discussed previously, 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 consider the effects of the critical habitat designation under 
California State law in our analysis. As discussed in this final rule 
and our economic analyses and final addendum for this rulemaking, we do 
not feel that the designation will have significant negative impact to 
private lands or the mining industry. Therefore, we believe that the 
benefits of designating the lands in this final rule as critical 
habitat, including private lands and those within the boundaries of 
active mines, 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.
    Comment 31: One commenter disagreed with our statement in the 
Executive Order 13211 section of the proposed rule that ``this action 
is not a significant energy action; and that no Statement of Energy 
Effects is Required.'' The commenter suggested that the use of calcium 
carbonate, a product of limestone mining, reduces the need for millions 
of barrels of oil, and concluded that the designation will increase the 
need to import more oil.
    Our Response: Executive Order 13211 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 that may significantly affect primary 
energy supply, distribution, and use. As discussed in the proposed rule 
and this final rule, the primary land uses within designated critical 
habitat for the five carbonate plants include mining, recreation, 
grazing and U.S. Forest Service operations. Therefore as stated in the 
proposed and final rule, no significant primary energy production, 
supply, and distribution facilities are included within designated 
critical habitat. We believe that the use of calcium carbonate as a 
filler to reduce the need for the importation of oil would be 
considered to be a secondary effect and consequently not considered 
under this Executive Order. As a result, this action is not a 
significant action affecting primary energy production, supply, and 
distribution facilities, and no Statement of Energy Effects is 
required.
    Comment 32: Several commenters expressed opposition to a mineral 
withdrawal on SBNF lands.
    Our Response: The proposed mineral withdrawal on SBNF lands is a 
U.S. Forest Service action. Though the proposed mineral withdrawal may 
be related to the SBNF's future management strategies for the five 
carbonate plants and other sensitive species and habitat, it is not a 
factor in our determination of critical habitat for the five carbonate 
plants.
    Comment 33: A few commenters expressed opposition to the listing of 
the five carbonate plants. One commenter suggested that there is almost 
no peer-reviewed science to support the listing, and that the species' 
range is from Canada to Mexico. In conclusion, the commenter requested 
that a National Academy of Sciences Panel be convened to review the 
listing action.
    Our Response: The current rulemaking is for the consideration and 
designation of critical habitat for the five carbonate plant species. 
While some may not agree with the action or rationale for the listing 
of these species in 1994 (59 FR 43652), that was a separate rulemaking 
procedure and will not be addressed herein. If the commenters believe 
that the five carbonate plant species were listed in error, then a more 
appropriate avenue would be to submit a petition with documentation 
supporting their position for a formal review pursuant to our petition 
management guidance.
    Comment 34: One commenter expressed concern that, by taking an 
expansive and overbroad approach to critical habitat designation, we 
ignore the clear intent of Congress that a more restrictive approach--
designating only occupied areas and those areas ``essential to the 
conservation of the species''--be implemented.
    Our Response: In proposing critical habitat for the five carbonate 
plants, we identified those finite areas that we believed to be 
essential to the conservation of these species. We recognize that not 
all parcels of land designated as critical habitat will contain the 
habitat components essential to the conservation of the five carbonate 
plants.
    In developing the proposal and this final designation, we made an 
effort to minimize the inclusion of nonessential areas that do not 
contain the primary constituent elements for the five carbonate plants. 
However, due to our mapping scale, some areas not essential to the 
conservation of the species were included within the boundaries of 
proposed and final critical habitat. These areas, such as existing 
mining operations, existing roads or other developed lands are unlikely 
to provide habitat for the five carbonate plants. 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 primary 
constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
    Comment 35: One commenter suggested the recent Court cases 
invalidated our definition of adverse modification, and limited our 
authority under the jeopardy standard, thereby setting a lower 
threshold for adverse modification than that for the jeopardy standard.
    Our Response: In the March 15, 2001, decision of the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434) regarding a challenge to a not 
prudent finding, the Court determined that our definition of 
destruction or adverse modification as currently contained in 50 CFR 
402.02 is

[[Page 78591]]

invalid. In response to this decision, we are reviewing the regulatory 
definition of adverse modification in relation to the conservation of 
the species.

Issue 3: Economic Issues

    Comment 36: A number of commenters provided information and general 
comments on regional and specific economics of the area and industries 
within proposed critical habitat prior to the release of the draft 
economic analysis. Further, several commenters provided specific 
comments on the draft economic analysis relating to various data and 
information used in the analysis.
    Our Response: We appreciated receiving information concerning 
regional and specific economics of the area and industries within 
proposed critical habitat. Copies of all public comments on the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the five carbonate plants 
were provided to our Division of Economics and their consultants, 
Industrial Economics, Inc., and subconsultants, Economic & Planning 
Systems, for use in the development of the draft economic analysis of 
the proposed designation. Additionally, we provided our Division of 
Economics, their consultants, and subconsultants with copies of all 
comments and information on the draft economic analysis submitted 
during the second public comment period for their use in developing the 
final addendum to the draft economic analysis. Specific information and 
comments related to the potential economic effects of the designation 
of critical habitat for the five carbonate plants and information 
contained within the draft economic analysis are addressed in this 
final rule, the draft economic analysis, or the final addendum to the 
draft economic analysis.
    Comment 37: Several commenters critiqued a variety of underlying 
assumptions in the draft economic analysis without providing any 
alternative sources of information or approaches.
    Our Response: While we appreciate comments concerning our approach 
to evaluating the potential economic effect of the critical habitat 
designation for the five carbonate plants, it is difficult for us to 
respond to or utilize comments that merely suggest that our approach is 
flawed or the underlying assumptions of our analysis are wrong. We can 
only acknowledge receipt of these comments and include them in the 
supporting record for the rulemaking. However, we attempted to address 
all comments in this final rule or in the final addendum to the draft 
economic analysis that provided specific information. Additionally, we 
are mandated to follow certain guidelines and standards for the 
development of economic analyses. These are referred to in our draft 
economic analysis and the final addendum to the draft economic 
analysis.
    Comment 38: Several commenters stated that the required economic 
analysis was not completed and available for public review and comment 
concurrently with the release of the proposed critical habitat 
designation.
    Our Response: Pursuant to subsection 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are to 
evaluate, among other relevant factors, the potential economic effects 
of the designation of critical habitat for the five carbonate plants 
during the development of the designation. We published our proposed 
designation in the Federal Register on February 12, 2002 (67 FR 6578). 
At that time, our Division of Economics, their consultants, Industrial 
Economics, Inc., and subconsultants, Economic & Planning Systems, 
initiated the draft economic analysis. The draft economic analysis was 
made available for public comment and review beginning on September 20, 
2002 (67 FR 59239). Following a 30-day public comment period on the 
proposal and draft economic analysis, a final addendum to the economic 
analysis was completed. Both the draft economic analysis and final 
addendum were used in the development of this final designation of 
critical habitat for the five carbonate plants. Consequently, we 
believe that we are in compliance with the provision of subsection 
4(b)(2) of the Act. Please refer to the Economic Analysis section of 
this final rule for a more detailed discussion of these documents.
    Comment 39: A few commenters expressed concern that the Service 
continues to use a ``baseline'' or incremental approach to quantifying 
economic impacts of the proposed rule. The commenters clarified that 
the Service has repeatedly stated its intention to follow the mandate 
of the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association v. U.S.F.W.S., 248 F.3d 
1277 (10th Cir. 2001) on the southwestern willow flycatcher critical 
habitat, but has seemingly failed to do so.
    Our Response: In New Mexico Cattle Growers Association v. 
U.S.F.W.S., the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the baseline 
approach to the economic analysis of critical habitat designations that 
was used by the Service for the southwestern willow flycatcher 
designation was ``not in accord with the language or intent of the 
[Endangered Species Act (ESA)].''
    In this analysis, the Service addresses the 10th Circuit's concern 
that we give meaning to the ESA's requirement of considering the 
economic impacts of designation by acknowledging the uncertainty of 
assigning certain post-designation economic impacts (particularly 
section 7 consultations) as having resulted from either the listing or 
the designation. The Service believes that for many species the 
designation of critical habitat has a relatively small economic impact, 
particularly in areas where consultations have been ongoing with 
respect to the species. This is because the majority of the 
consultations and associated project modifications, if any, already 
consider habitat impacts and as a result, the process is not likely to 
change due to the designation of critical habitat. Nevertheless, we 
recognize that the nationwide history of consultations on critical 
habitat is not broad, and, in any particular case, there may be 
considerable uncertainty whether an impact is due to the critical 
habitat designation or the listing alone. We also understand that the 
public wants to know more about the kinds of costs consultations impose 
and frequently believe that designation could require additional 
project modifications.
    Therefore, this analysis incorporates two baselines. One addresses 
the impacts of critical habitat designation that may be ``attributable 
co-extensively'' to the listing of the species. Because of the 
potential uncertainty about the benefits and economic costs resulting 
from critical habitat designations, we believe it is reasonable to 
estimate the upper bounds of the cost of project modifications based on 
the benefits and economic costs of project modifications that would be 
required due to consultation under the jeopardy standard. It is 
important to note that the inclusion of impacts attributable co-
extensively to the listing does not convert the economic analysis into 
a tool to be considered in the context of a listing decision. As the 
court reaffirmed in the southwestern willow flycatcher decision, ``the 
ESA clearly bars economic considerations from having a seat at the 
table when the listing determination is being made.''
    The other baseline, the lower boundary baseline, will be a more 
traditional rulemaking baseline. It will attempt to provide the 
Service's best analysis of which of the effects of future consultations 
actually result from the regulatory action under review--i.e. the 
critical habitat designation. These costs will, in most cases be the 
costs of

[[Page 78592]]

additional consultations, reinitiated consultations, and additional 
project modifications that would not have been required under the 
jeopardy standard alone as well as costs resulting from uncertainty and 
perceptional impacts on markets.
    Comment 40: A few commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
rule states that the designation would result in little or no 
incremental economic effect. Another commenter cited language from the 
proposed rule that suggests that there may be instances when a section 
7 consultation is triggered only by the presence of critical habitat.
    Our Response: We agree that, as a result of the designation, there 
may be additional cost resulting from new consultations or the re-
initiation of existing consultations. However, based on our analysis, 
we believe these events to be minimal in number and the potential costs 
resulting from them to be minor.
    Please refer to our analysis of the potential economic effects of 
the designation in our draft economic analysis and the final addendum 
to the draft economic analysis for further discussion of these issues.
    Comment 41: Several commenters expressed concern that information 
prepared and submitted by Mr. Edward P. Jucevic concerning economics of 
the mining industries within proposed critical habitat and potential 
effects resulting from the proposed designation were not substantially 
incorporated into or acknowledged by the draft economic analysis.
    Our Response: Mr. Jucevic, representing the three largest mining 
companies with lands within the boundaries of proposed critical 
habitat, provided a response to a request for information made during 
the preparation of the draft economic analysis of the proposed 
designation. His report was titled, ``Economic Impact of the Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat'' (Jucevic 2002). He subsequently 
provided a correction paper to his report. Mr Jucevic's comment letter, 
his report, and subsequent corrections to his report were provided to 
our economic consultants for use in the development of the draft 
economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for 
the five carbonate plants. His report provided specific information 
related to the estimated value of mineral deposits and perceived 
potential economic impacts resulting from the designation of critical 
habitat if it were to be finalized as proposed.
    Because our draft economic analysis differed significantly from the 
conclusions asserted by Mr Jucevic in his corrected report, we received 
substantial public comments on our draft economic analysis, 
specifically why our economic consultants did not rely more heavily on 
the data and conclusions of Mr. Jucevic's report in formulating their 
analysis. Our economic consultants carefully reviewed Mr. Jucevic's 
analysis, and identified a number of critical methodological problems 
that appeared to compromise its usefulness as a primary information 
source. Additionally, many of the assumptions provided in his report 
are not supported by documentation or citations. Our economists have 
incorporated into the final addendum to the draft economic analysis a 
response to Mr. Jucevic's report that describes the aforementioned 
difficulties with his analysis.
    Comment 42: One commenter implied that a significant portion of the 
United States' economy, the construction industry, is heavily dependant 
on limestone material generated in the Lucerne Valley area, and that 
the regional economic impact of the proposed designation would be 
significant.
    Our Response: The regional construction industry relies on 
limestone from the Lucerne Valley area and elsewhere. We believe that 
we have adequately analyzed the potential economic effects of the 
critical habitat designation on the local and regional economy, 
including the construction industry. Please refer to our draft economic 
analysis and the final addendum to the draft economic analysis for a 
more thorough discussion of how we addressed these significant issues.
    Comment 43: Several commenters suggested that the analytical 
methods used in the draft economic analysis fails to address the 
secondary economic effects that the proposed rule may have on local 
interests, including material supplies utilized in the housing 
industry, indirectly related to the mining industry as a consideration 
under the analysis of ``any other relevant impact.''
    Our Response: A number of comments suggested that the draft 
economic analysis underestimates total future costs because it ignores 
a number of indirect or distributional costs. Indirect costs refer to 
costs incurred by industries or third parties not directly associated 
with the mining industry due to ``downstream'' economic linkages or 
multiplier effects. For example, several commenters state that the 
local construction industry (including building materials for the 
housing industry) or the Lucerne Valley/High Desert economy as a whole 
would be impacted due to reduced output or increased prices for mining 
sector products. Distributional costs, in turn, refer to specific 
categories of direct costs that were not individually addressed in the 
draft economic analysis, including reduced proceeds to Kaiser Steel 
retirees, reduced stock market values, or reduction in royalties to the 
Butterfield family.
    Indirect and distributional costs are different categories of costs 
or economic impact and are treated as such in the draft economic 
analysis. The distributional costs cited by several commenters are a 
subset of the total economic impact estimate provided in the draft 
economic analysis. In general, the costs estimates provided in the 
draft economic analysis were designed to be comprehensive and include 
all the direct costs borne by affected parties, as well as any 
applicable indirect costs that may be associated with other Federal, 
State, or local requirements in addition to economic impacts that may 
trickle down from direct effects. Indirect economic impacts, or 
multiplier affects, are discussed qualitatively in the economic 
analysis but not quantified. This is because the mining industry, while 
important to the local economy for diversification purposes, represents 
a very small portion of San Bernardino's overall employment (less than 
0.1 percent).
    The economic analysis prepared for our designations are designed to 
assess the overall impact to the region and to particular economic 
sectors. These analyses further assess the impacts to small businesses 
to determine if they could be disproportionately affected by the 
designation. In general, however, with the exception of the Small 
Business Impact section, the economic analysis is not designed to trace 
how the direct costs incurred by the various economic sectors would 
indirectly affect equity stakeholders. To perform such an analysis is 
generally far beyond the scope of regulatory analyses as it would 
require an inherent understanding of the legal construction of 
corporations, proprietary financial data, and a better understanding of 
company affiliations. This enhanced understanding is typically not 
necessary for us to make a final determination as opposed to our need 
to better understand potential economic impacts to particular 
industries, which we inherently understand would be borne in some part 
by equity stakeholders.

