[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 160 (Thursday, August 19, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51204-51223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20518]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2010-0052; 92220-1113-0000C5]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To Remove the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat From the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to remove the Stephens' kangaroo rat 
(Dipodomys stephensi) from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended. After a review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we find that delisting the Stephens' kangaroo rat is not 
warranted at this time. However, we ask the public to submit to us any 
new information that becomes available concerning the threats to the 
Stephens' kangaroo rat or its habitat at any time. This information 
will help us monitor and encourage the conservation of this species.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on August 19, 
2010.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2010-0052. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 
Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011. Please submit any new 
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding 
to the above street address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 760-431-9440; 
or by facsimile at 760-431-9624. If you use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for any petition 
to revise the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial information 
that delisting the species may be warranted, we make a finding within 
12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. In this finding, we 
will determine that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted, (2) 
warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation 
implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending 
proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened, 
and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified 
species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a petition 
for which the requested action is found to be warranted but precluded 
as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring a 
subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must publish 12-
month findings in the Federal Register.

Previous Federal Actions

    We listed Stephens' kangaroo rat as endangered on September 30, 
1988 (53 FR 38465). We published a draft recovery plan for the 
Stephens' kangaroo rat on June 23, 1997 (62 FR 33799; Service 1997, pp. 
1-71), but it has not been finalized. The draft recovery plan provides 
recovery guidance and a benchmark for delisting the species (Service 
1997, p. 53), consisting of:
    (1) Establishment of a minimum of five reserves, one of which is 
ecosystem-based, in western Riverside County, California, that 
encompass at least 6,675 hectares (ha) (16,500 acres (ac)) of occupied 
habitat that are permanently protected, funded, and managed; and
    (2) Establishment of two ecosystem-based reserves in San Diego 
County, California, one in the Western Conservation Planning Area and 
one reserve in the Central Conservation Planning Area, which are 
permanently protected, funded, and managed.
    Neither criteria have been met at this time. Discussion of the 
criteria and their applicability are discussed in the Recovery Planning 
and Implementation section below.
    On May 1, 1995, we received a first petition, dated April 26, 1995, 
from the Riverside County Farm Bureau (RCFB) requesting that the 
Stephens' kangaroo rat be removed from the Federal List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife (in other words, delisted) under the Act.

[[Page 51205]]

The petition included supporting information stating that there were 
original data errors and that the assumptions used by the Service 
resulted in underestimating the numbers and range of the species and 
overestimating the amount of habitat lost. We acknowledged the receipt 
of the petition in a letter to the RCFB, dated June 12, 1995. On August 
13, 1997, the RCFB sent us an inquiry regarding the status of the 
delisting petition and requesting clarification as to whether we had 
the funds or staff to respond with a 90-day finding on the petition. We 
sent a letter to the RCFB on August 26, 1997, stating that we were 
unable to review the petition and publish our 90-day finding due to 
limited resources. We also provided the RCFB with additional 
information concerning our Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Year 
1997.
    On February 25, 2002, we received a second petition from Mr. Robert 
Eli Perkins, without reference to his affiliation, dated February 22, 
2002, to delist the Stephens' kangaroo rat. We sent a letter 
acknowledging the receipt of the second petition to Mr. Perkins on 
August 6, 2002. The second petition was nearly identical to the 
petition submitted by the RCFB in 1995, in that the 2002 petition 
provided the same information and requested the same action. We treated 
the second petition as a re-submittal of the first petition rather than 
a formal second petition.
    On April 21, 2004, we announced our 90-day finding that the 
petition presented substantial information to indicate that the 
petitioned action may be warranted (69 FR 21567), and we initiated a 
status review of Stephens' kangaroo rat under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 
Act. We also announced our intention to complete a 5-year review of the 
status of the species as required under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 
We requested scientific and commercial data and other information 
regarding the status of and threats to Stephens' kangaroo rat.
    The Riverside County Farm Bureau filed a complaint on December 14, 
2009 (CV 09-09162 CBM (OPx)) citing our failure to publish a 12-month 
finding on their petition to delist Stephens' kangaroo rat. We reached 
a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs on May 7, 2010, in which we 
agreed to submit to the Federal Register a 12-month finding on the 
plaintiff's petition by July 30, 2010.
    This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the February 25, 
2002, petition (which we treated as a re-submittal of the May 1, 1995, 
petition) to delist the Stephens' kangaroo rat.

Species Information

Species Description and Taxonomy
    Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi Merriam) is a small, 
nocturnal mammal. Kangaroo rats are more closely related to squirrels 
than mice or rats and constitute a distinct group of rodents belonging 
to the family Heteromyidae. Kangaroo rats are burrow-dwelling, seed-
eating animals that inhabit arid and grassy habitats in western North 
America. They are characterized by fur-lined, external cheek pouches 
used for transporting seeds; large hind legs for rapid, bi-pedal, 
saltatorial (leaping) locomotion; relatively small front legs; long 
tails; and large heads.
    Stephens' kangaroo rat was first described as Perodipus stephensi 
based on a specimen collected near Winchester, Riverside County, 
California (Merriam 1907, p. 78). As part of a major study of kangaroo 
rats in California, Grinnell (1919, p. 203; 1922, p. 7) found no good 
grounds for retaining the genus Perodipus. As a consequence of these 
findings, Grinnell (1921, p. 95) published the currently recognized 
name Dipodomys stephensi. The Integrated Taxonomic Information System 
(ITIS 2010, TSN 180247) and more recent checklists continue to 
recognize Dipodomys stephensi as a distinct species (Baker et al. 2003, 
p. 13; Bisby et al. 2010).
Geographic Range and Status
    Stephens' kangaroo rat typically occurs at lower elevations in flat 
or gently rolling grasslands of the dry inland valleys west of the 
Peninsular Ranges of southern California, in western Riverside and 
northern and central San Diego Counties (Grinnell 1922, p. 67; Lackey 
1967a, p. 315; Bleich 1973, p. 46; Bleich and Swartz 1974, pp. 208-210; 
O'Farrell et al. 1986, pp. 187-189; O'Farrell and Uptain 1989, p. 1; 
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1993, pp. 4-36; Ogden 
Environmental and Energy Services Co, Inc. (Ogden) 1997, p. 3). This 
historical range is small for rodents in general, and particularly for 
kangaroo rats (Price and Endo 1989, p. 294). At the time of listing in 
1988, the Stephens' kangaroo rat's geographic range was reported as 
encompassing the Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula Valleys in western 
Riverside County (Temecula Valley was mistakenly reported as located in 
San Diego County), and the San Luis Rey Valley in San Diego County (53 
FR 38465). At listing, Stephens' kangaroo rat was known from 11 general 
areas, and, currently, Stephens' kangaroo rat is found in 15 areas (see 
Table 1 below).

 Table 1--Geographical Areas of Known Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Populations
                 at Listing (1988) and at Present (2010)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      At listing          At present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Riverside County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kabian Park.....................  known.............  considered
                                                       nonviable.
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
Lake Mathews/Estelle Mtn........  known.............  extant.
Lake Skinner/Domenigoni Valley..  known.............  extant.
Motte Rimrock...................  known.............  extant.
Potrero Valley..................  known.............  extant.
San Jacinto/Lake Perris.........  known.............  extant.
Steele Peak.....................  known.............  extant.
Sycamore Canyon/March Air Force   known.............  extant, Sycamore
 Base (AFB)*.                                          Canyon portion
                                                       considered
                                                       nonviable.
Corona/Norco....................  unknown...........  considered
                                                       nonviable.
Anza/Cahuilla (i.e., Silverado    unknown...........  extant.
 Conservation Bank).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            San Diego County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Henshaw....................  known.............  extant.
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½

[[Page 51206]]

 
Ramona Grasslands...............  unknown...........  extant.
Rancho Guejito..................  unknown...........  extant.
MCBCP (Camp Pendleton)..........  known.............  extant.
Fallbrook.......................  known.............  extant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The SKR Management Area on the former March AFB is not a reserve at
  this time (2010).

    Populations of Stephens' kangaroo rat continue to persist in areas 
throughout the species' native range, despite fragmentation. Since 
listing, additional populations have been found near Corona/Norco and 
Anza/Cahuilla (i.e., Silverado Conservation Bank) in western Riverside 
County, and Rancho Guejito and Ramona Grasslands in San Diego County, 
extending distribution records to the northwest, east, and south of 
areas known at the time of listing (Montgomery 1990, p. 3; Montgomery 
1992, p. 3; Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1993, pp. 4-39; 
Ogden 1997, p. 11). Although discovered after listing, it is likely the 
four additional populations were extant at the time of listing and were 
detected as a result of more focused surveys and consultations 
subsequent to listing. The populations identified after 1988 
(subsequent to our listing of the species) are located near the 
periphery of the Stephens' kangaroo rat's known range at the time of 
listing and are considered new records of occurrence and not a range 
expansion of the Stephens' kangaroo rat.
    To date, no rangewide assessment has been conducted to estimate the 
population size and indices of abundances (e.g., minimum number alive 
index for Stephens' kangaroo rat across the species' range). Surveys 
for Stephens' kangaroo rat necessary to derive useful population 
estimates are difficult to conduct due to their nocturnal habits and 
limited time above ground (see Biology section below). In fact, very 
few studies have focused on the distribution of habitats and 
populations throughout the animal's range (Thomas 1975, p. 1; O'Farrell 
and Uptain 1989, p. 1), and much of the distributional information is 
in the form of unpublished presence or absence survey reports at 
particular sites from short-term live-trapping studies provided to 
landowners or public agencies (Price and Endo 1989, p. 294). More 
recent information has come from localized area-specific survey reports 
such as from Anza/Cahuilla and Potrero Valleys (Western Riverside 
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Monitoring 
Program, April 2009). Because live-trapping methodologies vary and 
result in different capture probabilities, survey results across 
studies are difficult to interpret in terms of population estimates. 
However, such methodologies are useful for determining occupied habitat 
and detecting changes in species distribution.
    Suitable Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat has been mapped and 
categorized using a variety of different classification schemes, 
including categories such as occupied, potentially occupied, and 
probably occupied. Although mapping of ``occupied'' habitat has been 
the most common method used for assessing the status of Stephens' 
kangaroo rat, it can be problematic, as not all areas have been mapped, 
and most areas have not been mapped over time to obtain information 
about trends in the extent of habitat occupied. More detailed and 
consistent survey information is needed to determine useful accurate 
and defensible estimates of populations and demographic trends for the 
Stephens' kangaroo rat rangewide (Diffendorfer and Deutschman 2003, p. 
6).
    For this 12-month status review and finding, we identified all 
areas occupied by Stephens' kangaroo rat at any point in time since the 
species was listed in 1988. Characterizations of these areas form the 
basis of our understanding of the known distribution of extant 
occurrences of Stephens' kangaroo rat throughout its range. We refer to 
these areas collectively as the ``baseline Stephens' kangaroo rat 
occupied habitat'' throughout this finding. The total baseline 
Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat mapped for Riverside and San 
Diego Counties is 22,221 ha (54,909 ac). We consider this to be the 
most current and best available scientific information regarding the 
known distribution of occurrences and habitat of Stephens' kangaroo rat 
throughout the species' range. In the past, when conducting habitat and 
mapping exercises we have used a 100-meter grid to delineate habitat. 
Because of improved mapping techniques, for this baseline occupied 
habitat exercise, we mapped the areas as accurately as possible by more 
directly approximating the delineation of habitat areas rather than 
using a 100-meter grid to map habitat areas. We also digitized current 
data and information available to us from survey monitoring reports not 
previously available. We acknowledge that, due to varied mapping 
precision and accuracy, as well as data and resource constraints, there 
may be discrepancies between this and previous habitat acreage 
assessments.
Biology
    Stephens' kangaroo rat constructs burrows to serve as sleeping 
quarters and nesting sites (Bleich 1973, p. 73). Burrows of Stephens' 
kangaroo rat are frequently found clustered in burrow complexes (Brock 
and Kelt 2004, p. 52). Burrow depths range between 23 and 46 
centimeters (cm) (9 and 18 inches (in)), and multiple burrow openings 
may be adjoined. Burrow complexes consist of a network of tunnels 
connecting multiple entrances (Thomas 1975, p. 38; O'Farrell 1990, p. 
78), with tunnel pathways corresponding to surface runways (O'Farrell 
and Uptain, 1987, p. 34). Individuals typically emerge from their 
burrows after sunset; they may be active at any time of night. However, 
O'Farrell (pers. comm. 1986) has observed that Stephens' kangaroo rats 
spend very little time (less than 1 hour) above ground each day and, 
when they are above ground, they move quickly between points.
    Kangaroo rats, including Stephens' kangaroo rat, are primarily 
granivores (seed-eaters) and when above ground, spend most of their 
time moving about the surface, alternating between periods of 
locomotion with stops to extract seeds. Seeds are extracted from the 
soil by digging with their forefeet and balancing on their hind legs 
(Reichman and Price 1993, p. 541), by direct clipping of seed stalks 
and extracting seeds from the felled seed heads of fruit (Reichman and 
Price 1993, p. 542), or by harvesting seeds directly from fruit that 
lie within 15 to 20 cm (5.9 to 7.9 in) of the ground (Reichman and 
Price 1993, p. 543). Stephens' kangaroo rats often store large 
quantities of seeds, which they initially collect in their external 
cheek pouches and then transfer and

[[Page 51207]]

bury in burrows or surface caches for later consumption (Reichman and 
Price 1993, p. 543; Goldingay et al. 1997, p. 49). Seed caching may 
enable species of Dipodomys to survive during temporary shortages of 
food (Reichman and Price 1993, p. 543) or extreme seasonal fluctuations 
in food availability (Morgan and Price 1992, p. 2260). Although seeds 
are their primary food source, green vegetation and insects appear to 
be important seasonal food and water sources (Reichman and Price 1993, 
p. 540). Surface activity for Stephens' kangaroo rat changes through 
the year, reflecting seasonal rainfall and subsequent vegetative 
productivity (O'Farrell and Clark, 1987, p. 10). Previous studies on 
Stephens' kangaroo rat indicate that late spring to early summer 
breeding results in peak population recruitment in August (Lackey 
1967b, p. 625; Bleich 1977, p. 1; O'Farrell and Clark 1987, p. 11).
    The average litter size for the Stephens' kangaroo rat ranges from 
2.7 to 2.8 individuals (Lackey 1967b, p. 625; Price and Kelly 1994, p. 
815). The timing of breeding for Stephens' kangaroo rat is highly 
variable, with reproduction likely triggered by the growth of 
vegetation subsequent to winter rain (McClenaghan and Taylor 1993, pp. 
642-643; Price and Kelly 1994, p. 813). Studies on Stephens' kangaroo 
rat indicate a late spring to early summer breeding season (Bleich 
1977, p. 1; McClenaghan and Taylor, p. 636), although females on 
occasion may remain reproductive until late fall as long as food 
resources are adequate (McClenaghan and Taylor 1993, pp. 642-643; Price 
and Kelly 1994, p. 813). Observations suggest the possibility for 
multiple litters during favorable conditions (O'Farrell and Clark 1987, 
p. 11).
    Studies have estimated average Stephens' kangaroo rat survivorship 
in the wild to be between 4.5 to 6.6 months, with some individuals 
living for as long as 19 months (McClenaghan and Taylor 1991, p. 12; 
Price and Kelly 1994, p. 815). However, these estimates are probably 
low due to the limited timeframe of the studies and the inability to 
distinguish between actual mortality and emigration. Adults appear to 
have higher survival rates than subadults.
    Home ranges for Stephens' kangaroo rat vary according to physical 
habitat features, season, food availability, population density, and 
gender. Efforts to characterize the home range size or movements of 
Stephens' kangaroo rat have primarily relied on live trapping (Thomas 
1975, p. 7), or a combination of live trapping and radio telemetry, to 
characterize movement patterns (Kelly and Price 1992, p. 4; Price et 
al. 1994b, p. 931). Estimates for mean home ranges within a population 
vary between 0.02 and 0.13 ha (0.05 and 0.32 ac) (Thomas 1975, p. 49; 
Kelly and Price 1992, pp. 19-20). Home ranges generated from live-
trapping data are likely to be underestimates for this species (Kelly 
and Price 1992, p. 12), because the presence of live traps likely 
changes how the Stephens' kangaroo rat moves within its home range.
    Stephens' kangaroo rat is generally considered highly sedentary 
(Price et al. 1994b, p. 935), but in one instance, Price et al. (1994b, 
pp. 933-935) recorded an individual moving over 1.0 km (0.6 mi) between 
trapping grids. The median maximum distance moved by Stephens' kangaroo 
rat individuals between capture sites was within 29 m (96 ft) of the 
initial point of capture, with 18 m (58 ft) as the median distance 
moved between the first and last monthly home-range center (for 
individuals captured in 2 or more months). Juveniles and adults were 
found to maintain a home-range center of 30 m (98 ft) (Price et al. 
1994b, p. 935). Males are more mobile than females, and lactating 
females are especially sedentary; dispersal distances are similar for 
adults and juveniles. O'Farrell (1993, p. 12) found that 40 percent of 
the population was mobile at any one time and, in contrast to Price et 
al. (1994b, pp. 933-935), observed some movements in excess of 396 m 
(1,300 ft) (O'Farrell 1993, p. 66). Dispersal distances are usually 
less than 500 m (1,641 ft) (Price et al. 1994, p. 936).
Habitat and Ecosystem
    General habitat conditions for Stephens' kangaroo rat are described 
in the literature (Bleich 1977, p. 8; Lackey 1967, p. 331; Price et al. 
1991, p. 180; Goldingay and Price 1997, p. 715; Service 1997, pp. 9-
11). Studies have variously characterized habitat occupied by this 
species as ``sparse vegetation, level or rolling topography, and soil 
that is neither extremely dense nor largely sand'' (Lackey 1967, p. 
318) or as consisting of annual grasslands with sparse cover of 
perennial shrubs (Price and Endo 1989, p. 294). The term ``grassland'' 
is a generalization of this species' preferred vegetation community; 
the Stephens' kangaroo rat appears to have a higher affinity for 
vegetation communities dominated by herbaceous plants (forbs) with a 
low density of grasses than for a vegetation community dominated by 
grasses (O'Farrell and Clark 1987, p. 10; O'Farrell and Uptain 1987, p. 
9). Stephens' kangaroo rat prefers grassland communities dominated by 
forbs rather than by annual grasses, as annual forbs provide critical 
greens in the spring, furnish temporary cover, produce large seeds, and 
rapidly disintegrate after drying, resulting in substantial patches of 
bare ground (O'Farrell and Uptain 1989, p. 7; O'Farrell and Clark 1987, 
p. 10) that provide suitable conditions for the species' specialized 
mode of locomotion (Bartholomew and Caswell 1951).
    Stephens' kangaroo rat reaches its highest densities in grassland 
communities dominated by forbs and characterized by moderate to high 
amounts of bare ground, moderate slopes, and well-drained soils 
(O'Farrell and Uptain 1987, pp. 35, 36; O'Farrell 1990, p. 80; Anderson 
and O'Farrell 2000, p. 12). Stephens' kangaroo rat has been found on 36 
types of well-drained soils, and more than 125 soil types (Service 
1996, p. 6) that are capable of supporting annual grasses mixed with 
forbs and shrub species.
Genetics
    Genetic variability within and between populations of Stephens' 
kangaroo rat has been investigated based on allozyme (protein) 
variation (McClenaghan and Truesdale 1991 pp. 5-6, McClenaghan 1994, p. 
12) and through DNA analysis (Metcalf et al. 2001, p. 1239). Analysis 
of allozyme variation indicates populations on Marine Corps Base Camp 
Pendleton (MCBCP) in San Diego County are genetically similar to 
populations in western Riverside County (McClenaghan 1994, p. 25). In 
contrast, mitochondrial DNA analysis (mtDNA) of 16 populations across 
the range of Stephens' kangaroo rat found a higher degree of genetic 
differentiation (derived characteristics) between occupied locations 
(Metcalf et al. 2001, p. 1239) than found by the above-referenced 
allozyme studies. Metcalf et al.'s (2001, p. 1238) results infer that 
gene flow might be restricted between three hypothesized regions of 
potential differentiation: North (corresponds to northwestern and 
northeastern Riverside County), central (corresponds to central western 
Riverside County), and south (corresponds to north and central San 
Diego County), and particularly between the south region and the north 
and central regions. However, based on inconclusive sample sizes from 
each population (2 to 5 individuals per population), geographic 
restriction in gene flow advanced by Metcalf et al. (2001, p. 1241) 
should be considered preliminary.