[[Page 78593]]

    Please refer to the final addendum to the draft economic analysis 
of this rulemaking for a more comprehensive discussion of this issue.
    Comment 44: Several commenters believed that our economic analysis 
failed to adequately consider all of the potential indirect effects 
associated with this rulemaking. One commenter believed that the 
economic analysis should include regional transportation issues, air 
quality compliance strategies, and other growth management issues, 
while other commenters expressed concerns about the economic loss to 
stockholders and small businesses such as rail transport, processing 
and packaging facilities, materials production and construction, and 
lodging, which would all be presumably associated with a decline in the 
carbonate rock mining industry.
    Response: In some instances, impacts associated with the 
designation of critical habitat and co-extensive protections that occur 
because of listing may have indirect effects on the economic community. 
This may occur either because entities that are directly impacted 
happen to be a significant link in the economic chain and thus impose 
upstream and downstream effects on other industries or it may be 
because the designation may link to requirements in State and local 
regulations that will cause an additional impact.
    The economic analysis prepared for this rulemaking considered both 
scenarios. First, the economic analysis concluded that the carbonate 
rock mining industry in the San Bernardino mountains would not be 
significantly affected by the designation of critical habitat and thus 
would not indirectly affect upstream and downstream industries in the 
area dependent on the economic activity of the mining industry. This 
conclusion was based on the consideration of the practices of the local 
mining industry and associated impacts to the carbonate plants, the 
potential for future consultations under section 7 of the Act and 
associated project modifications, and the likely future demand for 
carbonate-related materials from the area. Importantly, the economic 
analysis did not find that the designation would result in curtailment 
of the mining industry in the area, a premise that formed the basis of 
concern for some stakeholders. The economic analysis also considered 
the potential indirect effects associated with State regulation and 
local practices but concluded that there would be no significant change 
from current practices.
    Comment 45: One commenter indicated that the draft economic 
analysis asserts that the listing of the five plant species under the 
Act would result in economic costs, but that only those costs incurred 
in the area designated as critical habitat are addressed. Another 
commenter suggested that the draft economic analysis arbitrarily 
ignores most, if not all, of the impacts associated with the listing of 
the species.
    Our Response: Pursuant to section 4(b) of the Act, we are required 
to make listing decisions solely on the basis of the best available 
scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of 
the status of the species. Congress also made it clear in the 
Conference Report accompanying the 1982 amendments to the Act that, 
``economic considerations have no relevance to determinations regarding 
the status of species * * *''. Economic effects are only considered 
during the listing process to evaluate the potential economic effect of 
designating critical habitat.
    As part of the rulemaking process for designating critical habitat 
for the five carbonate plants, we are required, pursuant to section 
4(b)(2) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.19, 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. Because we do not evaluate the 
economics of listing a species under the Act at the time of listing, 
the analysis of economics and other relevant factors conducted for a 
critical habitat designation that is performed following a listing is 
limited to the scope of the area being proposed for designation as 
critical habitat. However, within the area being designated as critical 
habitat, we did evaluate potential future costs resulting from the 
listing of the five carbonate plants under the Act. These costs are 
referred to as co-extensive costs in our draft economic analysis and 
final addendum to the draft economic analysis.
    Comment 46: A few commenters suggested that assumptions in the 
draft economic analysis regarding the likelihood of future mining on 
lands designated as critical habitat are invalid, due to the language 
in the Act and associated regulations prohibiting adverse modification 
of critical habitat, thereby making all conclusions based on these 
assumptions questionable.
    Our Response: Please refer to our response to Comment 12 for a 
discussion of this issue.
    Comment 47: One commenter suggested that the Service should be able 
to anticipate specific project modifications that may be recommended in 
the future, and should include and assess this information in 
determining the potential economic impacts of the proposed designation.
    Our Response: Every consultation under section 7 of the Act is 
unique in scope and potential effects to listed species and their 
designated critical habitat. Due in part to the requirement to conduct 
an effects analysis as part of a biological opinion, it would be 
predecisional to assume for any hypothetical future project what 
conservation measures we would recommend. However, in the draft 
economic analysis we utilized information from previous completed 
consultations to determine potential project modifications for likely 
future consultations. Please refer to our draft economic analysis and 
final addendum to the draft economic analysis for a more thorough 
discussion of this issue.
    Comment 48: One commenter expressed concern that the draft economic 
analysis ignored the costs triggered by the ``likely finding of 
significance'' under CEQA and SMARA by removing these costs from the 
analysis and including them as part of the baseline.
    Our Response: According to section 15065 (California Code of 
Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3) of CEQA guidelines, environmental 
impact reports are required by local lead agencies when, among other 
things, a project has the potential to ``reduce the number or restrict 
the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species.'' Though 
federally listed species are presumed to meet the CEQA definition of 
``endangered, rare or threatened species'' under section 15380 
(California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3), few additional 
constraints should result from the designation of critical habitat 
beyond that now in place for all federally listed species, including 
the five carbonate plants. The presence of designated critical habitat 
does not necessarily require mitigation according to these California 
regulations. Only if loss or degradation of the proposed project site's 
habitat resources (viewed comprehensively) are determined to be 
significant will significant impacts to habitat be analyzed and 
mitigation, where feasible, be planned as part of the project.
    Beyond the fact that surface mining activities regulated by SMARA 
are

[[Page 78594]]

generally subject to the CEQA process, there is no specific requirement 
under SMARA regarding findings of significance. The SMARA and the 
performance standards for wildlife habitat identified in its 
implementing regulations (California Code of Regulations Title 14, 
section 3703) do require that reclamation plans provide for the 
conservation of federally listed species in accordance with the 
requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act. Such potential 
future section 7 costs that may be associated with a future mining 
activity regulated under SMARA were considered in the economic 
analysis.
    Comment 49: One commenter suggested that the ``gross output'' 
method of determining economic impacts meets the criteria of the recent 
Tenth Circuit Court decision, and that the value added method used in 
the draft economic analysis does not.
    Our Response: The value of affected reserves is reported by Jucevic 
in terms of gross revenue (i.e., ``gross output''), obtained by 
multiplying future tons produced by market price. This measure does not 
take into account the costs that would be incurred by the mining 
companies to extract, process and market the limestone reserves. 
``Value added'' equals the production value of total mining output 
minus the costs of the goods and services used to create this output, 
and is thus a more accurate measure of economic impact than the gross 
revenue method. We believe the use of the ``value added'' method is 
consistent with the Tenth Circuit's ruling in the New Mexico Cattle 
Growers case.
    Comment 50: One commenter suggested that the proposed critical 
habitat designation will have a destructive effect on recreation income 
upon which the valley of Big Bear depends. The commenter specifically 
cited recreation opportunities in the Baldwin Lake area as being at 
risk.
    Our Response: We are designating critical habitat for Erigeron 
parishii on SBNF lands approximately 1.2 km (0.75 m) from the 
northeastern edge of the lake bed near Canyon Spring. This area, 
however, is outside the drainage basin for Baldwin Lake, therefore we 
do not anticipate that the critical habitat designation will have any 
economic effect on recreation activities at Baldwin Lake. Further, 
designation of critical habitat should not have an impact on 
recreational activities on non-Federal lands in the general area, 
because the regulatory effects of critical habitat are only triggered 
where there is a Federal nexus.
    Comment 51: One commenter expressed concern that the draft economic 
analysis did not consider the cost of the designation in light of the 
CHMS. The commenter clarified that as part of the implementation of the 
CHMS, the Service will issue a biological opinion for certain future 
mining projects, but that the designation will lead to a reinitiation 
of consultation that will greatly increase costs associated with the 
consultation and project modifications.
    Our Response: The commenter appears to be referring to regulations 
at 50 CFR 402.16 that requires 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 
consultations or conference with us on actions for which formal 
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect proposed 
or designated critical habitat. However, since we are only informally 
consulting on the CHMS, there will not be a reinitiation consultation, 
but a formal consultation will likely be initiated when the plan is 
finalized. We anticipate that the consultation associated with the plan 
will be compatible with this critical habitat designation.
    Comment 52: One commenter indicated that, effective October 1, 
2002, the economic analysis is subject to the requirements of the 
Federal Data Quality Act (DQA) 44 U.S.C. 3506, and the specific 
guidelines that the Service adopted pursuant to the DQA. The commenter 
suggested that the economic analysis does not meet the criteria that 
the guidelines require, maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility 
and integrity of information disseminated by Federal agencies.
    Our Response: The U.S. Department of the Interior, of which the 
Fish and Wildlife Service is part, issued guidelines regarding data 
quality, in response to the passage of Public Law 106-554 referenced by 
the commenter. These guidelines, Information Quality Guidelines 
Pursuant to Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act For Fiscal Year 2001, became effective October 1, 
2002. The Service rulemaking procedure, inclusive of this designation 
of critical habitat for the five carbonate plants, includes a 
comprehensive public comment process and imposes a legal obligation on 
us to respond to comments on all aspects of the action. These 
procedural safeguards can ensure a thorough response to comments on 
quality of information. The thorough consideration required by this 
process generally meets the needs of the request for correction of 
information process. In the case of rulemakings and other public 
comment procedures, where we disseminate a study analysis, or other 
information prior to the final rulemaking, requests for correction will 
be considered prior to the final action.
    We believe the public comment and review process for this 
rulemaking adequately addresses the commenter's concerns regarding the 
quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the economic analysis. 
Further, the commenter did not specifically identify how the draft 
economic analysis did not meet the criteria that the guidelines 
require. Regardless, we believe that the draft economic analysis was 
objectively prepared by a professional third party economic consultant, 
using the best and most reliable available scientific and commercial 
data available regarding potential costs of the designation, and meets 
the criteria of the data quality guidelines.
    Comment 53: Many commenters suggested that the Service's conclusion 
that economic harm to the mining industry would be mitigated by the 
dispersion of mining to other geographic areas ignores the real 
possibility of harm to local communities.
    Our Response: As discussed in the final addendum to the draft 
economic analysis, the indirect impacts from the critical habitat 
designation are likely to be minimal due to a variety of factors, 
including the fact that (1) the mining sector constitutes a very small 
component of San Bernardino's economy (less than 1 percent of total 
employment, as noted in the draft economic analysis), (2) the local 
mining sector's products constitute a relatively small component of 
total production costs for industries that consume these products, (3) 
the reduction in mining output due to the listing and proposed 
designation represents a very small component of total mining output in 
the County, and (4) the competitive nature of the mining sector 
suggests that any reduction in supply within the proposed critical 
habitat boundaries will be off-set by increases in production 
elsewhere, resulting in a minimal change in consumer prices.
    Although the indirect economic impact may be disproportionately 
concentrated in the Lucerne Valley area, this impact is difficult if 
not impossible to quantify. For one, economic multipliers are not 
available below the

[[Page 78595]]

county level due to their lack of reliability in a sub-regional 
context. Indeed, very little economic data of any kind is available on 
Lucerne Valley given that it is an unincorporated area within San 
Bernardino County. It is also important to note that the draft economic 
analysis does not suggest that the mining industry in Lucerne Valley 
will decline from its current level due to the listing or proposed 
designation, but rather that future increases in production may be 
lower than if they were not regulated under section 7 of the Act. The 
indirect economic impact of regulating future mining expansion is 
likely to be much smaller than a curtailment or reduction in current 
output levels.
    Comment 54: One commenter suggested that the current pre-draft 
situation of the CHMS should not be addressed or speculated about in 
the economic analysis.
    Our Response: The CHMS is an ongoing cooperative effort among the 
Service, SBNF, the BLM, San Bernardino County, the CNPS, mining 
companies, and other stakeholders. It is geared toward establishing a 
strategy to balance future mining activity with carbonate plant habitat 
protection and has been ongoing for approximately five years. While the 
CHMS is likely to address an agreement between the parties on 
management protocols for future activities within carbonate plant 
habitat areas, the fact that it has not yet been adopted precluded its 
consideration as a baseline element. Had the agreement been adopted, it 
is likely that the estimated impacts of the economic analysis would be 
significantly less. However, certain aspects of the economic analysis 
rely upon information generated as part of the CHMS process as it 
represents the best available information regarding the mining industry 
in the area.
    Comment 55: We received one comment suggesting that the total costs 
of the economic analysis should not be discounted. The commenter stated 
that discounting is only appropriate for evaluating comparisons between 
alternatives that have variable benefit and cost streams over time. 
Because the economic analysis does not attempt to fully quantify the 
economic benefits of the rulemaking, the commenter asserts that the 
total estimated cost of the regulation is best expressed without 
discounting.
    Our Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion concerning 
discounting the potential economic effect of the designation. The 
primary purpose of discounting is to provide a present value summation 
of future benefits or costs that accrue in different years. Discounting 
enables the comparison of benefits or costs occurring in different 
years within the context of a common unit of measurement (OMB Circular 
A-94, section 5(a), http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/a094.html). Accordingly, this practice is recommended by the U.S. 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in their guidelines for cost-
benefit studies (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/riaguide.htm). 
OMB guidance suggests using a discount rate of seven percent to 
estimate the current value of future resource use in the context of 
performing regulatory analyses.
    We note that contrary to the commenter's assertions, our economic 
analyses must make comparisons between future costs that are projected 
to occur in different years. The necessity for discounting does not 
diminish simply because there is no explicit comparison with future 
benefits because it is important to understand time preferences for 
cost estimates when making our final determination. Accordingly, with a 
positive (non-zero) discount rate, future costs are currently worth 
less than they are at the time they are incurred. The application of a 
zero discount rate, which would reflect no time preferences, would 
imply that a person (or society) would be indifferent to having a $100 
dollar cost now and having a $100 dollar cost 50 years from now.
    In the process of making our final determination, we turn to our 
economic analysis for information regarding the estimated costs of the 
designation and the stakeholders that could be significantly impacted. 
Because our decision has the potential to impact certain stakeholders 
in future years, we need to put those impacts into a present day 
perspective to better compare with the final determination that we are 
making today. If our economic analysis failed to discount future costs, 
then it would give an inaccurate picture of the actual resource costs 
(or benefits) to society from any particular policy or alternative.
    Accordingly, the economic analysis prepared for this rulemaking 
estimates the present value of resource costs to be between 
approximately $221 million and $357 million with an annualized value of 
between approximately $16 million and $25 million. Approximately 99.9 
percent of this cost represents the current valuation of future 
foregone limestone rock mining in the San Bernardino mountain area due 
to Section 7. The costs due solely to the designation of critical 
habitat are estimated at between $38,000 and $115,900 (annualized value 
of between $2,700 and $8,255). In making our final determination, we 
considered this resource cost against the expected conservation 
benefits to the species. See our response to comment 23 for a complete 
explanation of our analysis.
    Comment 56: One commenter stated that the draft economic analysis 
did not adequately address the impact of the listing and the 
designation on residential development, especially the ability to 
provide affordable housing.
    Our Response: As discussed in the final addendum to the economic 
analysis, the listing or designation is not expected to have a 
significant effect on the construction cost of new homes and thus on 
the ability of the development community to supply affordable housing. 
Please refer to the final addendum for a more thorough discussion of 
this issue.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Based on public comments, we reviewed our methodology for 
determining the extent of the designation of critical habitat for the 
five carbonate plants. We believe that we have defined those areas that 
are essential for the conservation of these five plant species based on 
the best available scientific and commercial information available. 
Consequently, we did not refine the boundaries of our original proposed 
critical habitat for this final designation. We did, however, clarify 
our description of the methodology and rationale used in defining our 
boundaries of critical habitat. Please refer to the Methods and the 
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat sections of the rulemaking 
for these refinements.

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. We have 
conducted an analysis of the economic impacts of designating these 
areas as critical habitat prior to making a final determination 
(Economic & Planning Systems, Incorporated

[[Page 78596]]

2002a, 2002b). On September 20, 2002, we announced the availability of 
the draft economic analysis with a notice in the Federal Register, and 
opened a 30-day public comment period on the draft economic analysis 
and proposed rule (67 FR 59239). Following an evaluation of the draft 
economic analysis of this designation and the public comments, we 
completed a final addendum. Our final addendum to the draft economic 
analysis indicates that the anticipated economic impact resulting from 
this designation is approximately $38,000 to $116,000. Please refer to 
the draft economic analysis and final addendum for more details 
concerning our economic analysis of this designation.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, this document is a 
significant rule and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), as OMB determined that this rule may raise novel legal or 
policy issues. As required by E.O. 12866, we have provided a copy of 
the rule, which describes the need for this action and how the 
designation meets that need, and the economic analysis, which assesses 
the costs and benefits of this critical habitat designation, to OMB for 
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 Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to provide 
a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. SBREFA also amended the RFA to require a certification 
statement. We are hereby certifying that this rule designating critical 
habitat for the five carbonate plants will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
following discussion explains our rationale for this certification.
    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 (13 CFR 121.201). Small 
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we 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.
    To determine if the rule would affect a substantial number of small 
entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within 
particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing development, 
grazing, mineral mining, timber harvesting, etc.). We apply the 
``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine 
if certification is appropriate. While SBREFA does not explicitly 
define either ``substantial number'' or ``significant effect,'' the 
Small Business Administration as well as other Federal agencies, has 
interpreted these terms to represent an impact on 20 percent or greater 
of the number of small entities in any industry and an effect equal to 
three percent or more of a business' annual sales. Thus a ``substantial 
number'' of small entities is more than 20 percent of those small 
entities affected by the regulation, out of the total universe of small 
entities in the industry or, if appropriate, industry segment. In some 
circumstances, especially with proposed critical habitat designations 
of very limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and 
consider whether the total number of small entities affected is 
substantial. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially 
affected, we also consider whether their activities have any Federal 
involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal 
involvement and so will not be affected by critical habitat 
designation.
    In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, 
we also considered whether their activities have any Federal 
involvement. Designation of critical habitat only has the potential to 
affect activities conducted, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. 
In areas where the species is present, Federal agencies are already 
required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities 
that they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the five carbonate 
plants. Federal agencies must also consult with us if their activities 
may affect designated critical habitat. Some kinds of activities are 
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by 
critical habitat designation. Activities with Federal involvement that 
may require consultation regarding the five carbonate plants and their 
critical habitat include: regulation of activities affecting waters of 
the United States by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 
of the Clean Water Act; management activities carried out by the SBNF 
on National Forest lands; and, road construction, maintenance, and 
right of way designations that are authorized, funded, or carried out 
by a Federal agency. As required under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 
conducted an analysis of the potential economic impacts of this 
critical habitat designation. In the analysis, we found that the future 
section 7 consultations resulting from the listing of the five 
carbonate plants and the proposed designation of critical habitat could 
potentially impose total economic costs for consultations and 
modifications to projects to range between approximately $174 and $281 
million over the next 60-year period. Public comment on the draft 
economic analysis led to a revision of third party cost estimates that 
would result from section 7 consultations. The changes in cost 
estimates are discussed and reflected in the Addendum to the Draft 
Economic Impact Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the San 
Bernardino Carbonate Plants (Economic & Planning Systems, Incorporated 
2002b), where we found that the future section 7 consultations 
resulting from the listing of the five carbonate plants and the 
proposed designation of critical habitat could potentially impose total 
economic costs for consultations and modifications to projects to range 
between approximately $221 and $357 million over the next 60-year 
period.
    Based on the past consultation history of the five carbonate 
plants, the economic analysis anticipated that future section 7 
consultations could

[[Page 78597]]

potentially affect small businesses associated with residential 
development. To be conservative (i.e., more likely to overstate impacts 
than understate them), the economic analysis assumed that a unique 
company will undergo 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. 
There are approximately 291 mining claims overlapping the critical 
habitat designation, which are held by 46 claimants, 43 of which are 
conservatively assumed to be small businesses. This estimate is 
considered to be especially conservative because it assumes that none 
of the claims owned by the claimants will be mined due to regulatory 
constraints imposed by section 7 of the Act, and that none has already 
been mined. In reality, it is likely that some would never have been 
mined due to economic and geologic factors independent of section 7, 
and that some of the claims have already been mined or at least 
partially mined. Conversely, it is also likely that some of the claims 
will still be mined in the future following the designation of critical 
habitat.
    According to BLM personnel, there are 954 claimants in San 
Bernardino County, although no information was available regarding the 
name or size of the individual entities. Assuming the same proportion 
of large entities to total claimants within the proposed critical 
habitat area (6.5 percent), this analysis assumes that 892 of the 
claimants in the County are small entities. This represents a very 
conservative assumption because it is unlikely that many claimants in 
the County other than Omya, Mitsubishi, and SMI have greater than 500 
employees, and should be excluded as large entities. Dividing the 
number of ``small'' claimants potentially affected by the designation 
(43) by the number of ``small'' claimants in the County (892) shows 
that approximately 4.8 percent of small claimants are potentially 
affected by the designation, which falls below the 20 percent 
``substantial'' number threshold. Finally, one individual holding (a 
grazing allotment) on BLM land that has been proposed for critical 
habitat designation could be affected. According to Dun and Bradstreet 
(Dun's Market Identifiers database 2002), there are 59 establishments 
engaged in beef cattle ranching or farming (NAICS Code 112111) in San 
Bernardino County. Therefore, the potentially affected individuals do 
not represent a ``substantial'' number of affected small entities 
affected by the designation of critical habitat for the five carbonate 
plants. The draft economic analysis and final addendum contain the 
factual bases for this certification and contain a complete analysis of 
the potential economic effects of this designation. Copies of these 
documents are in the supporting record for the rulemaking and are 
available at the Service's Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see 
ADDRESSES section).
    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. Therefore, we are certifying that 
the designation of critical habitat for the five carbonate plants will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required.

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

    OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined 
that this rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. In the economic analysis 
and the final addendum to the economic analysis, we determined that 
designation of critical habitat would not cause (a) any annual effect 
on the economy of $100 million or more, (b) any increases in costs or 
prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local 
government agencies, or geographic regions, or (c) any significant 
adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with 
foreign-based enterprises. Refer to final addendum for a complete 
discussion of the effects of this determination.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 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 for the five 
carbonate plants include mining, recreation, grazing and National 
Forest operations. No significant energy production, supply, and 
distribution facilities are included within designated critical 
habitat. Therefore, this action is not a significant action affecting 
energy production, supply, and distribution facilities, and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

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 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 Federal agencies 
funding, permitting, or authorizing other 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) For the reasons described in the economic analysis and this 
final rule, this rule will not produce a Federal mandate on State, 
local, or tribal governments of $100 million or greater in any year. 
The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or 
local governments. Therefore, it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

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 approximately 5,335 ha (13,180 ac) of land in San 
Bernardino County, California, in three units of critical habitat for 
the five carbonate plants. The takings implications assessment 
concludes that this rule does not pose significant takings 
implications. A copy of the Taking Implications Assessment has been 
included in the supporting record for this rulemaking.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism Assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we 
requested information from, and coordinated the development of this 
critical habitat designation with, appropriate State natural resources 
agencies in California. We will continue to coordinate any future 
changes in the designation of critical habitat for the five carbonate 
plants with the appropriate State

[[Page 78598]]

agencies. The designation of critical habitat for the five carbonate 
plants imposes few, if any, additional restrictions to those currently 
in place and therefore has little incremental impact on State and local 
governments and their activities. The designation may provide 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 conservation of 
the species are specifically identified. While this definition and 
identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur, it may assist these local governments in long-
range planning, rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the 
Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does 
not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as amended. The 
rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the primary 
constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the public 
in understanding the habitat needs that are essential for the 
conservation of the five carbonate plants. We have made every effort to 
ensure that the final determination contains no drafting errors, 
provides clear standards, simplifies procedures, reduces burdens, and 
is clearly written, such that the risk of litigation is minimized.

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 OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 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 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 Act, as amended. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This determination 
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 the Department 
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We are not aware of any 
Tribal lands essential for the conservation of the five carbonate 
plants. Therefore, the designated critical habitat for the five 
carbonate plants does not contain any Tribal lands or lands that we 
have identified as impacting Tribal trust resources.

References Cited

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

Author

    The primary author of this final rule is Daniel R. Brown (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.  17.12(h), revise the entries for Astragalus albens, 
Erigeron parishii, Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum, Lesquerella 
kingii ssp. bernardina, and Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana under 
``FLOWERING PLANTS'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants to 
read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species
--------------------------------------------------------   Historic  range           Family            Status          When       Critical     Special
         Scientific name                Common name                                                                   listed      habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Astragalus albens................  Cushenbury milk-      U.S.A. (CA)........  Fabaceae...........  E                       548     17.96(a)           NA
                                    vetch.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Erigeron parishii................  Parish's daisy......  U.S.A. (CA)........  Asteraceae.........  T                       548     17.96(a)           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum  Cushenbury buckwheat  U.S.A. (CA)........  Polygonaceae.......  E                       548     17.96(a)           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Lesquerella kingii ssp.            San Bernardino        U.S.A. (CA)........  Brassicaceae.......  E                       548     17.96(a)           NA
 bernardina.                        Mountains
                                    bladderpod.
 

[[Page 78599]]

 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Oxytheca parishii var.             Cushenbury oxytheca.  U.S.A. (CA)........  Polygonaceae.......  E                       548     17.96(a)           NA
 goodmaniana.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    3. Amend paragraph (a) of Sec.  17.96 to add critical habitat 
entries for the Astragalus albens, Erigeron parishii, Eriogonum 
ovalifolium var. vineum, Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina, and 
Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana in alphabetical order by family 
under Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Fabaceae, and Polygonaceae 
(respectively) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) * * *

Family Asteraceae: Erigeron Parishii (Parish's Daisy)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for San Bernardino 
County, California, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for 
Erigeron parishii 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 
of critical habitat for this species are listed below and consist 
of, but are not limited to:
    (i) Soils derived primarily from upstream or upslope limestone, 
dolomite, or quartz monzonite parent materials that occur on dry, 
rocky hillsides, shallow drainages, or outwash plains at elevations 
between 1,171 and 1,950 m (3,842 and 6,400 ft);
    (ii) Soils with intact, natural surfaces that have not been 
substantially altered by land use activities (e.g., graded, 
excavated, re-contoured, or otherwise altered by ground-disturbing 
equipment); and
    (iii) Associated plant communities that have areas with an open 
canopy cover.
    (3) Existing features and structures, such as buildings, active 
mines, paved or unpaved roads, other paved or cleared areas, lawns, 
and other urban landscaped areas, are not likely to contain one or 
more of the primary constituent elements. Federal actions limited to 
those areas, therefore, would not trigger a section 7 consultation, 
unless they may affect the species or primary constituent elements 
in adjacent critical habitat.
    (i) Note: Index map follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24DE02.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 78600]]