[[Page 51208]]

Recovery Planning and Implementation

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for listed species. We published a draft recovery plan 
for Stephens' kangaroo rat on June 23, 1997 (62 FR 33799) and requested 
public comment on that draft plan for 60 days, ending August 22, 1997. 
We have not yet prepared a final recovery plan.
    Section 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of 
endangered and threatened species, unless we find that such a plan will 
not promote the conservation of the species. The Act directs that, to 
the maximum extent practicable, we incorporate into each plan: (1) 
Site-specific management actions that may be necessary to achieve the 
plan's goals for conservation and survival of the species; (2) 
objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would result in a 
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the 
Act, that the species be removed from the list; and (3) estimates of 
the time required and the cost to carry out the plan. However, 
revisions to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (adding, 
removing, or reclassifying a species) must reflect determinations made 
in accordance with section 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) 
of the Act requires that the Secretary determine whether a species is 
endangered or threatened (or neither) because of one or more of five 
threat factors. Therefore, recovery criteria must indicate when a 
species is no longer endangered or threatened by the five factors. In 
other words, objective, measurable criteria, or recovery criteria, 
contained in recovery plans must indicate when an analysis of the five 
threat factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act would result in a 
determination that a species is no longer endangered or threatened. 
Section 4(b) requires the determination made under section 4(a)(1) as 
to whether a species is endangered or threatened because of one or more 
of the five factors be based on the best available scientific and 
commercial data.
    Thus, while recovery plans are intended to provide guidance to the 
Service, States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to 
listed species and on criteria that may be used to determine when 
recovery is achieved, they are not regulatory documents and cannot 
substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations 
required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Determinations to remove a 
species from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife made under 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act must be based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available at the time of the determination, regardless 
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
    In the course of implementing conservation actions for a species, 
new information is often gained that requires recovery efforts to be 
modified accordingly. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of 
a species, and recovery may be achieved without all criteria being 
fully met. For example, one or more criteria may have been exceeded 
while other criteria may not have been accomplished. The Service may 
judge, however, that, overall, the threats have been minimized 
sufficiently, and the species is robust enough to reclassify the 
species from endangered to threatened or perhaps delist the species. In 
other cases, recovery opportunities may have been recognized that were 
not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. These 
opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the recovery 
plan.
    Information on the species may be learned that was not known at the 
time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information may change 
the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing recovery of the 
species. Overall, recovery of species is a dynamic process requiring 
adaptive management, planning, implementing, and evaluating the degree 
of recovery of a species that may, or may not, fully follow the 
guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    Thus, while the recovery plan provides important guidance on the 
direction and strategy for recovery, and indicates when a rulemaking 
process may be initiated, the determination to remove a species from 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is ultimately based on 
an analysis of whether a species is no longer endangered or threatened. 
The following discussion provides a brief review of recovery planning 
for Stephens' kangaroo rat, as well as an analysis of the recovery 
criteria and goals as they relate to evaluating the status of the 
species.
    The draft recovery plan identified a proposed recovery strategy 
based on the conservation of two types of reserves for the Stephens' 
kangaroo rat:
    (1) Ecosystem-based reserves that are not isolated from large 
expanses of natural habitat and are anticipated to retain their 
biological diversity, thus needing only low levels of management; and
    (2) Non-ecosystem-based reserves that are biologically isolated for 
the most part from large expanses of natural habitat and are 
anticipated to lose biological diversity, thus needing high to 
intensive levels of management.
    The proposed recovery strategy recognized the importance of 
conserving both types of reserves (i.e., sufficient habitat) to 
maintain genetic and phenotypic diversity, to conserve representative 
populations of the species, and to provide redundancy in conserved 
populations to protect against catastrophic events that could extirpate 
the species from a significant portion of its range (Service 1997, pp. 
48-49; see Factor A, D, and E discussions below). While this strategy 
for the conservation and recovery of Stephens' kangaroo rat is, in 
concept, still applicable and reflective of the approach the Service 
has used to guide conservation of Stephens' kangaroo rat, the recovery 
criteria and objectives as outlined in the 1997 draft recovery plan 
have not been revised to reflect information provided during public 
comment or to incorporate new and updated information generated since 
then. In addition, the goals and recovery criteria are ecosystem-based, 
and, while this approach generally addresses threats to the species, it 
does not provide explicit detail or guidance on determining whether 
threats have been ameliorated. Because ecosystem-based recovery actions 
are likely insufficiently detailed to address current and emerging 
threats (see Factor A and E discussions below), especially given new 
scientific information, this suggests the need to reevaluate the 
recovery strategy and criteria for Stephens' kangaroo rat. In addition 
to current conservation efforts, additional management approaches may 
be needed to maintain sufficient habitat requirements for the species' 
long-term survival. Further, the draft recovery plan's criteria do not 
identify population or demographic goals that would indicate that 
actions to ameliorate specific threats have been effective in ensuring 
the persistence of Stephens' kangaroo rat throughout its range in the 
foreseeable future. Despite the limitations discussed above, we 
consider the draft recovery plan to serve as an important document that 
sets out conservation goals for Stephens' kangaroo rat.
    As discussed earlier, the 1997 draft recovery plan recommended the 
following objectives and criteria for delisting the Stephens' kangaroo 
rat (Service 1997, p. 53):
    (1) Establishment of a minimum of five reserves, of which one is 
ecosystem-based, in western Riverside County that

[[Page 51209]]

encompass at least 6,675 ha (16,500 ac) of occupied habitat that are 
permanently protected, funded, and managed (refer to Western Riverside 
County--Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under 
Factor A below); and
    (2) Establishment of two ecosystem-based reserves in San Diego 
County, one in the Western Conservation Planning Area and one reserve 
in the Central Conservation Planning Area, that are permanently 
protected, funded, and managed (refer to San Diego County sections 
under Factor A below).
    The goal of Criterion 1, conserving at least 6,675 ha (16,500 ac), 
is linked to addressing the primary threat of habitat loss through 
urbanization. Criterion 2 is linked to threat of habitat loss and 
fragmentation and deleterious effects of small population size for the 
Stephens' kangaroo rat through conserving the geographic distribution, 
and phenotypic and genetic diversity, of the species across its known 
range.

Criterion 1

    The primary objective identified in the draft recovery plan is to 
protect and maintain sufficient populations and habitat of the 
Stephens' kangaroo rat to allow the removal (delisting) of this species 
from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife under the 
Act (Service 1997, p. 52). At the time of listing, the primary threat 
to the Stephens' kangaroo rat was direct habitat loss due to urban and 
agricultural development. The goal of Criterion 1, conserving at least 
6,675 ha (16,500 ac), is linked to addressing the primary threat of 
habitat loss through urbanization. However, because smaller, more 
isolated, non-ecosystem-based reserves were expected to be inherently 
unstable due to their configurations and current or future isolation 
from surrounding natural habitat due to the then existing or 
anticipated development, they were expected to require intensive 
management (Service 1997, p. 54). Additionally, establishing a minimum 
of three ecosystem-based conservation units (Service 1997, p. 54), one 
ecosystem-based conservation unit in western Riverside County 
(Criterion 1) and two in San Diego County (Criterion 2, see below) was 
thought appropriate to address the deleterious effects of diminishing 
biological diversity associated with small, biologically isolated 
reserves. Because western Riverside County was the area where Stephens' 
kangaroo rat was most threatened by existing and future urbanization, 
the maintenance of habitat quality and suitability there was considered 
essential for the conservation of this species (Service 1997, p. 49).
    Since drafting Criterion 1 in 1997, we have worked with private 
landowners and local, State, and Federal partners to develop and 
implement actions to reduce threats and provide for the long-term 
conservation of the Stephens' kangaroo rat. The primary mechanism for 
implementing recovery actions for the Stephens' kangaroo rat has been 
through a regional habitat conservation plan in western Riverside 
County called the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency's 
Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat in Western 
Riverside County (the HCP) (see Western Riverside County--Stephens' 
Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) below). Through this 
regional HCP (and other cooperative management agreements and 
conservation plans), a Stephens' kangaroo rat core reserve system, plus 
additional lands for the benefit of Stephens' kangaroo rat, is now 
dedicated to the conservation of the Stephens' kangaroo rat in western 
Riverside County.
    Based on our analysis of baseline Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied 
habitat within the western Riverside County HCP area (Service 2010; see 
Table 2 below), the Stephens' kangaroo rat core reserves (not including 
the Potrero Valley or March Air Force Base portion of the Sycamore 
Canyon/March Air Force Base Reserve) encompass 4,971 ha (12,568 ac) of 
baseline occupied habitat. Including Potrero Valley lands, 5,911 ha 
(14,606 ac) is currently in conservation within western Riverside 
County. Although management is required, Potrero Valley lands could 
serve to meet the ecosystem-based reserve portion of this criterion. 
These protected areas of baseline occupied habitat capture the 
geographic distribution of Stephens' kangaroo rat within western 
Riverside County. While the acquisition of lands in Stephens' kangaroo 
rat core reserves has largely ameliorated the threats of habitat loss 
due to urban development identified at the time of listing, Criterion 1 
also specifies that these reserves be permanently protected, funded, 
and managed to maintain habitat suitability and ensure the long-term 
survival of Stephens' kangaroo rat. These components of Criterion 1 
have yet to be fully implemented (see following discussion and Western 
Riverside County--Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan 
(HCP) section below).
    Endowments for management of four of the core reserves (Lake 
Mathews/Estelle Mountain, Lake Skinner/Domenigoni Valley, Motte 
Rimrock, and Potrero Valley) and for Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park 
are provided either through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 
California, the HCP, or the Western Riverside County Multiple Species 
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The 1997 draft recovery plan 
indicated intensive management of non-ecosystem-based reserves in 
western Riverside County would be required, but the draft plan did not 
identify specific goals or objectives to assess the effectiveness of 
management and to evaluate the response of populations of Stephens' 
kangaroo rat to management actions. As discussed under the Factor A 
analysis below, recent surveys (dates range from 1991 to 2006) indicate 
that the amount of occupied habitat on some of the Stephens' kangaroo 
rat core reserves has decreased over time, and monitoring efforts are 
not yet sufficient to determine Stephens' kangaroo rat population 
trends within the 5,911 ha (14,606 ac) of conserved baseline occupied 
habitat. This indicates that current management may not be effective 
and that further monitoring is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of 
ongoing conservation efforts. Therefore, we conclude that the primary 
goal of Criterion 1 for delisting as described in the 1997 draft 
recovery plan has not yet been fully met.

Criterion 2

    Criterion 2 for delisting recommends the establishment of two 
ecosystem-based reserves, one in western and one in central San Diego 
County that are permanently protected, funded, and managed. The draft 
recovery plan defines an ecosystem-based reserve as ``not isolated from 
large expanses of natural habitat'' and needing ``only minimal 
management due to the integrity of the natural system.''
    Criterion 2, similar to Criterion 1, was meant to address the 
threat of habitat loss to the Stephens' kangaroo rat and to conserve 
the geographic distribution, and phenotypic and genetic diversity, of 
the species. Criterion 2 is linked to the threat of habitat loss and 
fragmentation and to the deleterious effects of small population size 
for the Stephens' kangaroo rat through conserving the geographic 
distribution, and phenotypic and genetic diversity, of the species 
across its known range. Since the draft recovery plan was written, 
additional populations have been discovered in Ramona Grasslands and 
Rancho Guejito (see Geographic Range and Status section above). 
Additionally, Criterion 2 was developed to guard against the 
deleterious effects of diminishing biological diversity associated with

[[Page 51210]]

small, biologically isolated reserves (see Small Geographic Range and 
Population Size under Factor E below) by establishing larger ecosystem-
based reserves.
    The 1997 draft recovery plan did not, however, identify an acreage 
requirement in its definition of an ecosystem-based reserve. Rather, 
the draft plan indicated that ecosystem-based reserves should be 
surrounded by large expanses of natural habitat, which would allow them 
to retain their biological diversity and require only minimal 
management to promote the relatively rapid recovery of Stephens' 
kangaroo rat in the wild (Service 1997, p. 49). Based on our analysis 
of baseline Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat in San Diego County 
(Service 2010), only populations of Stephens' kangaroo rat at Lake 
Henshaw, at Rancho Guejito, or on Camp Pendleton and Detachment 
Fallbrook are likely large enough or are surrounded by sufficient 
natural habitat to meet this criterion, and currently none of these 
areas are permanently protected and managed (see discussion under 
Factor A below).
    The Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat and surrounding natural 
lands on Camp Pendleton and Detachment Fallbrook may meet the intent of 
the draft recovery plan for an ecosystem-based reserve in western San 
Diego County. However, as discussed below under our Factor A analysis 
below, most areas of known Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat are 
threatened by habitat degradation from encroachment of nonnative 
grasses and succession to more shrub-dominated communities, and even 
the largest Stephens' kangaroo rat populations may not be sustained 
over the long term without high to intensive management. Thus, we 
conclude that the criterion to establish ecosystem-based reserves that 
are protected, funded, and managed within western or central San Diego 
County has not been met.
    Our review of the recovery criteria from the draft recovery plan 
for Stephens' kangaroo rat indicates that while both types of reserves 
have been established that help to ameliorate the threat of urban 
development, the criteria have not been fully met because management 
necessary to maintain habitat suitability is not yet in place. We also 
conclude that while the criteria appropriately indicate the need for 
habitat protection and intensive management of reserves, they are 
outdated and no longer adequately address the current threats to the 
species discussed below.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424), set forth procedures for adding species to, 
removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened 
based on any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    We must consider these same five factors in delisting a species. We 
may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best 
available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is 
neither endangered nor threatened for the following reasons:
    (1) The species is extinct;
    (2) The species has recovered and is no longer endangered or 
threatened; or
    (3) The original scientific data used at the time the species was 
classified were in error.
    In making this finding, information pertaining to the Stephens' 
kangaroo rat in relation to the five factors provided in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In making our 12-month finding 
on the petition we considered and evaluated the best available 
scientific and commercial information.
    The petition did not contain substantial information regarding the 
biological status of Stephens' kangaroo rat or provide significant new 
information as to current or future threats to the species. 
Additionally, the petition did not provide a comprehensive review of 
the status of the species or provide evidence suggesting that the 
original listing was in error.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    The 1988 listing rule identified widespread habitat loss and a 
fragmented distribution of the species due to historical agriculture 
practices and urban development as primary threats to the Stephens' 
kangaroo rat (53 FR 38465, September 30, 1998). We considered urban and 
agricultural development, grazing, and off-highway vehicles (OHVs) to 
be significant and potentially rangewide threats to the long-term 
persistence of Stephens' kangaroo rat at that time. These threats 
continue for Stephens' kangaroo rat predominantly through habitat 
modification and curtailment impacts, compared to direct habitat loss.
    The 2002 petition did not present any significant new information 
regarding the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of habitat and range of the species.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Urbanization and Land Use 
Conversion
    The habitat and range of Stephens' kangaroo rat has been reduced 
over time. The species likely once occurred throughout annual grassland 
or sparse coastal sage scrub communities of the Perris and San Jacinto 
Valleys and up adjoining washes in southern California. As flat lands 
were developed or converted into agriculture, the species likely became 
isolated to low rolling hills and level ridge tops. With the arrival of 
Spanish ranchers and agrarian practices (i.e., before 1938), native 
perennial bunchgrass vegetation was replaced by annual grasslands and 
ever since (i.e., in the later portion of the 20th century) has been 
increasingly replaced by degraded annual grasslands (see Factor E 
discussion below). Price and Endo's (1989, p. 299) study revealed that 
the species suffered severe habitat loss and fragmentation throughout a 
core area of its range over the past century, due primarily to 
agricultural and urban development. In addition, O'Farrell and Uptain's 
(1989, p. 5) assessment of the population and habitat status of the 
Stephens' kangaroo rat throughout most of its range, which was 
available just after the 1988 listing, corroborated the threats from 
habitat loss and fragmentation to the species. They found that about 58 
percent of previously known populations were extirpated due to human 
development and that many of the extant populations remained only in 
small and isolated areas. The petition asserted that we grossly over 
exaggerated the amount of habitat lost. However, the petitioner did not 
provide, and we do not possess, any new scientific or commercial data 
indicating that our original estimates of habitat loss were 
overestimations or were made in error.
    In the 1988 final listing rule, we estimated the amount of suitable 
habitat (but not necessarily occupied habitat) for the Stephens' 
kangaroo rat prior to 20th-century agriculture was 124,775 ha (308,195 
ac) in western Riverside County (53 FR 38467; Price and Endo

[[Page 51211]]

1989, p. 296). By 1984, the quantity of suitable habitat was reduced by 
approximately 60 percent to 50,518 ha (124,779 ac) (Price and Endo 
1989, p. 296; 53 FR 38467). No similar estimates of reduction of 
suitable habitat for Stephens' kangaroo rat were available for San 
Diego County at that time, but we surmise a roughly equivalent 
magnitude of loss occurred concomitantly in San Diego County, given 
land use conversion to agriculture in the early 20th century throughout 
the grasslands of southern California.
    Habitat modification and fragmentation involves both reduction in 
size and increased isolation of habitats. Most extant populations of 
Stephens' kangaroo rat were considered isolated from one another at the 
time of the species' 1988 listing and that pattern of fragmentation has 
been reinforced due to ongoing urbanization and land use conversions. 
Occupied Stephens' kangaroo rat sites, especially in the western 
portions of the range, have become increasingly isolated by surrounding 
urban and agricultural development. In some cases, occupied sites may 
be too fragmented to sustain viable populations of Stephens' kangaroo 
rat (Burke et al. 1991, pp. 28-29), suggesting that conservation of 
these smaller isolated populations may require enlarging patches of 
suitable habitat or connecting patches via conservation corridors. 
Similar to habitat loss, habitat fragmentation affects the persistence 
of populations or a species within habitat fragments (Wilcove et al. 
1986, pp. 237-238, 246-252; Morrison et al. 1992, pp. 43-47; Noss et 
al. 1997, pp. 99-103; see Factor E discussion below).
    Further, direct conversion of habitat by discing, burning, plowing, 
and grading, and wildfire suppression fuel reduction activities 
associated with human use and agricultural practices across the range 
of the species, can result in habitat degradation of suitable and 
occupied sites for Stephens' kangaroo rat. Deep discing may destroy the 
burrows of Stephens' kangaroo rat and degrade remaining vegetation. 
Although in some instances the open nature of plowed fields and farm 
access roads has been shown to encourage occupancy by the Stephens' 
kangaroo rat where fields are located near or adjacent to occupied 
habitat, we have little additional information to evaluate the 
potential frequency of reoccupation of abandoned agricultural lands or 
persistence of populations on abandoned agricultural lands. Moore-Craig 
(1984, p. 5) found that Stephens' kangaroo rats may recolonize a field 
within 8 months after cessation of cultivation. Although the threat of 
habitat loss and modification from agriculture land conversion was 
considered less severe than the threat of habitat loss from 
urbanization at the time of listing (because Stephens' kangaroo rats 
were found to reinvade plowed fields if the agricultural usage was 
abandoned (Thomas 1975, p. 46; 53 FR 38467)), the regularity and 
persistence of these recolonization events by Stephens' kangaroo rat on 
converted fields remains unknown. Information on the frequency of 
reoccupation of abandoned agricultural lands, long-term persistence of 
these populations on abandoned agricultural lands following a 
recolonization event, or the persistence of these lands as occupied 
habitat will require longer term and directed investigations. 
Regardless, agricultural practices may still provide a persistent 
source of nonnative vegetation and therefore remain an ongoing threat 
to suitability of habitat for Stephens' kangaroo rat that warrants 
future studies rangewide.
    We estimated the baseline, from which to gauge recent impacts, 
Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat for Riverside and San Diego 
Counties to be 22,221 ha (54,909 ac). Of that baseline, a total of 68 
percent (15,059 ha/37,211 ac) is within Riverside County and 32 percent 
(7,162 ha/17,698 ac) is in San Diego County. As of 2006, a total of 
1,433 ha (3,537 ac) of baseline Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat 
was lost directly to development (see Table 2 below) in western 
Riverside and San Diego Counties. Though 1,414 ha (3,492 ac) were 
developed in Riverside County from 1984 to 2006 (Service 2010), impacts 
from direct habitat loss to urban development have mostly been 
ameliorated due to existing conservation efforts (see Recovery Planning 
and Implementation above, and Factor A and D discussions). In San Diego 
County, little baseline Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat has 
been developed (19 ha/46 ac), although the potential for impact due to 
direct urban development remains high, especially if conservation 
efforts are not guaranteed (see Factor A and D discussions). Relative 
to previous discussions, it is important to note that not all baseline 
Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat (22,221 ha/54,909 ac) is still 
currently occupied, and this represents only a small subset of the 
estimated amount of suitable habitat (50,518 ha/124,779 ac) for 
Stephens' kangaroo rat indicated in the 1988 listing rule.

                Table 2--Amount of Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Occupied, Developed, and Conserved in Riverside and San Diego Counties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      BOH lost to
                             Location                                  Total area ha (ac)       BOH \1\ ha (ac)     development ha     BOH conserved ha
                                                                                                                         (ac)                (ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riverside County.................................................       1,890,263 (4,670,942)    15,059 (37,211)       1,414 (3,492)      6,275 (15,507)
    Within the HCP \2\...........................................           223,470 (552,206)    12,568 (31,057)       1,071 (2,649)      4,971 (12,283)
    Within MSHCP \3\.............................................         509,050 (1,257,889)    15,059 (37,211)       1,413 (3,492)       \4\ 213 (526)
    Potrero Valley...............................................               3,694 (9,128)        940 (2,323)                  0          940 (2,323)
    Johnson Ranch................................................                   272 (671)          1.9 (4.8)                  0            1.9 (4.8)
     Anza/Cahuilla...............................................                 778 (1,922)          202 (500)                  0            150 (370)
San Diego County.................................................       1,096,758 (2,710,148)     7,162 (17,698)             19 (46)       1,510 (3,932)
     Lake Henshaw................................................                         NA      4,331 (10,702)           2.5 (6.3)                  0
     Ramona......................................................                         NA            67 (166)                  0             67 (166)
     Rancho Guejito..............................................                         NA       1,224 (3,024)                  0                   0
     Camp Pendleton..............................................            50,692 (125,262)        422 (1,043)           0.1 (0.2)         422 (1,043)
     Detachment Fallbrook........................................               3,606 (8,910)      1,118 (2,762)             16 (39)       1,102 (2,722)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Baseline Stephen's kangaroo rat occupied habitat (BOH).
\2\ Western Riverside County Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (HCP).
\3\ Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
\4\ All lands under MSHCP, not just Additional Reserve Lands (ARL) lands.