    (4) Northeastern Slope Unit, San Bernardino County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Fawnskin, Big Bear City, 
and Onyx Peak, California.
    (ii) Subunit 1a: land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 507200, 3802000; 507400, 3802000; 507400, 
3801800; 507500, 3801800; 507500, 3801600; 507400, 3801600; 507400, 
3801500; 507500, 3801500; 507500, 3801200; 507600, 3801200; 507600, 
3801300; 507700, 3801300; 507700, 3801400; 507800, 3801400; 507800, 
3801500; 507900, 3801500; 507900, 3801600; 508100, 3801600; 508100, 
3801100; 508000, 3801100; 508000, 3800900; 507900, 3800900; 507900, 
3800800; 507700, 3800800; 507700, 3800900; 507600, 3800900; 507600, 
3801000; 507500, 3801000; 507500, 3800700; 507400, 3800700; 507400, 
3800300; 507300, 3800300; 507300, 3799900; 507100, 3799900; 507100, 
3800100; 506900, 3800100; 506900, 3800500; 506800, 3800500; 506800, 
3800700; 506700, 3800700; 506700, 3801100; 507100, 3801100; 507100, 
3801400; 507000, 3801400; 507000, 3801800; 507100, 3801800; 507100, 
3801900; 507200, 3801900; and 507200, 3802000.
    (iii) Subunit 1b: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 508300, 3802400; 508500, 3802400; 508500, 
3801900; 508400, 3801900; 508400, 3801800; 508100, 3801800; 508100, 
3802300; 508300, 3802300; and 508300, 3802400.
    (iv) Subunit 1c: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 509700, 3800500; 510200, 3800500; 510200, 
3800200; 510100, 3800200; 510100, 3800100; 509700, 3800100; and 
509700, 3800500.
    (v) Subunit 1d: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 510300, 3801000; 510500, 3801000; 510500, 
3800800; 510300, 3800800; and 510300, 3801000.
    (vi) Subunit 1e: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 510900, 3802200; 511200, 3802200; 511200, 
3801700; 511100, 3801700; 511100, 3801400; 510700, 3801400; 510700, 
3801800; 510800, 3801800; 510800, 3802100; 510900, 3802100; and 
510900, 3802200.
    (vii) Subunit 1f: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 511400, 3801000; 511600, 3801000; 511600, 
3800900; 511700, 3800900; 511700, 3800700; 511600, 3800700; 511600, 
3800600; 511500, 3800600; 511500, 3800500; 511200, 3800500; 511200, 
3800400; 511000, 3800400; 511000, 3800500; 510900, 3800500; 510900, 
3800600; 511000, 3800600; 511000, 3800700; 511300, 3800700; 511300, 
3800800; 511400, 3800800; and 511400, 3801000.
    (viii) Subunit 1g: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 511800, 3800000; 512200, 3800000; 512200, 
3799900; 512300, 3799900; 512300, 3799800; 512400, 3799800; 512400, 
3799800; 512400, 3799500; 512300, 3799400; 511900, 3799400; 511900, 
3799500; 511700, 3799500; 511700, 3799400; 511500, 3799400; 511500, 
3799500; 511400, 3799500; 511400, 3799600; 511300, 3799600; 511300, 
3799800; 511800, 3799800; and 511800, 3800000.
    (ix) Subunit 1h: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 512100, 3800700; 512400, 3800700; 512400, 
3800600; 512500, 3800600; 512500, 3800400; 512600, 3800400; 512600, 
3800300; 512700, 3800300; 512700, 3800100; 512600, 3800100; 512600, 
3800000; 512300, 3800000; 512300, 3800300; 512200, 3800300; 512200, 
3800200; 512100, 3800200; 512100, 3800100; 511900, 3800100; 511900, 
3800200; 511800, 3800200; 511800, 3800400; 511900, 3800400; 511900, 
3800500; 512100, 3800500; and 512100, 3800700.
    (x) Subunit 1i: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 512200, 3803200; 512400, 3803200; 512400, 
3802900; 512100; 3803100; 512500, 3803100; 512500, 3802800; 512400, 
3802800; 512400, 3802600; 512500, 3802600; 512500, 3802700; 512800, 
3802700; 512800, 3802600; 512900, 3802600; 512900, 3802400; 512800, 
3802400; 512800, 3802300; 512700, 3802300; 512700, 3802200; 512500, 
3802200; 512500, 3802000; 512400, 3802000; 512400, 3801800; 512000, 
3801800; 512000, 3802100; 512100, 3802100; 512100, 3802300; 511900, 
3802300; 511900, 3802800; 512000, 3802800; 512000, 3802900; 512100, 
3802900; 512100, 3803100; 512200, 3803100; and 512200, 3803200.
    (xi) Subunit 1j: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 513300, 3802300; 513600, 3802300; 513600, 
3802000; 513700, 3802000; 513700, 3801900; 513800, 3801900; 513800, 
3802000; 514100, 3802000; 514100, 3801600; 514000, 3801600; 514000, 
3801400; 513800, 3801400; 513800, 3801500; 513600, 3801500; 513600, 
3801600; 513400, 3801600; 513400, 3801700; 513300, 3801700; 513300, 
3801800; 513200, 3801800; 513200, 3802200; 513300, 3802200; and 
513300, 3802300.
    (xii) Subunit 1k: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 515800, 3802900; 516000, 3802900; 516000, 
3802800; 516100, 3802800; 516100, 3802500; 516300, 3802500; 516300, 
3802200; 516000, 3802200; 516000, 3802000; 516100, 3802000; 516100, 
3801900; 516200, 3801900; 516200, 3801700; 516300, 3801700; 516300, 
3801500; 516400, 3801500; 516400, 3800800; 516300, 3800800; 516300, 
3800700; 516000, 3800700; 516000, 3801300; 515900, 3801300; 515900, 
3801400; 515800, 3801400; 515800, 3801600; 515700, 3801600; 515700, 
3801700; 515100, 3801700; 515100, 3801800; 515000, 3801800; 515000, 
3801500; 515100, 3801500; 515100, 3801200; 515000, 3801200; 515000, 
3801100; 514900, 3801100; 514900, 3800700; 514400, 3800700; 514400, 
3801000; 514300, 3801000; 514300, 3801400; 514400, 3801400; 514400, 
3801500; 514500, 3801500; 514500, 3801600; 514600, 3801600; 514600, 
3801600; 514600, 3802100; 514700, 3802100; 514700, 3802400; 514800, 
3802400; 514800, 3802600; 514900, 3802600; 514900, 3802800; 515300, 
3802800; 515300, 3802500; 515200, 3802500; 515200, 3802300; 515400, 
3802300; 515400, 3802200; 515400, 3802200; 515500, 3802200; 515500, 
3802100; 515600, 3802700; 515700, 3802700; 515700, 3802800; 515800, 
3802800, and 515800; 3802900.
    (xiii) Subunit 1l: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 515600, 3801200; 515900, 3801200; 515900, 
3800800; 515500, 3800800; 515500, 3801100; 515600, 3801100; and 
515600, 3801200.
    (xiv) Subunit 1m: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 514900, 3799900; 514900, 3800000; 515000, 
3800000; 515000, 3800200; 514900, 3800200; 514900, 3800500; 515000, 
3800500; 515000, 3800600; 515400, 3800600; 515400, 3800200; 515500, 
3800200; 515500, 3799700; 515400, 3799700; 515400, 3799600; 516000, 
3799600; 516000, 3799500; 516100, 3799500; 516100, 3799200; 516500, 
3799200; 516500, 3799100; 516600, 3799100; 516600, 3798900; 516500, 
3798900; 516500, 3798800; 516200, 3798800; 516200, 3798800; 516200, 
3798900; 516000, 3798900; 516000, 3799100; 515900, 3799100; 515900, 
3799000; 515700, 3799000; 515700, 3799100; 515600, 3799100; 515600, 
3799000; 515200, 3799000; 515200, 3799100; 514800, 3799100; 514800, 
3799200; 514700, 3799200; 514700, 3799300; 514100, 3799300; 514100, 
3799400; 514000, 3799400; 514000, 3799300; 513600, 3799300; 513600, 
3799400; 513500, 3799400; 513500, 3799600; 513600, 3799600; 513600, 
3799700; 513500, 3799700; 513500, 3800000; 513600, 3800000; 513600, 
3800100; 513700, 3800100; 513700, 3800200; 513900, 3800200; 513900; 
3800000; 514700, 3800000; 514700, 3799900; and 514900, 3799900; 
excluding land bounded by 514900, 3799900; 514900, 3799700; 515000, 
3799700; 515000, 3799900; and 514900, 3799900.
    (xv) Subunit 1n: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 517300, 3801000; 517800, 3801000; 517800, 
3800600; 517600, 3800600; 517600, 3800300; 517500, 3800300; 517500, 
3800200; 517000, 3800200; 517000, 3800700; 517100, 3800700; 517100, 
3800800; 517200, 3800800; 517200, 3800900; 517300, 3800900; and 
517300, 3801000.
    (xvi) Subunit 1o: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 519200, 3801600; 519500, 3801600; 519500, 
3801500; 519600, 3801500; 519600, 3801100; 519500, 3801100; 519500, 
3800900; 519400, 3800900; 519400, 3800800; 519300, 3800800; 519300, 
3800700; 519200, 3800700; 519200, 3800600; 519100, 3800600; 519100, 
3800500; 518800, 3800500; 518800, 3800900; 518900, 3800900; 518900, 
3801000; 519000, 3801000; 519000, 3801100; 519100, 3801100; 519100, 
3801500; 519200, 3801500; and 519200, 3801600.
    (xvii) Subunit 1p: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 520000, 3801100; 520300, 3801100; 520300, 
3800700; 520100, 3800700; 520100, 3800600; 519900, 3800600; 519900, 
3800700; 519800, 3800700; 519800, 3800900; 519900, 3800900; 519900, 
3801000; 520000, 3801000; and 520000, 3801100.
    (xviii) Subunit 1q: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 521100, 3800700; 521300, 3800700; 521300, 
3800600; 521400, 3800600; 521400, 3800500; 521600, 3800500; 521600, 
3800300; 521700, 3800300; 521700, 3800200; 521600, 3800200; 521600, 
3800100; 521500, 3800100; 521500, 3800000; 521300, 3800000; 521300, 
3799900; 521200, 3799900; 521200, 3799700; 521000, 3799700; 521000, 
3799600; 520900, 3799600; 520900, 3799500; 520500, 3799500; 520500, 
3799100; 520300, 3799100; 520300, 3799300; 520200, 3799300; 520200, 
3799200; 520000, 3799200; 520000, 3799000; 520200, 3799000; 520200, 
3798900; 520300, 3798900; 520300, 3798800; 520700, 3798800; 520700, 
3798600; 520800, 3798600; 520800, 3798700; 521500, 3798700; 521500, 
3798800; 521300, 3798800; 521300, 3798900; 521700, 3798900; 521700,

[[Page 78601]]

3799000; 522000, 3799000; 522000, 3798900; 522100, 3798900; 522100, 
3798700; 522000, 3798700; 522000, 3798600; 521900, 3798600; 521900, 
3798400; 521500, 3798400; 521500, 3798100; 521300, 3798100; 521300, 
3798000; 521200, 3798000; 521200, 3797800; 520600, 3797800; 520600, 
3797900; 520500, 3797900; 520500, 3798100; 520400, 3798100; 520400, 
3798200; 520300, 3798200; 520300, 3798400; 520200, 3798400; 520200, 
3798500; 520100, 3798500; 520100, 3798600; 519600, 3798600; 519600, 
3798900; 519200, 3798900; 519200, 3799200; 519300, 3799200; 519300, 
3799300; 519500, 3799300; 519500, 3799400; 519700, 3799400; 519700, 
3799500; 519900, 3799500; 519900, 3799600; 520100, 3799600; 520100, 
3799700; 520300, 3799700; 520300, 3799800; 520400, 3799800; 520400, 
3799900; 520500, 3799900; 520500, 3800100; 520600, 3800100; 520600, 
3800300; 520800, 3800300; 520800, 3800400; 520900, 3800400; 520900, 
3800500; 521000, 3800500; 521000, 3800600; 521100, 3800600; and 
521100, 3800700.
    (xix) Subunit 1r: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 519200, 3797300; 519600, 3797300; 519600, 
3796900; 519500, 3796900; 519500, 3796800; 519400, 3796800; 519400, 
3796600; 519300, 3796600; 519300, 3796500; 519500, 3796500; 519500, 
3796400; 519600, 3796400; 519600, 3796100; 519700, 3796100; 519700, 
3796000; 519600, 3796000; 519600, 3795400; 519300, 3795400; 519300, 
3795500; 518500, 3795500; 518500, 3795900; 518800, 3795900; 518800, 
3796000; 519000, 3796000; 519000, 3796100; 519100, 3796100; 519100, 
3796200; 519200, 3796200; 519200, 3796500; 518900, 3796500; 518900, 
3796600; 518800, 3796600; 518800, 3796900; 518900, 3796900; 518900, 
3797000; 519100, 3797000; 519100, 3797200; 519200, 3797200; and 
519200, 3797300.
    (xx) Subunit 1s: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 520000, 3797600; 520300, 3797600; 520300, 
3797100; 520100, 3797100; 520100, 3797000; 520000, 3797000; 520000, 
3796900; 519800, 3796900; 519800, 3797000; 519700, 3797000; 519700, 
3797400; 519800, 3797400; 519800, 3797500; 520000, 3797500; and 
520000, 3797600.
    (xxi) Subunit 1t: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 521300, 3797100; 521700, 3797100; 521700, 
3796700; 521600, 3796700; 521600, 3796600; 521400, 3796600; 521400, 
3796700; 521300, 3796700; and 521300, 3797100.
    (xxii) Subunit 1u: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 519300, 3794600; 519700, 3794600; 519700, 
3794300; 519600, 3794300; 519600, 3794100; 519500, 3794100; 519500, 
3794000; 519400, 3794000; 519400, 3793900; 519300, 3793900; 519300, 
3793800; 519000, 3793800; 519000, 3794200; 519100, 3794200; 519100, 
3794300; 519200, 3794300; 519200, 3794400; 519300, 3794400; and 
519300, 3794600.
    (xxiii) Subunit 1v: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 519800, 3794300; 520200, 3794300; 520200, 
3793900; 520300, 3793900; 520300, 3794000; 520500, 3794000; 520500, 
3794100; 521000, 3794100; 521000, 3794200; 521600, 3794200; 521600, 
3793900; 521500, 3793900; 521500, 3793800; 521200, 3793800; 521200, 
3793700; 521100, 3793700; 521100, 3793600; 520800, 3793600; 520800, 
3793700; 520600, 3793700; 520600, 3793600; 520300, 3793600; 520300, 
3793700; 520200, 3793700; 520200, 3793800; 520000, 3793800; 520000, 
3793700; 519800, 3793700; and 519800, 3794300.
    (xxiv) Subunit 1w: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 521700, 3793800; 522100, 3793800; 522100, 
3793700; 522400, 3793700; 522400, 3793600; 522500, 3793600; 522500, 
3793300; 522400, 3793300; 522400, 3792700; 522300, 3792700; 522300, 
3792600; 522200, 3792600; 522200, 3792500; 522000, 3792500; 522000, 
3792600; 521800, 3792600; 521800, 3792700; 521600, 3792700; 521600, 
3793000; 521500, 3793000; 521500, 3793300; 521600, 3793300; 521600, 
3793700; 521700, 3793700; and 521700, 3793800.
    (xxv) Subunit 1x: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 530800, 3789300; 531100, 3789300; 531100, 
3788900; 531000, 3788900; 531000, 3788800; 530600, 3788800; 530600, 
3788900; 530500, 3788900; 530500, 3789100; 530600, 3789100; 530600, 
3789200; 530800, 3789200; and 530800, 3789300.
    (xxvi) Subunit 1y: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 530900, 3788600; 531500, 3788600; 531500, 
3788300; 530900, 3788300; and 530900, 3788600.
    (xxvii) Note: Erigeron parishii map follows.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 78602]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24DE02.001