[[Page 51212]]

Conservation Efforts

    Several habitat conservation plans and other planning documents 
have been developed and implemented in western Riverside and San Diego 
Counties since 1988. These plans include: The Western Riverside County 
Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (the HCP) and 
the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 
(MSHCP) in Riverside County, as well as the proposed San Diego North 
County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (North County MSCP), Marine 
Corps Base Camp Pendleton's (MCBCP) Integrated Natural Resources 
Management Plan, and the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWSSB) 
`Detachment Fallbrook' Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, 
all in San Diego County. Additional local conservation plans and 
partnerships or active management agreements in both Counties are 
ongoing within and outside the regional habitat conservation plans.
    In western Riverside and San Diego Counties, existing conservation 
planning efforts have slowed the rate of unregulated loss of habitat to 
urban development and agricultural development. Currently, 36 percent, 
or 7,882 ha (19,477 ac) of the total baseline Stephens' kangaroo rat 
occupied habitat rangewide is conserved through regional habitat 
conservation plans and conservation easements. Although the intensity 
and magnitude of the threat from direct habitat loss for Stephens' 
kangaroo rat has been greatly diminished through ongoing implementation 
of habitat conservation plans and conservation processes in western 
Riverside County, and to a lesser extent in San Diego County, both 
habitat modification and curtailment are currently impacting the 
species. In considering the limitations and inadequacies (see Factor D 
discussion below) of ongoing efforts to implement or maintain adaptive 
management practices (not specifically mandated by a habitat 
conservation plan's terms and conditions), the duration and extent of 
habitat degradation and decreasing habitat quality remains a rangewide 
threat to the Stephens' kangaroo rat. Following is a discussion of the 
regional plans in effect and what they provide and do not provide 
regarding ongoing threats of habitat destruction and modification by 
urbanization and land use conversion.

Western Riverside County--Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation 
Plan (HCP)

    Since the 1988 listing of the Stephens' kangaroo rat, publicly 
reviewed, regional habitat conservation planning under section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act has guided recovery for the Stephens' kangaroo 
rat, especially in western Riverside County. The HCP in western 
Riverside County provides for protection of ``core reserves'' and 
adaptive management of Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat in order to 
ameliorate impacts to the species from habitat fragmentation and 
degradation associated with development. The seven core reserves for 
the Stephens' kangaroo rat were assembled from a combination of State 
and federally owned lands, lands already in conservation (e.g., in open 
space preserves or through conservation easements), lands acquired by 
the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA), and other 
cooperative partnerships (Table 3); Potrero Valley was added as a core 
reserve on December 29, 2003, and March Air Force Base was removed 
through an authorized land exchange (see Factor D discussion below).

  Table 3--Area Conserved by Core Reserves Under the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in
1996. Note: Potrero Valley Was Added to Core Reserve Desigh Later and Is Not Included in Total at Designation in
          1996; 270 ha (667 ac) of Sycamore Canyon Remains in Conservation But Is Considered Nonviable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            HCP Core Reserve                         In hectares                           In acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Skinner/Domenigoni Valley.........  5,325..............................  13,158.
Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain..........  4,550..............................  11,243.
San Jacinto/Lake Perris................  4,424..............................  10,932.
Sycamore Canyon/March Air Force Base...  1,013..............................  2,502.
Steele Peak............................  709................................  1,753.
Potrero Area of Critical Environmental   403................................  995.
 Concern (ACEC).
Motte Rimrock Reserve..................  258................................  638.
[Potrero Valley Reserve]...............  [approx 3,694].....................  [approx 9,128].
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total at designation in 1996.......  16,682.............................  41,221.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Initiated with the ``Short-Term'' HCP in 1990, and continued with 
the approval in 1996 of the ``Long-Term'' HCP (which is the document we 
refer to as the HCP in this finding), the HCP was primarily envisioned 
to address the need to minimize loss of known occupied Stephens' 
kangaroo habitat in key localities (identified as ``Study Areas'' in 
the Short-Term HCP) and implemented as the seven core reserves in 1996.
    On May 2, 1996, we completed an intra-agency biological opinion and 
issued an Incidental Take Permit for a 30-year term for the HCP under 
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The HCP required the conservation of 
6,070 hectares (15,000 ac) of Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat 
in seven core reserves within the 216,083-ha (533,954-ac) plan area and 
authorized, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, the loss of all of 
the remaining occupied Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat for development 
(6,070 hectares (15,000 acres)) (RCHCA 1996, p. S-6). The Western 
Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA), along with eight 
member jurisdictions (Cities of Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno 
Valley, Murrieta, Perris, Riverside, and Temecula), and unincorporated 
areas within the plan, are permittees.
    Near the time of permit issuance, the HCP core reserve boundaries 
(i.e., within the conserved 16,682 ha/41,221 ac) included 5,042 ha 
(12,460 ac) of Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat, as reported by 
RCHCA (1996, p. S-9). In a biological opinion dated May 2, 1996, it was 
estimated that 11,307 acres of occupied Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied 
habitat fell within the seven core reserve boundaries. There is no 
dataset currently available to reliably quantify occupied habitat for 
Stephens' kangaroo rat within the core reserves; RCHCA, after years of 
incomplete monitoring efforts, developed a reserve-wide monitoring 
protocol in July 2006,

[[Page 51213]]

but it was suspended in 2007 (RCHCA 2007, p. 12). A newly revised 
monitoring protocol has been developed and is currently being 
implemented in four of the reserves in 2010 (Lake Skinner/Domenigoni 
Valley, Potrero Valley, Potrero ACEC, and San Jacinto/Lake Perris); 
adoption of the monitoring protocol is anticipated on the other core 
reserves in 2011 (Lake Mathews, Steele Peak, Motte Rimrock, and at 
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park) (Gail Barton pers. comm., May 2010).
    The largest four core reserves (Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain, San 
Jacinto/Lake Perris, Lake Skinner/Domenigoni Valley, and Potrero 
Valley) protect several different habitat types and provide for 
multiple species in addition to Stephens' kangaroo rat. Each of these 
core reserves therefore contains significantly more acreage than the 
baseline Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat. In 1996, there was 
the recognition that the major Stephens' kangaroo rat populations 
across the species' range would remain fragmented and functionally 
isolated from one another due to existing urban development and 
topographic conditions that precluded restoration of natural 
connections once present under historical conditions. Thus, core 
reserves were expected to retain biological diversity across the known 
range of Stephens' kangaroo rat, and were anticipated to require 
intensive active management (Service 1997, p. 54).
    Although losses to species and habitat were anticipated, and we 
stated such losses might reduce the viability of remaining populations, 
we determined in our biological opinion that permanent management of 
Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat to be conserved provided a reasonable 
assurance that Stephens' kangaroo rat populations within the HCP area 
would persist, and that implementation of the HCP was not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of the Stephens' kangaroo rat 
(Service 1996, p. 15). Issuance of the permit allowed the permanent 
loss of 50 percent of Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat within 
the HCP area and the loss of 31 percent of the occupied habitat 
rangewide (Service 1996, p. 10).
    Surveys indicate that some of the baseline occupied habitat within 
core reserves is no longer occupied by Stephens' kangaroo rat. Two core 
reserves with the largest amount of Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied 
habitat (Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain (1,726 ha (4,264 ac)) and San 
Jacinto/Lake Perris (1,473 ha (3,640 ac))) experienced a decrease of 
244 ha (602 ac) of Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat by 2001 
(RCHCA 2002, p. 1). Stephens' kangaroo rat is considered extirpated 
from 80 ha (197 ac) of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area due to degradation 
of habitat (Service GIS Data 2007, based on Paulek 2002, p. 2). Between 
1990 and 1996, development at Kabian Park (466 ha (1,153 ac) of 
occupied habitat known at 1988 listing) resulted in significant habitat 
fragmentation and its elimination from core reserve designation. 
Measures to minimize the authorized take under the section 10 permits 
acknowledged conserving many of the largest remaining populations 
within the western Riverside portion of the range. The conservation 
strategy for the HCP was to capture a large enough habitat base within 
which Stephens' kangaroo rat populations could naturally expand and 
contract in response to environmental variability with the core 
reserves. Key was proper monitoring and management to conserve 
Stephens' kangaroo rat within the system of isolated reserves, and 
maintaining essential connectivity within and between reserves for the 
long-term maintenance of the ecosystem captured within the reserves 
(Service 1996, p. 13).
    Recent surveys (dates range from 1991 to 2006) indicate that the 
amount of occupied habitat on some of the Stephens' kangaroo rat core 
reserves has decreased over time, and that monitoring efforts may still 
not be not sufficiently detailed to provide a reliable estimate of 
population sizes (and thereby amount of occupied habitat) across all 
reserves within the HCP (RCHCA 2007, p. 11; Difffendorfer and 
Deutschman 2003, p. 6). Further, recent annual reports from the HCP 
state that there are insufficient funds to maintain adequate boundary 
fencing or patrols around the core reserves (RCHCA 2008), suggesting 
the lack of enforcement ability (albeit voluntary) in some areas within 
the HCP area.
    In 2003, lands within the Sycamore Canyon/March Air Force Base core 
reserve, including a 405 ha (1,000 ac) area known as the Stephens' 
kangaroo rat Management Area (SKR Management Area), were released from 
the core reserve for urban development. On August 27, 2009, the Center 
for Biological Diversity and San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society 
filed a complaint against the Service [Case No. 09-ev-1864 JAH POR 
(filed 8/27/09, S.D. Cal.)], alleging that the release of the SKR 
Management Area triggered the consultation requirements of section 7 of 
the Act, constituted a major Federal action significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment requiring appropriate environmental 
review under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.), and was a material change to the HCP requiring a formal 
amendment to the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. On April 22, 2010, a 
settlement agreement was filed with the Court, in which the Service 
agreed to rescind its December 29, 2003 approval of the release of the 
SKR Management Area. Upon the Service rescinding the release of the SKR 
Management Area, the SKR Management Area would be restored as a 
preserve under the HCP and would be subject to the restrictions 
applicable to preserve lands under the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit and 
the HCP. However, the settlement agreement has not been approved by the 
Court and is not currently in effect. Additionally, other parties filed 
motions to intervene in the lawsuit, and those motions are currently 
pending before the Court. Therefore, the conservation status of, and 
the threat of potential loss or destruction of the habitat in, the SKR 
Management Area is currently unknown. We believe that, regardless of 
the pending Court decision, the long-term recovery of the Stephens' 
kangaroo rat is neither compromised nor significantly enhanced by 
returning the SKR Management Area to the core reserve system.

Western Riverside County--Western Riverside County MSHCP

    Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 
(MSHCP) is a large-scale, multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation 
plan that addresses 146 listed and unlisted covered species, including 
Stephens' kangaroo rat, within a 510,000-ha (1.26 million-ac) plan 
area. Within the MSHCP area plan, there are sixteen County of Riverside 
Area Plans. The Service issued an incidental take permit on June 22, 
2004 (Service 2004), under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to 22 
permittees under the MSHCP for a period of 75 years. The Western 
Riverside County Stephens' Kangaroo Rat HCP (see above) covers 
approximately 216,084 ha (533,954 ac) within the central portion of the 
MSHCP area and remains its own distinct habitat conservation plan. 
Thus, the MSHCP Conservation Area is 140,426 ha (347,000 ac) of 
existing natural and open space areas referred to as Public/Quasi-
Public Lands (e.g., State and County Park lands, Federal lands) within 
western Riverside County for the listed and unlisted species and 
complemented by an approximately 61,916 ha (153,000 ac) of new 
conservation lands (``Additional Reserve

[[Page 51214]]

Lands, or ARL''). The species-specific objectives for Stephens' 
kangaroo rat under the MSHCP are consistent with the requirements of 
the HCP to maintain a minimum of 6,070 ha (15,000 ac) of occupied 
Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat within the core reserves established by 
the HCP, and to expand the existing core reserves established by the 
HCP (see Factor D discussion below). Through cooperative management of 
these existing conserved lands in Western Riverside County (as provided 
for in the MSHCP's implementing agreement (IA); MSHCP IA, p. 57) a 
total of 7,875 ha (19,458 ac) of occupied Stephens' kangaroo rat 
habitat over the 75-year term of the MSHCP permit will be conserved 
when the MSHCP is fully implemented. We concluded in our biological 
opinion that implementation of the MSHCP was not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of the Stephens' kangaroo rat because of the 
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, and associated 
monitoring and management incorporated into the MSHCP and for the 
conservation objectives set forth in the IA (Service 2004, p. 311). 
Based on the distribution of the Stephens' kangaroo rat and protection 
and management of the MSHCP Conservation Area, we concluded that 
habitat loss as described in the MSHCP would not result in an 
appreciable reduction in the numbers, reproduction, or distribution of 
the species throughout its range (Service, p. 311).
    Although the precise configuration of the 61,916 ha (153,000 ac) of 
Additional Reserve Lands is neither mapped nor precisely identified in 
the MSHCP, textual descriptions within the bounds of a 125,453-ha 
(310,000-ac) Criteria Area that is interpreted through time as 
implementation of the MSHCP proceeds are expected. Based on the 
provisions of the MSHCP, Additional Reserve Lands of specific 
conservation value to Stephens' kangaroo rat will likely be added to 
these core reserves: Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain, 519 ha (1,281 ac); 
Lake Skinner/Domenigoni Valley, 406 ha (1,003 ac); San Jacinto/Lake 
Perris, 56 ha (140 ac); Motte Rimrock, 41 ha (102 ac); Steele Peak, 292 
ha (721 ac); and Potrero ACEC, 59 ha (146 ac). Beyond the already 6,276 
ha (15,507 ac) of conserved habitat in western Riverside County, we 
expect that the ongoing implementation of the MSHCP will conserve an 
additional 1,501 ha (3,709 ac) of the baseline Stephens' kangaroo rat 
occupied habitat, including 1,246 ha (3,079 ac) that are linked to the 
existing reserves and 255 ha (630 ac) in a new reserve near Anza 
(Service 2010). The additional conservation of occupied habitat 
adjacent to the existing reserves and the addition of one new reserve 
will enhance the long-term viability of Stephens' kangaroo rat 
populations within western Riverside County.
    Through 2008, 130 ha (323 ac), or 9 percent, of the Additional 
Reserve Lands (ARL ``gains'') that are linked to the Stephens' kangaroo 
rat core reserves have been acquired and conserved under the MSHCP 
(Service 2010). The MSHCP provides for monitoring and management on its 
Additional Reserve Lands, an increased level of monitoring on the core 
reserves established under the HCP, and the potential for acquisition 
of non-Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat that abuts some 
Stephens' kangaroo rat populations near the edge of the reserves, thus 
providing a buffer to the effects of surrounding urbanization (see 
Factor D discussion below).
    Additional Reserve Lands, both within and outside the MSHCP 
boundary, include habitat linked (i.e., within 500 meters (1,640 ft)) 
to the existing Stephens' kangaroo rat core reserves (1,373 ha (3,393 
ac)) and add one additional core area in the Anza/Cahuilla Valleys, 
which encompasses the Silverado Mitigation Bank (261 ha (645 ac)), and 
incorporates smaller scattered habitat patches throughout the MSHCP 
Conservation Area (541 ha (1,336 ac)) (Dudek 2003, Table 9-2, p. 9-96; 
Service 2004, p. 309; Service 2008a, p. 1). Additional Reserve Lands, 
which include baseline Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat within 
500 m (1,640 ft) of the Stephens' kangaroo rat core reserves, enhance 
the probability of long-term Stephens' kangaroo rat persistence within 
western Riverside County and are thus important to the recovery of the 
species.
    Norco Hills, adjacent to the Santa Ana River in the City of Norco, 
was found to be occupied after the species was listed in 1988, and 
included approximately 405 ha (1,000 ac) of occupied and potentially 
occupied habitat (Dudek and Associates 2003, p. M-203). The Norco Hills 
population was considered to be important to the conservation of 
Stephens' kangaroo rat, but by 2004, the Norco Hills area was reduced 
by approximately 46 percent to an estimated 185 ha (457 ac) of highly 
fragmented habitat due to ongoing or pending development projects 
(Service 2004, p. 304). Offsite conservation to address these impacts 
was primarily concentrated at the Wilson Valley and Silverado 
Mitigation Banks. Subsequent to this development, the Norco Hills area 
was considered to no longer have long-term conservation value for the 
species, and as a result, it was discounted as a targeted area of 
conservation in the western Riverside County planning process.
    The threat of direct habitat loss of Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat 
in western Riverside County from large-scale development (intense 
urbanization and land use conversion) is no longer the predominant 
threat to the species as stated in the final listing rule (53 FR 38465, 
September 30, 1988). Most, but not all, proposed projects in western 
Riverside County are limited to that permitted under either the HCP or 
the MSHCP. However, as the HCP and MSHCP do allow for continued, 
regulated development in Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat, 
implementation of proposed and future development projects under the 
HCP and MSHCP will continue to result in the destruction and 
modification of Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat (suitable or occupied) 
within the plan areas. Additionally, successful management of the 
reserves is pivotal in avoiding declines in the Stephens' kangaroo rat 
populations within the core reserves and within the MSHCP plan area. 
Connectivity and proper monitoring and management were, and remain, 
essential to the long-term viability of the Stephens' kangaroo rat.
    In summary, western Riverside County accounts for 68 percent, or 
15,059 ha (37,211 ac), of total baseline occupied habitat mapped for 
this species. Of this, 6,276 ha (15,507 ac), or 41 percent, is 
currently held in conservation, and the remaining 59 percent has 
previously been impacted by urban development or may be subject to 
future loss, modification, or fragmentation from urban development.

San Diego County--Lake Henshaw and Ramona Grasslands

    A majority of Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat in central 
and north San Diego County is not conserved currently. The lands 
supporting Stephens' kangaroo rat population at Lake Henshaw are 
managed for water conservation by a local government agency, the Vista 
Irrigation District, and although they are likely to remain 
underdeveloped to protect the watershed and delivery potential of the 
agency's mission, to our knowledge there is no active management 
specifically targeting Stephens' kangaroo rat conservation; we 
currently know of no projects that would result in development or 
destruction of the Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat owned by the 
District. Studies indicate that this site likely supported the largest

[[Page 51215]]

remaining contiguous population of Stephens' kangaroo rat within the 
species' entire range, with an estimated 4,600 ha (11,367 ac) of 
suitable habitat occupied (O'Farrell and Uptain 1987, p. 10). The 
current status of this population in unknown and we are aware of no 
surveys in this area since 1990.
    Currently conserved areas on public lands within San Diego County 
include Ramona Grasslands and Ramona Airport. Approximately 67 ha (166 
ac) of baseline Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat in the Ramona 
Grasslands have been conserved through efforts by local jurisdictions, 
by conservation organizations (The Nature Conservancy and others), or 
through a combination of public and private ventures. There remain a 
few pockets of development anticipated in Ramona Grasslands within 
baseline Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat.

San Diego County--Military Lands and Integrated Natural Resources 
Management Plans (INRMPs)

    Based on a recent analysis (Service 2010), we estimated 
approximately 1,540 ha (3,805 ac) of baseline Stephens' kangaroo rat 
occupied habitat on military lands at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton 
(MCBCP) and Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Fallbrook 
(NWSSB Detachment Fallbrook, or ``Detachment Fallbrook'') are conserved 
through conservation planning agreements. This accounts for 
approximately 20 percent of the baseline Stephens' kangaroo rat 
occupied habitat in San Diego County. Both military installations have 
integrated natural resources management plans (INRMPs) and management 
actions specific to Stephens' kangaroo rat. INRMPs are based, to the 
maximum extent practicable, on ecosystem management principles and 
provide for the management of Stephens' kangaroo rat and its habitat 
while sustaining necessary military land uses.
    MCBCP adopted an INRMP in 2001 that was revised in 2007 (Marine 
Corps 2007, pp. 4-1 to 4-117), and the U.S. Navy completed an updated 
INRMP for Detachment Fallbrook in 2006 (U.S. Navy 2006, pp. 4-1 to 4-
130). These INRMPs are largely ecosystem-based, except where biological 
opinions under section 7 of the Act direct species-specific actions. 
The Service and Marine Corps are in consultation under section 7 of the 
Act on the Marine Corps' programmatic upland plan to avoid and minimize 
the effects of their activities on federally listed upland species, 
including Stephens' kangaroo rat, but the plan is currently not 
finalized. We anticipate that the species-specific conservation 
benefits for Stephens' kangaroo rat will outweigh all anticipated 
incidental take from various military training and facility management 
activities. Detachment Fallbrook's INRMP incorporated Stephens' 
kangaroo rat management practices described in the Wildland Fire 
Management Plan (U.S. Navy 2003), which underwent formal consultation 
with the Service (Service 2003, FWS-SD-3506.3). In addition to 
implementation of conservation and mitigation measures resulting from 
section 7 consultations, INRMPs, Range and Training Regulations (RTRs), 
and other planning documents serve to protect the species and its 
habitat on MCBCP and Detachment Fallbrook. Species-specific direction 
to guide ongoing Stephens' kangaroo rat conservation and management can 
be limited, as INRMPs may be superseded by the military's obligation to 
ensure readiness of the Armed Forces and are subject to discretionary 
funds and planning.
    Land uses on MCBCP and Detachment Fallbrook pose a threat to 
Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat in localized areas where intense 
training, construction, or foot/off-highway vehicle traffic degrades, 
modifies, or fragments habitat. Current land use also increases risks 
of nonnative introduction and expansion, and soil compaction, which may 
threaten Stephens' kangaroo rat in portions of the military 
installations. Although adequately avoided and minimized, impacts to 
known occupied Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat may occur. Ongoing and 
potential threats to Stephens' kangaroo rat populations on MCBCP 
include project construction, military training activities (including 
off-road vehicle exercises), domestic cat predation, and successional 
processes (Service 1988; Price et al. 1995; Tetra Tech, Inc. 1999).
    A Stephens' kangaroo rat monitoring program was implemented at Camp 
Pendleton from 1996 to 2002 (Montgomery et al. 1997, pp. 1-8; 
Montgomery 2005b, pp. 1-27), and updated in 2004 by the U.S. Geological 
Survey (Brehme et al. 2006, p. 3). The updated monitoring program is 
designed to assess trends in the amount of occupied habitat on the 
MCBCP and guide Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat management activities 
carried out under the INRMP.
    Since the 1988 listing, the Marine Corps has formally consulted on 
military construction project impacts to about 14 ha (34 ac) of 
occupied or suitable Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat on MCBCP. As a 
result, the Marine Corps committed to offset the projected temporary 
and permanent impacts by establishing and managing the 21.5-ha (53.1-
ac) SKR Management Area in the Juliet training area. Management of this 
site to maintain open habitat preferred by the Stephens' kangaroo rat 
is achieved through periodic burning with prescribed burn practices. 
This site is not set aside as a habitat preserve and therefore may be 
subject to subsequent training-related impacts over time.
    It remains uncertain how ongoing military training affects 
Stephens' kangaroo rat on MCBCP. Training may be compatible with 
Stephens' kangaroo rat to some extent by promoting areas with limited 
vegetative cover, but training may also negatively affect Stephens' 
kangaroo rat by compacting soils, crushing burrows or individuals, or 
promoting invasive plants that degrade suitability of habitat for 
Stephens' kangaroo rat. Since the 1988 listing, the Marine Corps has 
instituted Range and Training Regulations that restrict ground-
disturbing activities, off-highway vehicle use, and other training 
activities within occupied Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat (Marine Corps 
2002). These restrictions are likely to have reduced incidence of 
Stephens' kangaroo rat mortality, disturbance, injury, or habitat 
degradation caused by training activities, although we anticipate some 
impact is probably occurring at a low rate.
    Similar monitoring efforts for Stephens' kangaroo rat have been 
conducted at Detachment Fallbrook from 1990 to 1991 (Service 1993, p. 
6), 2001 to 2002 (Montgomery et al. 2005, p. 3), and 2002 to 2007 (U.S. 
Navy 2006a, p. 1-4; U.S. Navy 2007). Since the 1988 listing, about 40 
ha (99 ac) of occupied or suitable Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat has 
been impacted by various construction projects at Detachment Fallbrook 
(Service 1995, 2003). Most impacts related to construction projects 
have been offset by habitat enhancement at appropriate locations 
throughout Detachment Fallbrook. These sites, however, are not set 
aside as habitat preserves and therefore may be subject to subsequent 
impacts over time. An additional 25 ha (63 ac) of occupied and 35 ha 
(86 ac) of suitable Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat have been impacted 
by fire control actions (Service 1995, 2003).
    Successional processes may be reducing the amount of available 
Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat on Detachment Fallbrook, thereby 
negatively affecting the Stephens' kangaroo rat population there. 
Removal of agriculture and military training