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *

Family Brassicaceae: Lesquerella Kingii ssp. Bernardina (San Bernardino 
Mountains Bladderpod)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for San Bernardino 
County, California, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for 
Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina 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 of critical habitat for this species are listed below and 
consist of, but are not limited to:
    (i) Soils derived primarily from Bonanza King Formation and 
Undivided Cambrian parent materials that occur on hillsides or on 
large rock outcrops at elevations between 2,098 and 2,700 m (6,883 
and 8,800 ft);
    (ii) Soils with intact, natural surfaces that have not been 
substantially altered by land use activities (e.g., graded, 
excavated, re-contoured, or otherwise altered by ground-disturbing 
equipment); and
    (iii) Associated plant communities that have areas with an open 
canopy cover and little accumulation of organic material (e.g., leaf 
litter) on the surface of the soil.
    (3) Existing features and structures, such as buildings, active 
mines, paved or unpaved roads, other paved or cleared areas, lawns, 
and other urban landscaped areas, are not likely to contain one or 
more of the primary constituent elements. Federal actions limited to 
those areas, therefore, would not trigger a section 7 consultation, 
unless they may affect the species or primary constituent elements 
in adjacent critical habitat.
    (4) Bertha Ridge Unit, San Bernardino County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Fawnskin and Big Bear 
City, California.
    (ii) Subunit 2a: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 510400, 3793600; 510700, 3793600; 510700, 
3793500; 510800, 3793500; 510800, 3793400; 511000, 3793400; 511000, 
3793100; 510900, 3793100; 510900, 3793000; 510600, 3793000; 510600, 
3793100; 510500, 3793100; 510500, 3793200; 510400, 3793200; and 
510400, 3793600.
    (iii) Subunit 2b: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 511600, 3793900; 511900, 3793900; 511900, 
3793800; 512000, 3793800; 512000, 3793700; 512300, 3793700; 512300, 
3793600; 512400, 3793600; 512400, 3793300; 512300, 3793300; 512300, 
3793200; 512100, 3793200; 512100, 3793300; 512000, 3793300; 512000, 
3793200; 511600, 3793200; 511600, 3793500; 511500, 3793500; 511500, 
3793800; 511600, 3793800; and 511600, 3793900.
    (iv) Subunit 2c: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 511700, 3793100; 512000, 3793100; 512000, 
3793000; 512200, 3793000; 512200, 3792700; 512100, 3792700; 512100, 
3792500; 511900, 3792500; 511900, 3792300; 512600, 3792300; 512600, 
3792100; 512400, 3792100; 512400, 3791400; 512100, 3791400; 512100, 
3791500; 511900, 3791500; 511900, 3791400; 511700, 3791400; 511700, 
3791300; 511600, 3791300; 511600, 3791200; 511200, 3791200; 511200, 
3791400; 511100, 3791400; 511100, 3791500; 511200, 3791500; 511200, 
3791600; 511300, 3791600; 511300, 3791700; 511600, 3791700; 511600, 
3792300; 511500, 3792300; 511500, 3792500; 511600, 3792500; 511600, 
3792600; 511700, 3792600; 511700, 3792700; 511600, 3792700; 511600, 
3793000; 511700, 3793000; and 511700, 3793100.
    (5) Sugarlump Ridge Unit, San Bernardino County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Moonridge, California.
    (ii) Subunit 3a: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 512700, 3785700; 512900, 3785700; 512900, 
3785600; 513300, 3785600; 513300, 3785300; 513400, 3785300; 513400, 
3785400; 513500, 3785400; 513500, 3785500; 513600, 3785500; 513600, 
3785600; 513700, 3785600; 513700, 3785700; 514000, 3785700; 514000, 
3785600; 514300, 3785600; 514300, 3785500; 514500, 3785500; 514500, 
3785600; 514600, 3785600; 514600, 3785700; 515000, 3785700; 515000, 
3785600; 515400, 3785600; 515400, 3785500; 516300, 3785500; 516300, 
3785400; 516400,

[[Page 78603]]

3785400; 516400, 3785100; 516200, 3785100; 516200, 3785000; 515900, 
3785000; 515900, 3784900; 515600, 3784900; 515600, 3785000; 515400, 
3785000; 515400, 3785100; 515200, 3785100; 515200, 3785000; 514500, 
3785000; 514500, 3785100; 514400, 3785100; 514400, 3785200; 514100, 
3785200; 514100, 3785300; 514000, 3785300; 514000, 3785000; 513800, 
3785000; 513800, 3784900; 513500, 3784900; 513500, 3785000; 513400, 
3785000; 513400, 3785100; 513300, 3785100; 513300, 3785000; 513100, 
3785000; 513100, 3785100; 513000, 3785100; 513000, 3785300; 512600, 
3785300; 512600, 3785600; 512700, 3785600; and 512700, 3785700.
    (iii) Subunit 3b: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 516500, 3785700; 516900, 3785700; 516900, 
3785400; 516500, 3785400; and 516500, 3785700.
    (iv) Note: Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina map follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24DE02.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *

Family Fabaceae: Astragalus Albens (Cushenbury Milk-Vetch)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for San Bernardino 
County, California, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for 
Astragalus albens 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 
of critical habitat for this species are listed below and consist 
of, but are not limited to:
    (i) Soils derived primarily from the upper and middle members of 
the Bird Spring Formation and Undivided Cambrian parent materials 
that occur on hillsides or along rocky washes with limestone 
outwash/deposits at elevations between 1,171 and 2,013 m (3,864 and 
6,604 ft);
    (ii) Soils with intact, natural surfaces that have not been 
substantially altered by land use activities (e.g., graded, 
excavated, re-contoured, or otherwise altered by ground-disturbing 
equipment); and
    (iii) Associated plant communities that have areas with an open 
canopy cover and little accumulation of organic material (e.g., leaf 
litter) on the surface of the soil.
    (3) Existing features and structures, such as buildings, active 
mines, paved or unpaved roads, other paved or cleared areas, lawns, 
and other urban landscaped areas, are not likely to contain one or 
more of the primary constituent elements. Federal actions limited to 
those areas, therefore, would not trigger a section 7 consultation, 
unless they may affect the species or primary constituent elements 
in adjacent critical habitat.
    (4) Northeastern Slope Unit, San Bernardino County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Fawnskin, Big Bear City, 
Rattlesnake Canyon, and Cougar Buttes, California.
    (ii) Subunit 1a: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 503300, 3801900; 503600, 3801900; 503600, 
3801700; 503700, 3801700; 503700, 3801600; 503800, 3801600; 503800, 
3801500; 503900, 3801500; 503900, 3801200; 503800, 3801200; 503800, 
3801100; 503900, 3801100; 503900, 3800900; 504000, 3800800; 504100, 
3800800; 504100, 3800800; 504100, 3800500; 504000, 3800500; 504000, 
3800300; 503900, 3800300; 503900, 3800200; 503500, 3800200; 503500, 
3800300; 503400, 3800300; 503400, 3800400; 503300, 3800400; 503300, 
3800600; 503200, 3800600; 503200, 3801800; 503300, 3801800; and 
503300, 3801900.
    (iii) Subunit 1b: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 507000, 3801600; 507400, 3801600; 507400, 
3801300; 507500, 3801300; 507500, 3800900; 507600, 3800900; 507600, 
3800500; 507500,

[[Page 78604]]

3800500; 507500, 3800400; 507400, 3800400; 507400, 3800300; 507300, 
3800300; 507300, 3800200; 507200, 3800200; 507200, 3800100; 507100, 
3800100; 507100, 3800200; 507000, 3800200; 507000, 3800500; 506800, 
3800500; 506800, 3800600; 506700, 3800600; 506700, 3801100; 506900, 
3801100; 506900, 3801000; 507100, 3801000; 507100, 3801300; 507000, 
3801300; and 507000, 3801600.
    (iv) Subunit 1c: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 513100, 3803700; 513600, 3803700; 513600, 
3803100; 513500, 3803100; 513500, 3803000; 513400, 3803000; 513400, 
3802900; 513300, 3802900; 513300, 3802800; 513100, 3802800; 513100, 
3802900; 513000, 3802900; 513000, 3803000; 512900, 3803000; 512900, 
3803400; 513000, 3803400; 513000, 3803500; 513100, 3803500; and 
513100, 3803700.
    (v) Subunit 1d: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 516000, 3803300; 516300, 3803300; 516300, 
3803000; 516000, 3803000; and 516000, 3803300.
    (vi) Subunit 1e: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 514800, 3802600; 515200, 3802600; 515200, 
3802200; 515100, 3802200; 515100, 3801900; 515300, 3801900; 515300, 
3802000; 515400, 3802000; 515400, 3801900; 515500, 3801900; 515500, 
3801600; 515100, 3801600; 515100, 3801500; 514800, 3801500; 514800, 
3801600; 514700, 3801600; 514700, 3801900; 514600, 3801900; 514600, 
3802000; 514500, 3802000; 514500, 3802300; 514600, 3802300; 514600, 
3802400; 514700, 3802400; 514700, 3802500; 514800, 3802500; and 
514800, 3802600.
    (vii) Subunit 1f: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 516000, 3802500; 516200, 3802500; 516200, 
3802400; 516300, 3802400; 516300, 3802100; 516200, 3802100; 516200, 
3801900; 515800, 3801900; 515800, 3801800; 515700, 3801800; 515700, 
3801900; 515600, 3801900; 515600, 3802100; 515500, 3802100; 515500, 
3802200; 515600, 3802200; 515600, 3802300; 515900, 3802300; 515900, 
3802400; 516000, 3802400; and 516000, 3802500.
    (viii) Subunit 1g: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 513700, 3800000; 514100, 3800000; 514100, 
3799900; 514300, 3799900; 514300, 3799800; 514700, 3799800; 514700, 
3799500; 514800, 3799500; 514800, 3799600; 515000, 3799600; 515000, 
3799500; 515100, 3799500; 515100, 3799200; 515000, 3799200; 515000, 
3799100; 514800, 3799100; 514800, 3799200; 514700, 3799200; 514700, 
3799300; 514600, 3799300; 514600, 3799400; 514500, 3799400; 514500, 
3799300; 514100, 3799300; 514100, 3799500; 514000, 3799500; 514000, 
3799400; 513800, 3799400; 513800, 3799500; 513700, 3799500; and 
513700, 3800000.
    (ix) Subunit 1h: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 515200, 3801300; 515500, 3801300; 515500, 
3801200; 515600, 3801200; 515600, 3800800; 515500, 3800800; 515500, 
3800700; 515400, 3800700; 515400, 3800400; 515300, 3800400; 515300, 
3800300; 515400, 3800300; 515400, 3800200; 515500, 3800200; 515500, 
3799600; 515600, 3799600; 515600, 3799500; 515900, 3799500; 515900, 
3799400; 516300, 3799400; 516300, 3799200; 516500, 3799200; 516500, 
3799000; 516700, 3799000; 516700, 3799600; 517100, 3799600; 517100, 
3799400; 517200, 3799400; 517200, 3799300; 517100, 3799300; 517100, 
3799200; 517200, 3799200; 517200, 3798900; 517100, 3798900; 517100, 
3798600; 516500, 3798600; 516500, 3798900; 516400, 3798900; 516400, 
3798800; 516200, 3798800; 516200, 3798900; 515400, 3798900; 515400, 
3799000; 515300, 3799000; 515300, 3799100; 515200, 3799100; 515200, 
3799600; 515100, 3799600; 515100, 3799700; 515000, 3799700; 515000, 
3800100; 514900, 3800100; 514900, 3800800; 514800, 3800800; 514800, 
3800700; 514600, 3800700; 514600, 3800800; 514500, 3800800; 514500, 
3801000; 514600, 3801000; 514600, 3801100; 514800, 3801100; 514800, 
3801000; 514900, 3801000; 514900, 3801100; 515100, 3801100; 515100, 
3801200; 515200, 3801200; and 515200, 3801300.
    (x) Subunit 1i: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 517200, 3802800; 517700, 3802800; 517700, 
3802400; 517600, 3802400; 517600, 3802100; 517500, 3802100; 517500, 
3802000; 517400, 3802000; 517400, 3801900; 517200, 3801900; 517200, 
3802000; 517100, 3802000; 517100, 3802700; 517200, 3802700; and 
517200, 3802800.
    (xi) Subunit 1j: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 517800, 3802200; 518200, 3802200; 518200, 
3801900; 518100, 3801900; 518100, 3801800; 517800, 3801800; and 
517800, 3802200.
    (xii) Subunit 1k: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 517700, 3801500; 518300, 3801500; 518300, 
3801200; 518200, 3801200; 518200, 3801100; 518100, 3801100; 518100, 
3801000; 518000, 3801000; 518000, 3800900; 517900, 3800900; 517900, 
3800800; 517800, 3800800; 517800, 3800600; 517700, 3800600; 517700, 
3800500; 517800, 3800500; 517800, 3800000; 517700, 3800000; 517700, 
3799900; 517300, 3799900; 517300, 3800000; 517200, 3800000; 517200, 
3799900; 516800, 3799900; 516800, 3800000; 516700, 3800000; 516700, 
3800200; 517100, 3800200; 517100, 3800900; 517200, 3800900; 517200, 
3801000; 517400, 3801000; 517400, 3801200; 517500, 3801200; 517500, 
3801400; 517700, 3801400; and 517700, 3801500.
    (xiii) Subunit 1l: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 517800, 3799800; 518600, 3799800; 518600, 
3799500; 518500, 3799500; 518500, 3799400; 518400, 3799400; 518400, 
3799300; 518200, 3799300; 518200, 3799100; 517900, 3799100; 517900, 
3798700; 517500, 3798700; 517500, 3798900; 517400, 3798900; 517400, 
3799600; 517700, 3799600; 517700, 3799700; 517800, 3799700; and 
517800, 3799800.
    (xiv) Subunit 1m: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 520200, 3801000; 520600, 3801000; 520600, 
3800700; 520500, 3800700; 520500, 3800600; 520600, 3800600; 520600, 
3800500; 520800, 3800500; 520800, 3800400; 520900, 3800400; 520900, 
3800300; 521100, 3800300; 521100, 3800200; 521200, 3800200; 521200, 
3800000; 521100, 3800000; 521100, 3799900; 520800, 3799900; 520800, 
3800100; 520300, 3800100; 520300, 3800200; 520200, 3800200; 520200, 
3800300; 520100, 3800300; 520100, 3800200; 519800, 3800200; 519800, 
3800700; 520100, 3800700; 520100, 3800600; 520200, 3800600; and 
520200, 3801000.
    (xv) Subunit 1n: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 519300, 3799300; 519600, 3799300; 519600, 
3798900; 519300, 3798900; 519300, 3799000; 519200, 3799000; 519200, 
3799200; 519300, 3799200; and 519300, 3799300.
    (xvi) Subunit 1o: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 520100, 3800000; 520400, 3800000; 520400, 
3799900; 520500, 3799900; 520500, 3799700; 520400, 3799700; 520400, 
3799600; 520000, 3799600; 520000, 3799500; 520100, 3799500; 520100, 
3799400; 520200, 3799400; 520200, 3799300; 520300, 3799300; 520300, 
3799400; 520600, 3799400; 520600, 3799100; 520300, 3799100; 520300, 
3799200; 520100, 3799200; 520100, 3799000; 520200, 3799000; 520200, 
3798900; 520300, 3798900; 520300, 3798800; 520700, 3798800; 520700, 
3798700; 521500, 3798700; 521500, 3798800; 521400, 3798800; 521400, 
3799000; 521300, 3799000; 521300, 3799100; 521200, 3799100; 521200, 
3799200; 521500, 3799200; 521500, 3799300; 521800, 3799300; 521800, 
3798600; 521600, 3798600; 521600, 3798500; 521500, 3798500; 521500, 
3797900; 521100, 3797900; 521100, 3798000; 521000, 3798000; 521000, 
3797900; 520900, 3797900; 520900, 3797800; 520600, 3797800; 520600, 
3797900; 520500, 3797900; 520500, 3798000; 520300, 3798000; 520300, 
3798300; 520200, 3798300; 520200, 3798200; 519900, 3798200; 519900, 
3798300; 519800, 3798300; 519800, 3798400; 519700, 3798400; 519700, 
3799000; 519800, 3799000; 519800, 3799100; 519700, 3799100; 519700, 
3799600; 519900, 3799600; 519900, 3799900; 520100, 3799900; and 
520100, 3800000.
    (xvii) Subunit 1p: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 521900, 3799000; 522200, 3799000; 522200, 
3798600; 521900, 3798600; and 521900, 3799000.
    (xviii) Subunit 1q: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 520100, 3797900; 520300, 3797900; 520300, 
3797800; 520400, 3797800; 520400, 3797600; 520300, 3797600; 520300, 
3797000; 520200, 3797000; 520200, 3796900; 519900, 3796900; 519900, 
3797000; 519600, 3797000; 519600, 3796900; 519500, 3796900; 519500, 
3796800; 519400, 3796800; 519400, 3796700; 519600, 3796700; 519600, 
3796600; 519700, 3796600; 519700, 3795900; 519800, 3795900; 519800, 
3795800; 519900, 3795800; 519900, 3795700; 520100, 3795700; 520100, 
3795600; 520200, 3795600; 520200, 3795500; 520300, 3795500; 520300, 
3795400; 520400, 3795400; 520400, 3795300; 520600, 3795300; 520600, 
3795200; 520800, 3795200; 520800, 3795100; 520900, 3795100; 520900, 
3795000; 521000, 3795000; 521000, 3794800; 521100, 3794800; 521100, 
3794700; 521200, 3794700; 521200, 3794600; 521300, 3794600; 521300, 
3794400; 521600, 3794400; 521600, 3794300; 521700, 3794300; 521700, 
3793900; 521600, 3793900; 521600, 3793800; 521200, 3793800; 521200, 
3793900; 521100, 3793900; 521100, 3794000; 521000, 3794000; 521000, 
3794100; 520900, 3794100; 520900, 3794200; 520800, 3794200; 520800, 
3794300; 520700, 3794300; 520700, 3794400; 520500, 3794400; 520500, 
3794500; 520400, 3794500; 520400, 3794600; 520300, 3794600; 520300, 
3794700; 520200, 3794700; 520200, 3794800; 520100, 3794800; 520100, 
3794900; 520000, 3794900; 520000, 3795000; 519900, 3795000; 519900, 
3795100; 519800, 3795100; 519800, 3795200; 519700, 3795200; 519700, 
3795300; 519500, 3795300; 519500, 3795400; 519400, 3795400; 519400, 
3795300; 519300,

[[Page 78605]]

3795300; 519300, 3795400; 519000, 3795400; 519000, 3795500; 518400, 
3795500; 518400, 3795600; 518300, 3795600; 518300, 3796000; 518400, 
3796000; 518400, 3796100; 518500, 3796100; 518500, 3796200; 518900, 
3796200; 518900, 3796300; 519000, 3796300; 519000, 3796500; 518900, 
3796500; 518900, 3796600; 518800, 3796600; 518800, 3796800; 518900, 
3796800; 518900, 3796900; 519000, 3796900; 519000, 3797000; 519100, 
3797000; 519100, 3797200; 519200, 3797200; 519200, 3797300; 519300, 
3797300; 519300, 3797400; 519700, 3797400; 519700, 3797600; 519800, 
3797600; 519800, 3797700; 519900, 3797700; 519900, 3797800; 520100, 
3797800; and 520100, 3797900.
    (xix) Subunit 1r: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 521900, 3793400; 522400, 3793400; 522400, 
3793300; 522500, 3793300; 522500, 3793200; 522600, 3793200; 522600, 
3793100; 522700, 3793100; 522700, 3793200; 523000, 3793200; 523000, 
3793100; 523100, 3793100; 523100, 3793000; 523200, 3793000; 523200, 
3792800; 523100, 3792800; 523100, 3792400; 522600, 3792400; 522600, 
3792500; 522400, 3792500; 522400, 3792600; 521900, 3792600; 521900, 
3792700; 521700, 3792700; 521700, 3793100; 521800, 3793100; 521800, 
3793300; 521900, 3793300; and 521900, 3793400.
    (xx) Subunit 1s: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 524100, 3792500; 524500, 3792500; 524500, 
3792400; 524600, 3792400; 524600, 3792300; 524800, 3792300; 524800, 
3792200; 524900, 3792200; 524900, 3791900; 524800, 3791900; 524800, 
3791800; 524600, 3791800; 524600, 3791900; 524300, 3791900; 524300, 
3792000; 524100, 3792000; and 524100, 3792500.
    (xxi) Note: Astragalus albens map follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24DE02.003

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *

Family Polgonaceae: Eriogonum Ovalifolium var. Vineum (Cushenbury 
Buckwheat)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for San Bernardino 
County, California, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for 
Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum 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 of critical habitat for this species are listed below and 
consist of, but are not limited to:
    (i) Soils derived primarily from the upper and middle members of 
the Bird Spring Formation and Bonanza King Formation parent 
materials that occur on hillsides at elevations between 1,400 and 
2,400 m (4,600 and 7,900 ft);
    (ii) Soils with intact, natural surfaces that have not been 
substantially altered by land use activities (e.g., graded, 
excavated, re-contoured, or otherwise altered by ground-disturbing 
equipment); and
    (iii) Associated plant communities that have areas with an open 
canopy cover (generally less than 15 percent cover) and little 
accumulation of organic material (e.g., leaf litter) on the surface 
of the soil.
    (3) Existing features and structures, such as buildings, active 
mines, paved or unpaved roads, other paved or cleared areas, lawns, 
and other urban landscaped areas, are not likely to contain one or 
more of the primary constituent elements. Federal actions limited to 
those areas, therefore, would not trigger a section 7 consultation, 
unless they may affect the species or primary constituent elements 
in adjacent critical habitat.
    (4) Northeastern Slope Unit, San Bernardino County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Fawnskin, Big Bear City, 
Rattlesnake Canyon, Butler Peak, and Onyx Peak, California.
    (ii) Subunit 1a: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 497000, 3803000; 497200, 3803000; 497200, 
3802900; 497300, 3802900; 497300, 3802500; 497000, 3802500; 497000, 
3802600; 496900,

[[Page 78606]]

3802600; 496900, 3802900; 497000, 3802900; and 497000, 3803000.
    (iii) Subunit 1b: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 498000, 3800800; 498600, 3800800; 498600, 
3800400; 498200, 3800400; 498200, 3800500; 498000, 3800500; and 
498000, 3800800.
    (iv) Subunit 1c: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 503400, 3801200; 503700, 3801200; 503700, 
3801100; 503900, 3801100; 503900, 3800800; 504000, 3800800; 504000, 
3800400; 503900, 3800400; 503900, 3800300; 503700, 3800300; 503700, 
3800400; 503400, 3800400; 503400, 3800600; 503300, 3800600; 503300, 
3800700; 503200, 3800700; 503200, 3801000; 503300, 3801000; 503300, 
3801100; 503400, 3801100; and 503400, 3801200.
    (v) Subunit 1d: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 505200, 3800400; 505500, 3800400; 505500, 
3800300; 506000, 3800300; 506000, 3800200; 506100, 3800200; 506100, 
3799900; 506000, 3799900; 506000, 3800000; 505700, 3800000; 505700, 
3799900; 505600, 3799900; 505600, 3799600; 505200, 3799600; 505200, 
3800100; 505100, 3800100; 505100, 3800300; 505200, 3800300; and 
505200, 3800400.
    (vi) Subunit 1e: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 506800, 3799900; 507000, 3799900; 507000, 
3799800; 507100, 3799800; 507100, 3799600; 506900, 3799600; 506900, 
3799200; 507200, 3799200; 507200, 3799300; 507500, 3799300; 507500, 
3799200; 507600, 3799200; 507600, 3799000; 507500, 3799000; 507500, 
3798900; 507400, 3798900; 507400, 3798700; 507300, 3798700; 507300, 
3798600; 506800, 3798600; 506800, 3798800; 506200, 3798800; 506200, 
3799200; 506500, 3799200; 506500, 3799300; 506600, 3799300; 506600, 
3799500; 506700, 3799500; 506700, 3799800; 506800, 3799800; and 
506800, 3799900.
    (vii) Subunit 1f: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 506800, 3798100; 507000, 3798100; 507000, 
3798000; 507500, 3798000; 507500, 3797700; 507600, 3797700; 507600, 
3797400; 507500, 3797400; 507500, 3797300; 507400, 3797300; 507400, 
3797200; 507000, 3797200; 507000, 3797300; 506800, 3797300; 506800, 
3797600; 506700, 3797600; 506700, 3798000; 506800, 3798000; and 
506800, 3798100.
    (viii) Subunit 1g: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 508100, 3798200; 508300, 3798200; 508300, 
3798100; 508400, 3798100; 508400, 3797900; 508300, 3797900; 508300, 
3797800; 508000, 3797800; 508000, 3798100; 508100, 3798100; and 
508100, 3798200.
    (ix) Subunit 1h: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 507900, 3797600; 508400, 3797600; 508400, 
3797200; 508300, 3797200; 508300, 3797100; 508200, 3797100; 508200, 
3796800; 507800, 3796800; 507800, 3797100; 507700, 3797100; 507700, 
3797500; 507900, 3797500; and 507900, 3797600.
    (x) Subunit 1i: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 508400, 3797200; 508700, 3797200; 508700, 
3796900; 508400, 3796900; and 508400, 3797200.
    (xi) Subunit 1j: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 508300, 3800600; 508600, 3800600; 508600, 
3800500; 508700, 3800500; 508700, 3800200; 508600, 3800200; 508600, 
3800100; 508100, 3800100; 508100, 3800500; 508300, 3800500; and 
508300, 3800600.
    (xii) Subunit 1k: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 508100, 3799800; 508500, 3799800; 508500, 
3799400; 508400, 3799400; 508400, 3799300; 508200, 3799300; 508200, 
3799400; 508000, 3799400; 508000, 3799700; 508100, 3799700; and 
508100, 3799800.
    (xiii) Subunit 1l: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 508700, 3799400; 509200, 3799400; 509200, 
3799100; 509100, 3799100; 509100, 3798900; 508700, 3798900; and 
508700, 3799400.
    (xiv) Subunit 1m: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 509400, 3800700; 509700, 3800700; 509700, 
3800600; 509800, 3800600; 509800, 3800500; 510300, 3800500; 510300, 
3800400; 510400, 3800400; 510400, 3800300; 510600, 3800300; 510600, 
3800100; 510200, 3800100; 510200, 3800300; 510100, 3800300; 510100, 
3800400; 509900, 3800400; 509900, 3800200; 509500, 3800200; 509500, 
3800100; 509200, 3800100; 509200, 3800300; 509100, 3800300; 509100, 
3800500; 509200, 3800500; 509200, 3800600; 509400, 3800600; and 
509400, 3800700.
    (xv) Subunit 1n: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 510500, 3801200; 510700, 3801200; 510700, 
3800900; 510500, 3800900; 510500, 3800800; 510400, 3800800; 510400, 
3800700; 510600, 3800700; 510600, 3800600; 510300, 3800600; 510300, 
3800700; 510200, 3800700; 510200, 3800800; 510300, 3800800; 510300, 
3801000; 510400, 3801000; 510400, 3801100; 510500, 3801100; and 
510500, 3801200.
    (xvi) Subunit 1o: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 510900, 3800700; 511300, 3800700; 511300, 
3800500; 510900, 3800500; and 510900, 3800700.
    (xvii) Subunit 1p: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 511900, 3801000; 512200, 3801000; 512200, 
3800800; 512300, 3800800; 512300, 3800700; 512500, 3800700; 512500, 
3800600; 512700, 3800600; 512700, 3800800; 513000, 3800800; 513000, 
3800300; 512900, 3800300; 512900, 3800100; 512800, 3800100; 512800, 
3799900; 512900, 3799900; 512900, 3799800; 513000, 3799800; 513000, 
3799700; 513100, 3799700; 513100, 3799500; 513000, 3799500; 513000, 
3799400; 512700, 3799400; 512700, 3799500; 512500, 3799500; 512500, 
3799600; 512300, 3799600; 512300, 3799700; 512200, 3799700; 512200, 
3799800; 512100, 3799800; 512100, 3799600; 512200, 3799600; 512200, 
3799500; 512300, 3799500; 512300, 3799200; 511800, 3799200; 511800, 
3799500; 511700, 3799500; 511700, 3799400; 511400, 3799400; 511400, 
3799500; 511300, 3799500; 511300, 3799600; 511200, 3799600; 511200, 
3799700; 511100, 3799700; 511100, 3799800; 511000, 3799800; 511000, 
3800100; 511200, 3800100; 511200, 3800000; 511300, 3800000; 511300, 
3799900; 511700, 3799900; 511700, 3799800; 511800, 3799800; 511800, 
3799900; 512000, 3799900; 512000, 3800100; 511900, 3800100; 511900, 
3800500; 512000, 3800500; 512000, 3800700; 511900, 3800700; and 
511900, 3801000.
    (xviii) Subunit 1q: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 513200, 3800300; 513500, 3800300; 513500, 
3800200; 513900, 3800200; 513900, 3800100; 514000, 3800100; 514000, 
3800000; 514100, 3800000; 514100, 3799900; 514200, 3799900; 514200, 
3800000; 514600, 3800000; 514600, 3799800; 514500, 3799800; 514500, 
3799300; 514100, 3799300; 514100, 3799600; 514000, 3799600; 514000, 
3799400; 513700, 3799400; 513700, 3799500; 513500, 3799500; 513500, 
3799400; 513600, 3799400; 513600, 3799300; 513900, 3799300; 513900, 
3799200; 514000, 3799200; 514000, 3798900; 513600, 3798900; 513600, 
3798800; 513500, 3798800; 513500, 3798700; 513300, 3798700; 513300, 
3798800; 513200, 3798800; 513200, 3799000; 513100, 3799000; 513100, 
3799500; 513200, 3799500; 513200, 3799800; 513400, 3799800; 513400, 
3799900; 513100, 3799900; 513100, 3800200; 513200, 3800200; and 
513200, 3800300.
    (xix) Subunit 1r: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 514200, 3800800; 514500, 3800800; 514500, 
3800500; 514200, 3800500; and 514200, 3800800.
    (xx) Subunit 1s: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 515500, 3802100; 515900, 3802100; 515900, 
3801900; 516000, 3801900; 516000, 3801800; 516100, 3801800; 516100, 
3801600; 516000, 3801600; 516000, 3801500; 516500, 3801500; 516500, 
3801200; 516400, 3801200; 516400, 3801100; 516200, 3801100; 516200, 
3800900; 516100, 3800900; 516100, 3800800; 516000, 3800800; 516000, 
3800700; 515800, 3800700; 515800, 3800600; 516200, 3800600; 516200, 
3800700; 516500, 3800700; 516500, 3799800; 516400, 3799800; 516400, 
3799700; 516300, 3799700; 516300, 3799800; 516100, 3799800; 516100, 
3799900; 515800, 3799900; 515800, 3799800; 515600, 3799800; 515600, 
3799700; 515300, 3799700; 515300, 3799800; 515000, 3799800; 515000, 
3799900; 514900, 3799900; 514900, 3800100; 515000, 3800100; 515000, 
3800200; 515300, 3800200; 515300, 3800100; 515400, 3800100; 515400, 
3800200; 515500, 3800200; 515500, 3800300; 515600, 3800300; 515600, 
3800200; 515800, 3800200; 515800, 3800300; 515700, 3800300; 515700, 
3800600; 515600, 3800600; 515600, 3800800; 515100, 3800800; 515100, 
3800700; 515200, 3800700; 515200, 3800400; 515100, 3800400; 515100, 
3800300; 514700, 3800300; 514700, 3800400; 514600, 3800400; 514600, 
3800800; 514500, 3800800; 514500, 3800900; 514400, 3800900; 514400, 
3801100; 514500, 3801100; 514500, 3801200; 514600, 3801200; 514600, 
3801300; 514800, 3801300; 514800, 3801400; 515200, 3801400; 515200, 
3801300; 515700, 3801300; 515700, 3801500; 515600, 3801500; 515600, 
3801600; 515500, 3801600; 515500, 3801700; 515400, 3801700; 515400, 
3802000; 515500, 3802000; and 515500, 3802100.
    (xxi) Subunit 1t: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 514800, 3799600; 515000, 3799600; 515000, 
3799500; 515100, 3799500; 515100, 3799200; 515000, 3799200; 515000, 
3799100; 514800, 3799100; 514800, 3799200; 514700, 3799200; 514700, 
3799300; 514600, 3799300; 514600, 3799400; 514700, 3799400; 514700, 
3799500; 514800, 3799500; and 514800, 3799600.
    (xxii) Subunit 1u: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 516700, 3799700; 516900, 3799700; 516900, 
3799600; 517100, 3799600; 517100, 3799500; 517200, 3799500; 517200, 
3799000; 517300, 3799000; 517300, 3798700; 516800, 3798700;