[[Page 51216]]

activities, reduced grazing, and lower fire frequencies may all have 
contributed to the filling in of open habitat suitable for Stephens' 
kangaroo rat, although quantification of this habitat loss and 
identification of processes involved have not been adequately studied. 
Because successional processes have been identified as negatively 
affecting Stephens' kangaroo rat, disturbances, including wildfires, 
prescribed fire, ungulate grazing, and mechanical vegetation reduction 
(discing), that open up habitat or remove above-ground vegetation in 
areas with soils suitable for Stephens' kangaroo rat may prove 
beneficial to this species.

San Diego County--North County Multiple Species Conservation Plan 
(MSCP) Planning Area and Rancho Guejito

    A draft North County MSCP plan has the potential to contribute to 
the recovery of the Stephens' kangaroo rat in north San Diego County, 
excluding on military lands. A planning agreement for the North County 
MSCP plan is signed; the agreement may afford limited protection to 
Stephens' kangaroo rat and its habitat from discretionary development 
and construction impacts (NCCP Planning Agreement No. 2810-2007-00205), 
although these conservation measures cannot be assured because the 
proposed actions have been neither permitted nor proven effective. 
Rancho Guejito, which falls within the North County MSCP planning area, 
is privately owned and has approximately 1,219 ha (3,012 ac) of 
baseline Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat. Recently, Rancho 
Guejito has been proposed for development. The Service and San Diego 
County have entered into discussions with the landowners of Rancho 
Guejito to address the conservation and development issues related to 
Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat. Rancho Guejito currently remains 
subject to ongoing development pressures.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Ungulates
    Grazing (and associated impacts from crushing of burrows, trampling 
of habitat and soil compaction, introduction of nonnative grasses, and 
conversion to less suitable vegetation types) has historically impacted 
Stephens' kangaroo rat and its habitat rangewide. Grazing of grasslands 
associated either with commercial grazing activities or with grazing 
practices associated with habitat management activities (i.e., under 
management plans specific to habitat conservation plans) has been, and 
remains, a land use practice in western Riverside and San Diego 
Counties. These two forms of grazing have potential for differential 
impacts to Stephens' kangaroo rat.
    Grazing for commercial practice has been reduced significantly by 
urban development and fragmentation and from the change to dry land and 
citriculture farming. At the time of the 1988 listing, commercial 
grazing was conducted at high densities using both sheep and cattle, 
occurred year round, and was not managed for species conservation value 
for Stephens' kangaroo rat. Commercial grazing has since been reduced, 
and where such grazing still exists, impacts have been lessened 
compared to when the species was listed.
    Grazing that is managed for the purpose of improving habitat 
quality for Stephens' kangaroo rat is currently practiced and is 
limited to certain geographic areas within Stephens' kangaroo rat 
occupied habitat. This form of grazing follows specific methodologies 
to avoid or significantly reduce any negative impacts for Stephens' 
kangaroo rat (e.g., limited number of grazing animals, typically sheep; 
short duration (1 to 2 day consecutive maximum); and conducted in only 
certain seasons). Managed grazing practices are used by RCHCA at Lake 
Mathews/Estelle Mountain and Lake Skinner, and by the Bureau of Land 
Management and RCHCA at Steele Peak. Grazing is allowed on Federal 
lands at Detachment Fallbrook to control nonnative grasses or as a 
means of fire suppression (e.g., fire breaks). Cattle grazing, however, 
has been temporarily halted on Detachment Fallbrook beginning in 2004. 
Although cattle grazing is projected to be re-initiated in 2010 (C. 
Wolf, Detachment Fallbrook, pers. comm. to M. Pavelka CFWO, May 11, 
2009), lack of grazing in the interim has probably contributed to 
increasingly dense grasslands on Detachment Fallbrook that have 
inhibited Stephens' kangaroo rat's growth and movement. To offset the 
temporary loss of the beneficial aspects of cattle grazing, the Navy 
recently has conducted limited mechanical vegetation reduction 
activities to benefit Stephens' kangaroo rat on Detachment Fallbrook 
(Navy 2008a, b).
    Commercial grazing for purposes other than habitat or vegetation 
management may still occur in some situations on private lands. Between 
1987 and 1990, land management changes and a reduction in grazing 
pressure at the Lake Henshaw site appeared to promote a shift in the 
vegetation type that led to an estimated 90 percent decrease in the 
Stephens' kangaroo rat population (O'Farrell 1990, p. 81; O'Farrell, 
1997, p. 31). Mostly due to the reduction in commercial grazing 
pressures, which in some cases was detrimental to habitat and in other 
cases was beneficial, we now consider grazing to no longer be a 
rangewide threat to Stephens' kangaroo rat, assuming grazing is 
adequately managed.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Other Nonnative Species
    Conversion of native vegetation to nonnative annual grassland is a 
potentially rangewide, high magnitude threat to Stephens' kangaroo 
habitat. Increased dominance of nonnative plant species, especially 
dense thatch-forming grasses and Lepidium latifolium (perennial 
peppergrass, or pepperweed) reduces habitat suitability, by reducing 
the abundance of forb-dominated grassland habitat preferred by this 
species, and by reducing necessary open bare-ground habitat. Similarly, 
the invasion of native perennial grasses (through land use practices) 
or conversion to dense stands of coastal sage scrub through natural 
succession can make the habitat less suitable for Stephens' kangaroo 
rat over time.
    Several invasive, nonnative and native grasses can reduce or 
otherwise degrade Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat if they become 
established at high densities (O'Farrell and Uptain 1989, p. 7), 
because their plant materials do not rapidly break down after dying. 
The nonnative grasses Schismus barbatus (common Mediterranean grass) 
and Vulpia myuros (foxtail fescue) do not negatively influence habitat 
for Stephens' kangaroo rat, presumably because they do not form 
persistent dense mats like other nonnative grass species (e.g., Bromus 
spp. (brome)) (O'Farrell 1993a, p. 6; O'Farrell 1997, p. 18). 
Consequently, natural or artificial disturbances that remove or prevent 
the development of dense ground cover or succession of grassland 
communities to later stage shrub communities may be beneficial to 
Stephens' kangaroo rat (Price et al. 1994a, p. 9; O'Farrell 1997, p. 
30). Nonetheless, too much disturbance (e.g., severe fire intensity and 
excessive trampling) may be detrimental (Tetra Tech 1999, pp. 2-15; 
Haas and O'Farrell 2006, p. 34), particularly if a high proportion of 
individuals from a population perish from these disturbances. Thus, to 
maintain habitat suitability and occupancy by Stephens' kangaroo rat, 
in areas dominated by nonnative grasslands, regular management to

[[Page 51217]]