[[Page 78607]]

516800, 3798600; 516400, 3798600; 516400, 3798700; 516300, 3798700; 
516300, 3798600; 516100, 3798600; 516100, 3798700; 516000, 3798700; 
516000, 3798800; 515900, 3798800; 515900, 3798900; 515700, 3798900; 
515700, 3799000; 515400, 3799000; 515400, 3799100; 515300, 3799100; 
515300, 3799500; 516000, 3799500; 516000, 3799400; 516300, 3799400; 
516300, 3799300; 516400, 3799300; 516400, 3799600; 516700, 3799600; 
and 516700, 3799700.
    (xxiii) Subunit 1v: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 516700, 3800500; 517100, 3800500; 517100, 
3800300; 517200, 3800300; 517200, 3800000; 517100, 3800000; 517100, 
3799900; 516700, 3799900; 516700, 3800000; 516600, 3800000; 516600, 
3800400; 516700, 3800400; and 516700, 3800500.
    (xxiv) Subunit 1w: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 518600, 3799900; 519100, 3799900; 519100, 
3799600; 519000, 3799600; 519000, 3799500; 518700, 3799500; 518700, 
3799400; 518500, 3799400; 518500, 3799200; 518400, 3799200; 518400, 
3799100; 518300, 3799100; 518300, 3799000; 518200, 3799000; 518200, 
3799100; 517900, 3799100; 517900, 3798900; 517800, 3798900; 517800, 
3798800; 517600, 3798800; 517600, 3798900; 517500, 3798900; 517500, 
3799000; 517400, 3799000; 517400, 3799300; 517300, 3799300; 517300, 
3799700; 517500, 3799700; 517500, 3799800; 518100, 3799800; 518100, 
3799700; 518400, 3799700; 518400, 3799800; 518600, 3799800; and 
518600, 3799900.
    (xxv) Subunit 1x: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 515400, 3797400; 515800, 3797400; 515800, 
3797300; 516300, 3797300; 516300, 3797200; 516400, 3797200; 516400, 
3796900; 515500, 3796900; 515500, 3797000; 515400, 3797000; and 
515400, 3797400.
    (xxvi) Subunit 1y: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 519100, 3797200; 519400, 3797200; 519400, 
3797100; 519500, 3797100; 519500, 3796900; 519700, 3796900; 519700, 
3796000; 519600, 3796000; 519600, 3795900; 519500, 3795900; 519500, 
3795700; 519100, 3795700; 519100, 3796100; 519000, 3796100; 519000, 
3796300; 518900, 3796300; 518900, 3796600; 518800, 3796600; 518800, 
3796800; 518900, 3796800; 518900, 3797000; 519000, 3797000; 519000, 
3797100; 519100, 3797100; and 519100, 3797200.
    (xxvii) Subunit 1z: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 519600, 3797600; 519800, 3797600; 519800, 
3797500; 520300, 3797500; 520300, 3797100; 520200, 3797100; 520200, 
3797000; 519800, 3797000; 519800, 3797100; 519700, 3797100; 519700, 
3797200; 519500, 3797200; 519500, 3797500; 519600, 3797500; and 
519600, 3797600.
    (xxviii) Subunit 1aa: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 519700, 3800600; 520200, 3800600; 520200, 
3800200; 520100, 3800200; 520100, 3800100; 519700, 3800100; and 
519700, 3800600.
    (xxix) Subunit 1ab: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 520000, 3800000; 520700, 3800000; 520700, 
3799900; 520800, 3799900; 520800, 3799500; 520400, 3799500; 520400, 
3799600; 519900, 3799600; 519900, 3799900; 520000, 3799900; and 
520000, 3800000.
    (xxx) Subunit 1ac: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 521000, 3800000; 521500, 3800000; 521500, 
3799700; 521400, 3799700; 521400, 3799500; 520900, 3799500; 520900, 
3799800; 521000, 3799800; and 521000, 3800000.
    (xxxi) Subunit 1ad: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 520000, 3799400; 520500, 3799400; 520500, 
3799300; 520600, 3799300; 520600, 3799100; 520300, 3799100; 520300, 
3799200; 520200, 3799200; 520200, 3799100; 520000, 3799100; 520000, 
3799000; 520200, 3799000; 520200, 3798800; 520100, 3798800; 520100, 
3798700; 519700, 3798700; 519700, 3799100; 519900, 3799100; 519900, 
3799300; 520000, 3799300; and 520000, 3799400.
    (xxxii) Subunit 1ae: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 521400, 3799000; 522000, 3799000; 522000, 
3798600; 521600, 3798600; 521600, 3798500; 521500, 3798500; 521500, 
3798400; 521300, 3798400; 521300, 3798300; 521200, 3798300; 521200, 
3798200; 520900, 3798200; 520900, 3798300; 520700, 3798300; 520700, 
3798000; 520300, 3798000; 520300, 3798300; 520400, 3798300; 520400, 
3798400; 520600, 3798400; 520600, 3798500; 520400, 3798500; 520400, 
3798700; 520500, 3798700; 520500, 3798800; 520700, 3798800; 520700, 
3798700; 520800, 3798700; 520800, 3798800; 521100, 3798800; 521100, 
3798700; 521400, 3798700; 521400, 3798800; 521300, 3798800; 521300, 
3798900; 521400, 3798900; and 521400, 3799000.
    (xxxiii) Subunit 1af: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 519800, 3794600; 520100, 3794600; 520100, 
3794200; 519800, 3794200; and 519800, 3794600.
    (xxxiv) Subunit 1ag: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 520400, 3794200; 521100, 3794200; 521100, 
3793900; 521000, 3793900; 521000, 3793800; 520700, 3793800; 520700, 
3793700; 520400, 3793700; 520400, 3793800; 520300, 3793800; 520300, 
3793700; 520000, 3793700; 520000, 3793800; 519900, 3793800; 519900, 
3794000; 520000, 3794000; 520000, 3794100; 520400, 3794100; and 
520400, 3794200.
    (xxxv) Subunit 1ah: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 521600, 3794700; 521800, 3794700; 521800, 
3794600; 521900, 3794600; 521900, 3794300; 521800, 3794300; 521800, 
3794200; 521400, 3794200; 521400, 3794500; 521500, 3794500; 521500, 
3794600; 521600, 3794600; and 521600, 3794700.
    (xxxvi) Subunit 1ai: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 521300, 3793300; 521700, 3793300; 521700, 
3793200; 521800, 3793200; 521800, 3793000; 521900, 3793000; 521900, 
3793100; 522400, 3793100; 522400, 3793000; 522600, 3793000; 522600, 
3792900; 522800, 3792900; 522800, 3792800; 523000, 3792800; 523000, 
3792500; 523100, 3792500; 523100, 3792400; 523400, 3792400; 523400, 
3792300; 523500, 3792300; 523500, 3791900; 523400, 3791900; 523400, 
3791800; 523200, 3791800; 523200, 3791900; 523100, 3791900; 523100, 
3792000; 522800, 3792000; 522800, 3792100; 522700, 3792100; 522700, 
3792200; 522400, 3792200; 522400, 3792300; 522200, 3792300; 522200, 
3792400; 522000, 3792400; 522000, 3792600; 521900, 3792600; 521900, 
3792500; 521800, 3792500; 521800, 3792600; 521700, 3792600; 521700, 
3792700; 521400, 3792700; 521400, 3792900; 521200, 3792900; 521200, 
3793200; 521300, 3793200; and 521300, 3793300.
    (xxxvii) Subunit 1aj: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 524100, 3792500; 524300, 3792500; 524300, 
3792400; 524500, 3792400; 524500, 3792300; 524700, 3792300; 524700, 
3792200; 524800, 3792200; 524800, 3792100; 524900, 3792100; 524900, 
3792200; 525300, 3792200; 525300, 3792100; 525400, 3792100; 525400, 
3791800; 525300, 3791800; 525300, 3791600; 525500, 3791600; 525500, 
3791500; 525600, 3791500; 525600, 3791300; 525700, 3791300; 525700, 
3791200; 525800, 3791200; 525800, 3791500; 526200, 3791500; 526200, 
3791300; 526300, 3791300; 526300, 3791200; 526500, 3791200; 526500, 
3791100; 526700, 3791100; 526700, 3791000; 526800, 3791000; 526800, 
3791100; 527100, 3791100; 527100, 3791000; 527200, 3791000; 527200, 
3790900; 527400, 3790900; 527400, 3790600; 527500, 3790600; 527500, 
3790100; 527000, 3790100; 527000, 3790200; 526900, 3790200; 526900, 
3790400; 526600, 3790400; 526600, 3790500; 526500, 3790500; 526500, 
3790200; 526400, 3790200; 526400, 3790100; 526300, 3790100; 526300, 
3790000; 526000, 3790000; 526000, 3790500; 525700, 3790500; 525700, 
3790400; 525600, 3790400; 525600, 3790500; 525500, 3790500; 525500, 
3790600; 525400, 3790600; 525400, 3790700; 525300, 3790700; 525300, 
3791000; 525100, 3791000; 525100, 3791200; 524800, 3791200; 524800, 
3791300; 524700, 3791300; 524700, 3791200; 524300, 3791200; 524300, 
3791300; 524200, 3791300; 524200, 3791400; 524000, 3791400; 524000, 
3791500; 523800, 3791500; 523800, 3791900; 524200, 3791900; 524200, 
3792100; 524000, 3792100; 524000, 3792400; 524100, 3792400; and 
524100, 3792500; excluding land bounded by 525900, 3791100; 525900, 
3790900; 526000, 3790900; 526000, 3791100; and 525900, 3791100.
    (xxxviii) Subunit 1ak: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 527600, 3790400; 527900, 3790400; 527900, 
3790300; 528000, 3790300; 528000, 3790100; 527900, 3790100; 527900, 
3790000; 527600, 3790000; and 527600, 3790400.
    (xxxix) Subunit 1al: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 527900, 3789600; 528200, 3789600; 528200, 
3789300; 527800, 3789300; 527800, 3789500; 527900, 3789500; and 
527900, 3789600.
    (xl) Subunit 1am: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 526900, 3789400; 527100, 3789400; 527100, 
3789300; 527200, 3789300; 527200, 3789100; 527400, 3789100; 527400, 
3789200; 527700, 3789200; 527700, 3789100; 527800, 3789100; 527800, 
3789000; 528000, 3789000; 528000, 3789100; 528400, 3789100; 528400, 
3789000; 528500, 3789000; 528500, 3788900; 528600, 3788900; 528600, 
3788700; 528700, 3788700; 528700, 3788600; 528800, 3788600; 528800, 
3788400; 528900, 3788400; 528900, 3788300; 529000, 3788300; 529000, 
3788100; 528900, 3788100; 528900, 3788000; 528700, 3788000; 528700, 
3788100; 528100, 3788100; 528100, 3788300; 527900, 3788300; 527900, 
3788400; 527800, 3788400; 527800, 3788500; 527700, 3788500; 527700, 
3788600; 527600, 3788600; 527600, 3788500; 527200, 3788500; 527200, 
3788700; 527100, 3788700; 527100, 3788600; 526800, 3788600; 526800, 
3788700; 526600, 3788700; 526600, 3788900; 526700, 3788900;

[[Page 78608]]

526700, 3789000; 526900, 3789000; and 526900, 3789400.
    (xli) Subunit 1an: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 529200, 3788100; 529500, 3788100; 529500, 
3787700; 529400, 3787700; 529400, 3787600; 529100, 3787600; 529100, 
3788000; 529200, 3788000; and 529200, 3788100.
    (xlii) Subunit 1ao: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 530200, 3788000; 531100, 3788000; 531100, 
3787600; 530800, 3787600; 530800, 3787500; 530900, 3787500; 530900, 
3787200; 530200, 3787200; 530200, 3787300; 530100, 3787300; 530100, 
3787500; 530200, 3787500; and 530200, 3788000.
    (xliii) Subunit 1ap: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 527700, 3786500; 528000, 3786500; 528000, 
3786400; 528100, 3786400; 528100, 3786200; 528200, 3786200; 528200, 
3785900; 528100, 3785900; 528100, 3785800; 527800, 3785800; 527800, 
3785900; 527700, 3785900; 527700, 3786100; 527600, 3786100; 527600, 
3786300; 527700, 3786300; and 527700, 3786500.
    (5) Bertha Ridge Unit, San Bernardino County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Fawnskin and Big Bear 
City, California, land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 512000, 3793000; 512700, 3793000; 512700, 
3792900; 512900, 3792900; 512900, 3792700; 513400, 3792700; 513400, 
3792400; 513300, 3792400; 513300, 3792300; 513100, 3792300; 513100, 
3792400; 513000, 3792400; 513000, 3792500; 512900, 3792500; 512900, 
3792600; 512800, 3792600; 512800, 3792500; 512400, 3792500; 512400, 
3792300; 512300, 3792300; 512300, 3791900; 512200, 3791900; 512200, 
3791800; 512000, 3791800; 512000, 3791600; 511900, 3791600; 511900, 
3791400; 511500, 3791400; 511500, 3791800; 511600, 3791800; 511600, 
3792000; 511500, 3792000; 511500, 3792100; 511400, 3792100; 511400, 
3792500; 511500, 3792500; 511500, 3792600; 511600, 3792600; 511600, 
3792700; 511800, 3792700; 511800, 3792900; 512000, 3792900; and 
512000, 3793000.
    (ii) Note: Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum map follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24DE02.004

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *

Family Polygonaceae: Oxytheca Parishii var. goodmaniana (Cushenbury 
Oxytheca)

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for San Bernardino 
County, California, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for 
Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana 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 of critical habitat for this species are listed below and 
consist of, but are not limited to:
    (i) Soils derived primarily from upslope limestone, a mixture of 
limestone and dolomite, or limestone talus substrates with parent 
materials that include Bird Spring Formation, Bonanza King 
Formation, middle and lower members of the Monte Cristo Limestone, 
and the Crystal Pass member of the Sultan Limestone Formation at 
elevations between 1,440 and 2,372 m (4,724 and 7,782 ft);
    (ii) Soils with intact, natural surfaces that have not been 
substantially altered by land use activities (e.g., graded, 
excavated, re-contoured, or otherwise altered by ground-disturbing 
equipment); and
    (iii) Associated plant communities that have areas with a 
moderately open canopy cover (generally between 25 and 53 percent 
(Neel 2000)).
    (3) Existing features and structures, such as buildings, active 
mines, paved or unpaved roads, other paved or cleared areas, lawns, 
and other urban landscaped areas, are not likely to contain one or 
more of the primary

[[Page 78609]]

constituent elements. Federal actions limited to those areas, 
therefore, would not trigger a section 7 consultation, unless they 
may affect the species or primary constituent elements in adjacent 
critical habitat.
    (4) Northeastern Slope Unit, San Bernardino County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Butler Peak, Fawnskin, 
Big Bear City, Rattlesnake Canyon, and Onyx Peak, California.
    (ii) Subunit 1a: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 498200, 3801600; 498500, 3801600; 498500, 
3801500; 498600, 3801500; 498600, 3801200; 498300, 3801200; 498300, 
3801300; 498200, 3801300; and 498200, 3801600.
    (iii) Subunit 1b: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 498800, 3801200; 499400, 3801200; 499400, 
3800900; 499500, 3800900; 499500, 3800800; 499600, 3800800; 499600, 
3800600; 499500, 3800600; 499500, 3800500; 499400, 3800500; 499400, 
3800400; 499100, 3800400; 499100, 3800300; 499000, 3800300; 499000, 
3800000; 498900, 3800000; 498900, 3799900; 498700, 3799900; 498700, 
3799600; 498300, 3799600; 498300, 3800000; 498400, 3800000; 498400, 
3800100; 498600, 3800100; 498600, 3800300; 498500, 3800300; 498500, 
3800400; 498200, 3800400; 498200, 3800500; 498000, 3800500; 498000, 
3800800; 498400, 3800800; 498400, 3800900; 498700, 3800900; 498700, 
3801100; 498800, 3801100; and 498800, 3801200.
    (iv) Subunit 1c: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 500200, 3799900; 500600, 3799900; 500600, 
3799800; 500700, 3799800; 500700, 3799600; 500600, 3799600; 500600, 
3799500; 500300, 3799500; 500300, 3799600; 500200, 3799600; and 
500200, 3799900.
    (v) Subunit 1d: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 502800, 3797400; 503400, 3797400; 503400, 
3797200; 503500, 3797200; 503500, 3797000; 503400, 3797000; 503400, 
3796900; 502900, 3796900; 502900, 3797000; 502800, 3797000; and 
502800, 3797400.
    (vi) Subunit 1e: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 503600, 3799300; 504000, 3799300; 504000, 
3798600; 504300, 3798600; 504300, 3798500; 504400, 3798500; 504400, 
3798400; 505300, 3798400; 505300, 3798300; 505500, 3798300; 505500, 
3798000; 505300, 3798000; 505300, 3797700; 505100, 3797700; 505100, 
3797800; 505000, 3797800; 505000, 3798000; 504500, 3798000; 504500, 
3797900; 504300, 3797900; 504300, 3798000; 504000, 3798000; 504000, 
3798100; 503900, 3798100; 503900, 3798300; 503800, 3798300; 503800, 
3798100; 503500, 3798100; 503500, 3798000; 503100, 3798000; 503100, 
3798400; 503200, 3798400; 503200, 3798500; 503700, 3798500; 503700, 
3798600; 503600, 3798600; and 503600, 3799300.
    (vii) Subunit 1f: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 506700, 3799500; 506900, 3799500; 506900, 
3799200; 507200, 3799200; 507200, 3799300; 507500, 3799300; 507500, 
3799200; 507600, 3799200; 507600, 3799000; 507500, 3799000; 507500, 
3798900; 507400, 3798900; 507400, 3798800; 506900, 3798800; 506900, 
3798900; 506700, 3798900; 506700, 3798800; 506000, 3798800; 506000, 
3799200; 506600, 3799200; 506600, 3799400; 506700, 3799400; and 
506700, 3799500.
    (viii) Subunit 1g: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 506800, 3798100; 507300, 3798100; 507300, 
3797800; 507400, 3797800; 507400, 3797700; 507600, 3797700; 507600, 
3797600; 507900, 3797600; 507900, 3797500; 508000, 3797500; 508000, 
3797400; 508100, 3797400; 508100, 3797200; 508200, 3797200; 508200, 
3797000; 508300, 3797000; 508300, 3796700; 508400, 3796700; 508400, 
3796600; 508500, 3796600; 508500, 3796200; 508200, 3796200; 508200, 
3796100; 507700, 3796100; 507700, 3796500; 507800, 3796500; 507800, 
3796600; 507900, 3796600; 507900, 3796700; 507800, 3796700; 507800, 
3796800; 507700, 3796800; 507700, 3797000; 507600, 3797000; 507600, 
3797400; 507500, 3797400; 507500, 3797300; 507400, 3797300; 507400, 
3797200; 507000, 3797200; 507000, 3797300; 506900, 3797300; 506900, 
3797400; 506800, 3797400; 506800, 3797600; 506700, 3797600; 506700, 
3798000; 506800, 3798000; and 506800, 3798100.
    (ix) Subunit 1h: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 508800, 3799300; 509000, 3799300; 509000, 
3799200; 509100, 3799200; 509100, 3798800; 509000, 3798800; 509000, 
3798700; 508800, 3798700; 508800, 3798800; 508700, 3798800; 508700, 
3799100; 508800, 3799100; and 508800, 3799300.
    (x) Subunit 1i: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 509300, 3801000; 509600, 3801000; 509600, 
3800800; 509700, 3800800; 509700, 3800700; 509800, 3800700; 509800, 
3800500; 510100, 3800500; 510100, 3800400; 510300, 3800400; 510300, 
3800300; 510500, 3800300; 510500, 3800000; 509900, 3800000; 509900, 
3800100; 509500, 3800100; 509500, 3800400; 509600, 3800400; 509600, 
3800500; 509500, 3800500; 509500, 3800600; 509400, 3800600; 509400, 
3800800; 509300, 3800800; and 509300, 3801000.
    (xi) Subunit 1j: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 511000, 3800100; 511200, 3800100; 511200, 
3800000; 511300, 3800000; 511300, 3799900; 511500, 3799900; 511500, 
3799800; 511600, 3799800; 511600, 3799600; 511500, 3799600; 511500, 
3799500; 511300, 3799500; 511300, 3799600; 511200, 3799600; 511200, 
3799800; 511100, 3799800; 511100, 3799900; 511000, 3799900; and 
511000, 3800100.
    (xii) Subunit 1k: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 512300, 3800600; 512600, 3800600; 512600, 
3800500; 512700, 3800500; 512700, 3800100; 512600, 3800100; 512600, 
3799900; 512700, 3799900; 512700, 3799600; 512300, 3799600; 512300, 
3799700; 512100, 3799700; 512100, 3799600; 511700, 3799600; 511700, 
3799800; 511900, 3799800; 511900, 3799900; 512000, 3799900; 512000, 
3799800; 512100, 3799800; 512100, 3800000; 511900, 3800000; 511900, 
3800100; 511800, 3800100; 511800, 3800500; 512300, 3800500; and 
512300, 3800600.
    (xiii) Subunit 1l: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 513300, 3799300; 513600, 3799300; 513600, 
3799200; 513700, 3799200; 513700, 3798900; 513600, 3798900; 513600, 
3798800; 513400, 3798800; 513400, 3798900; 513200, 3798900; 513200, 
3799200; 513300, 3799200; and 513300, 3799300.
    (xiv) Subunit 1m: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 513300, 3800400; 513500, 3800400; 513500, 
3800200; 513700, 3800200; 513700, 3800100; 513800, 3800100; 513800, 
3800000; 514000, 3800000; 514000, 3799900; 514100, 3799900; 514100, 
3799700; 513800, 3799700; 513800, 3799800; 513700, 3799800; 513700, 
3799900; 513300, 3799900; 513300, 3800000; 513200, 3800000; 513200, 
3800300; 513300, 3800300; and 513300, 3800400.
    (xv) Subunit 1n: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 514200, 3800800; 514400, 3800800; 514400, 
3800700; 514500, 3800700; 514500, 3800500; 514200, 3800500; and 
514200, 3800800.
    (xvi) Subunit 1o: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 514800, 3801300; 515000, 3801300; 515000, 
3801200; 515100, 3801200; 515100, 3801000; 515000, 3801000; 515000, 
3800900; 514700, 3800900; 514700, 3801200; 514800, 3801200; and 
514800, 3801300.
    (xvii) Subunit 1p: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 514600, 3799700; 514900, 3799700; 514900, 
3799400; 514600, 3799400; and 514600, 3799700.
    (xviii) Subunit 1q: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 515900, 3802200; 516200, 3802200; 516200, 
3801900; 516100, 3801900; 516100, 3801800; 515900, 3801800; 515900, 
3801900; 515800, 3801900; 515800, 3802100; 515900, 3802100; and 
515900, 3802200.
    (xix) Subunit 1r: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 516100, 3801400; 516400, 3801400; 516400, 
3801000; 516100, 3801000; 516100, 3801100; 516000, 3801100; 516000, 
3801300; 516100, 3801300; and 516100, 3801400.
    (xx) Subunit 1s: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 515300, 3800400; 515600, 3800400; 515600, 
3800300; 515700, 3800300; 515700, 3799800; 515600, 3799800; 515600, 
3799700; 515300, 3799700; and 515300, 3800400.
    (xxi) Subunit 1t: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 515700, 3800600; 516100, 3800600; 516100, 
3800500; 516400, 3800500; 516400, 3800400; 516500, 3800400; 516500, 
3799800; 516400, 3799800; 516400, 3799700; 516300, 3799700; 516300, 
3799800; 516100, 3799800; 516100, 3800000; 516000, 3800000; 516000, 
3800100; 515800, 3800100; 515800, 3800300; 515700, 3800300; and 
515700, 3800600.
    (xxii) Subunit 1u: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 516800, 3800400; 517100, 3800400; 517100, 
3800300; 517200, 3800300; 517200, 3800000; 516800, 3800000; and 
516800, 3800400.
    (xxiii) Subunit 1v: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 515500, 3799600; 515900, 3799600; 515900, 
3799500; 516000, 3799500; 516000, 3799400; 516400, 3799400; 516400, 
3799300; 516500, 3799300; 516500, 3799100; 516700, 3799100; 516700, 
3799200; 516600, 3799200; 516600, 3799400; 516700, 3799400; 516700, 
3799500; 517000, 3799500; 517000, 3799300; 517100, 3799300; 517100, 
3799100; 517200, 3799100; 517200, 3798700; 516500, 3798700; 516500, 
3798800; 516300, 3798800; 516300, 3798900; 516200, 3798900; 516200, 
3799000; 516100, 3799000; 516100, 3799100; 515900, 3799100; 515900, 
3799000; 515700, 3799000; 515700, 3798900; 515400, 3798900; 515400, 
3799000;

[[Page 78610]]

 515300, 3799000; 515300, 3799300; 515400, 3799300; 515400, 3799500; 
515500, 3799500; and 515500, 3799600.
    (xxiv) Subunit 1w: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 517500, 3799800; 518000, 3799800; 518000, 
3799700; 518300, 3799700; 518300, 3799800; 518600, 3799800; 518600, 
3799700; 518800, 3799700; 518800, 3799400; 518600, 3799400; 518600, 
3799300; 518700, 3799300; 518700, 3798900; 518300, 3798900; 518300, 
3799000; 518200, 3799000; 518200, 3799100; 517900, 3799100; 517900, 
3798800; 517800, 3798800; 517800, 3798700; 517500, 3798700; 517500, 
3799000; 517400, 3799000; 517400, 3799300; 517500, 3799300; and 
517500, 3799800.
    (xxv) Subunit 1x: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 520900, 3798700; 521200, 3798700; 521200, 
3798600; 521300, 3798600; 521300, 3798300; 521200, 3798300; 521200, 
3798100; 520800, 3798100; 520800, 3798200; 520700, 3798200; 520700, 
3798600; 520900, 3798600; and 520900, 3798700.
    (xxvi) Subunit 1y: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 526700, 3791000; 527000, 3791000; 527000, 
3790900; 527300, 3790900; 527300, 3790800; 527400, 3790800; 527400, 
3790600; 527000, 3790600; 527000, 3790400; 526600, 3790400; 526600, 
3790700; 526700, 3790700; and 526700, 3791000.
    (xxvii) Subunit 1z: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 527800, 3790700; 528200, 3790700; 528200, 
3790300; 528000, 3790300; 528000, 3790200; 527800, 3790200; 527800, 
3790300; 527700, 3790300; 527700, 3790600; 527800, 3790600; and 
527800, 3790700.
    (xxviii) Subunit 1aa: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 527800, 3789600; 528200, 3789600; 528200, 
3789200; 527700, 3789200; 527700, 3789500; 527800, 3789500; and 
527800, 3789600.
    (xxix) Subunit 1ab: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 528400, 3790100; 528600, 3790100; 528600, 
3790000; 528800, 3790000; 528800, 3789600; 528400, 3789600; 528400, 
3789700; 528300, 3789700; 528300, 3790000; 528400, 3790000; and 
528400, 3790100.
    (xxx) Subunit 1ac: Land bounded by the following UTM11 NAD27 
coordinates (E, N): 530300, 3788100; 530500, 3788100; 530500, 
3788000; 530600, 3788000; 530600, 3787400; 530300, 3787400; 530300, 
3787600; 530200, 3787600; 530200, 3788000; 530300, 3788000; and 
530300, 3788100.
    (xxxi) Note: Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana map follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24DE02.005

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *

    Dated: December 9, 2002.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-31631 Filed 12-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P