reduce grass density and thatch buildup is necessary.
    Studies suggest that, when properly managed, certain disturbance 
activities such as grazing, brush removal, and natural and human-caused 
fires may reduce the threat of habitat modification from nonnatives and 
help to maintain the open habitat preferred by Stephens' kangaroo rat. 
Fire has been shown to be both beneficial and detrimental to Stephens' 
kangaroo rat. Price et al. 1995 (p. 15) found that at Lake Perris, 
populations of Stephens' kangaroo rat respond positively to fire-
induced habitat alterations of areas less than 1 ha (2.8 ac). 
Additionally, patchiness on a relatively small spatial scale 
facilitates recolonization because immigration sources are nearby. 
Disturbance associated with fire may reduce thatch produced by 
nonnative species and contribute to the maintenance of bare ground 
required by the species (Price et al. 1995, p. 56). Prescribed fires 
can be employed to reduce invasive, nonnative and native plants; 
however, because most of the Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat is near 
urban and suburban areas in western Riverside County, use of prescribed 
fire is problematic and often incompatible with urban and suburban land 
uses.
    There is concern that conversions of occupied habitat from forb-
dominated grasslands, suitable for Stephens' kangaroo rat, to perennial 
bunch-grass-dominated grasslands, less suited to Stephens' kangaroo 
rat, have occurred throughout the species' range. Current and future 
active management may be required to maintain suitable forb-dominated 
grassland and avoid vegetation conversion or succession, such as the 
vegetation changes that occurred at Lake Henshaw. O'Farrell (1990, pp. 
80-81) suggests that, unless intensive and sustained management is 
undertaken to avoid this type of habitat conversion and degradation to 
perennial bunch-grass-dominated grasslands or dense stands of coastal 
sage scrub, lower densities of Stephens' kangaroo rat will occur. 
Fragmentation of populations will result as patches of habitat become 
unsuitable, and will render Stephens' kangaroo rat populations much 
more vulnerable to extirpation. Currently, the Lake Henshaw site is not 
being managed to control nonnatives; however, with proper control of 
nonnatives, the Lake Henshaw site could represent approximately 5,100 
ha (12,602 ac) of potentially occupied habitat, which would make it the 
largest, most contiguous, and potentially the most viable population of 
Stephens' kangaroo rat rangewide.
    The main effect of invasive species is the decrease in habitat 
quality and available forage for Stephens' kangaroo rat. Some habitat 
may be lost due to nonnative (and native) grass invasion or coastal 
sage scrub conversion resulting in unsuitable habitat for the Stephens' 
kangaroo rat. Presumably a certain amount of invasive species is 
tolerable when held in check with disturbance activities such as 
certain grazing regimes, brush removal, and managed fires, but further 
investigations as to what frequency and intensity and degree of 
applicability are both ongoing and needed to determine the long-term 
benefit to Stephens' kangaroo rat. Currently, there is little active 
management of habitat occurring across the range of the species. The 
maintenance of habitat conditions that Stephens' kangaroo rat requires 
is essential for the conservation of this species (Service 1997, p. 
49).
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs)
    At the time of the 1988 listing, OHV use was described as a factor 
that potentially reduces habitat suitability (53 FR 38467, September 
30, 1988). OHVs directly damage plant communities, as well as the soil 
crust and the burrow systems of ground-dwelling species such as 
Stephens' kangaroo rat, thereby degrading the species' habitat (Bury et 
al. 1977, p. 16). Trespassing by OHVs negatively impacts Stephens' 
kangaroo rat at Steele Peak, Lake Mathews, and San Jacinto core 
reserves, and results in degradation of habitat. OHV trespassing and 
other encroachments, such as illegal trash dumping, trespassing on 
foot, vandalism, and encroachment by neighboring landowners, have been 
reported as a chronic problem (RCHCA 2001a, p. 9; RCHCA 2002a, p. 10; 
RCHCA 2004a, p. 10; RCHCA 2004b, p. 10; RCHCA 2006, p. 10). Efforts to 
curtail these activities have been limited and have not been successful 
due to lack of support for adequate patrols, limited available funding, 
differing land use policies of landowners within the core reserves, and 
lack of law enforcement capabilities by the reserves' managers. 
Overall, we consider OHV use to remain a threat to Stephens' kangaroo 
rat.
Summary of Factor A
    At the time of listing, the major threat to Stephens' kangaroo rat 
habitat was rangewide loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat 
due to urban and agricultural development. However, since the species' 
1988 listing, conservation measures, such as the development and 
successful implementation of habitat conservation plans, have reduced 
the magnitude of the threat of habitat loss due to urban and 
agricultural development throughout most of the range of the Stephens' 
kangaroo rat. Assembly of the core reserves under the HCP considered 
the isolation of small fragments of Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat at 
known localities at the time of listing. The successful implementation 
of habitat conservation plans has resulted in a total of 36 percent of 
baseline Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat being conserved and 
protected from the threat of loss to urban development. However, urban 
development pressures remain on a significant portion of baseline 
occupied habitat within the range of Stephens' kangaroo rat.
    We specified grazing as a significant rangewide threat to Stephens' 
kangaroo rat in the 1988 final listing rule (53 FR 38465). Since then, 
there has been a reduction in large-scale commercial grazing operations 
throughout the range of the species. As such, the impacts of grazing 
have been reduced across the range of the species such that now we do 
not consider grazing to be a rangewide threat. In some cases, moderate 
levels of grazing appear to be beneficial to Stephens' kangaroo rat 
habitat by maintaining an open vegetation structure, which is preferred 
by the species.
    Most areas currently occupied by Stephens' kangaroo rat are 
threatened by habitat degradation from encroachment of nonnative 
grasses or loss of habitat due to the natural succession to more shrub-
dominated communities. Invasion of nonnative grasses alter both the 
structure and composition of Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat by filling 
in open spaces and excluding forbs. This is a current and rangewide 
threat that is addressed by existing conservation plans (habitat 
conservation plans and integrated natural resources management plans) 
to manage for nonnative grasses and to reduce impacts to Stephens' 
kangaroo rat to ameliorate the effects on nonnative grasses. But, at 
this point in time, these plans are not managing sufficiently large 
areas to counteract the threat.
    OHV use, with its resultant habitat degradation and loss, continues 
to be a threat to Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat. OHVs have negatively 
impacted Stephens' kangaroo rat at Steele Peak, Lake Mathews, and San 
Jacinto core reserves, and efforts to curtail illegal trespassing and 
other encroachments have had limited success. Inadequate boundary 
fencing and patrols around the core reserves have been attributed to

[[Page 51218]]

limited funding (RCHCA 2008, p. 13). OHV trespass on public and private 
lands is a known to threaten Stephens' kangaroo rat rangewide, but we 
do not currently know the magnitude of this threat.
    Based on our review of the best scientific and commercial 
information, we conclude that Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat continues 
to be threatened by habitat degradation from urban development, 
nonnative species, and OHVs now and in the foreseeable future 
throughout the Stephens' kangaroo rat's range.

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

    In the 1988 listing rule (53 FR 38465), the Service did not 
identify threats from overutilization. The petition did not provide 
information regarding this factor, and we do not have any new 
information to indicate that overutilization of any kind is a threat to 
Stephens' kangaroo rat now or in the foreseeable future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    The 1988 final listing rule (53 FR 38465) stated that populations 
occupying fragmented habitat, such as Stephens' kangaroo rat, could be 
more easily extirpated from unpredictable natural catastrophes, such as 
disease outbreaks (53 FR 38468). However, at the time of listing, 
disease was not identified as a threat to Stephens' kangaroo rat, nor 
did the petition provide any information regarding this factor. We have 
no new information that suggests disease is a threat or would become a 
threat to the species in the foreseeable future.
    In the 1988 listing rule, we did not find the threat from predation 
to be significant. However, we did express concern that predation of 
Stephens' kangaroo rat from domestic and feral cats on reserves 
adjacent to urban neighborhoods could increase as a result of 
urbanization (53 FR 38467). Fragmentation of habitat likely promotes 
higher levels of predation by urban-associated animals (e.g., domestic 
cats) as the interface between occupied habitat and developed areas is 
increased. In addition, domestic cat densities along the boundaries of 
urban and natural areas can be artificially high where cat owners, by 
providing food, elevate cat populations far beyond carrying capacity 
(Crooks and Soule 1999, p. 565). Densities of domestic and feral cats 
are likely high near several core reserves near urban areas in western 
Riverside County and may require an active management approach to 
minimize predation and ensure that populations of Stephens' kangaroo 
rat on core reserves remain viable. Currently, there is no active 
management in place to eliminate or reduce potential predation from 
feral or domestic cats in western Riverside or San Diego Counties. To 
our knowledge, predation from feral or domestic cats is not known to be 
a significant threat to Stephens' kangaroo rat populations in San Diego 
County because the four extant populations exist in rural areas where 
feral or domestic cat densities are likely very low.
Summary of Factor C
    We did not identify disease as a threat to Stephens' kangaroo rat 
in the final listing rule, nor did the petitioner provide any new 
substantive information. Based on our review of the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we found no evidence that 
disease is now or will become in the foreseeable future a threat to 
Stephens' kangaroo rat. We consider predation by feral and domestic 
cats to be a threat to the Stephens' kangaroo rat rangewide, and in 
particular in western Riverside County, now and in the foreseeable 
future.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    At the time of listing in 1988, regulatory mechanisms that afforded 
some protection for Stephens' kangaroo rat included: (1) California 
Endangered Species Act (the species was listed by California as 
threatened in 1971); (2) California Environmental Quality Act; (3) land 
acquisition and management by Federal, State, or local agencies or by 
private groups and organizations; and (4) local laws and regulations 
(53 FR 38465).
    In the 1988 listing rule (53 FR 38468), we found that inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms place Stephens' kangaroo rat at risk. The status 
of regulatory mechanisms with an impact on Stephens' kangaroo rat has 
changed significantly since listing, with the addition of habitat 
conservation plans and agreements that conserve habitat occupied by 
Stephens' kangaroo rat. The petitioner asserts that, because of the 
extensive habitat preservation by the Riverside County Habitat 
Conservation Agency, delisting the species is warranted at this time. 
However, we believe that while habitat conservation plans provide 
significant species and habitat protection towards the recovery of the 
Stephens' kangaroo rat, significant threats remain that warrant the 
species' protection under the Act. The State and Federal regulatory 
mechanisms that aid in the conservation of the Stephens' kangaroo rat 
are described below.
State Protections
California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
    Under provisions of the CESA, the California Fish and Game (CFG) 
Commission listed the Stephens' kangaroo rat as threatened in 1971. 
CESA includes prohibitions forbidding the ``take'' of Stephens' 
kangaroo rat (Chapter 1.5, Section 2080, CFG code). However, sections 
2081(b) and (c) of CESA allow California Department of Fish and Game 
(CDFG) to issue incidental take permits for State-listed endangered and 
threatened species if:
    (1) The authorized take is incidental to an otherwise lawful 
activity;
    (2) The impacts of the authorized take are minimized and fully 
mitigated;
    (3) The measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the 
impacts of the authorized take are roughly proportional in extent to 
the impact of the taking on the species, maintain the applicant's 
objectives to the greatest extent possible, and are capable of 
successful implementation;
    (4) Adequate funding is provided to implement the required 
minimization and mitigation measures and to monitor compliance with and 
the effectiveness of the measures; and
    (5) Issuance of the permit will not jeopardize the continued 
existence of a State-listed species.
    As a delisted species, Stephens' kangaroo rat would continue to be 
protected by the CESA which affords protection at the State level for 
endangered and threatened species.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
    CEQA is the principal statute mandating environmental assessment of 
projects in California. The purpose of CEQA is to evaluate whether a 
proposed project may have an adverse effect on the environment and, if 
so, to determine whether that effect can be reduced or eliminated by 
pursuing an alternative course of action or through mitigation. CEQA 
applies to projects proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by 
State and local public agencies (http://www.ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/summary.html). CEQA requires disclosure of potential 
environmental impacts and a determination of ``significant effects'' if 
a project has the potential to reduce the number or restrict the range 
of a rare or endangered plant or animal; however, projects may move 
forward if there is a statement of

[[Page 51219]]

overriding consideration. If significant effects are identified, the 
lead agency has the option of requiring mitigation through changes in 
the project or to decide that overriding considerations make mitigation 
infeasible (CEQA section 21002). Protection of listed species such as 
Stephens' kangaroo rat through CEQA is, therefore, dependent upon the 
discretion of the lead agency involved.
    In the absence of its Federal status as an endangered species, CEQA 
has the potential to contribute to the protection of Stephens' kangaroo 
rat, but such protection is not assured since lead agencies are given 
discretion over whether to require impact minimization or mitigation 
measures. While CEQA requires the consideration of effects to Stephens' 
kangaroo rat and whether those effects can be reduced or eliminated, 
projects that adversely affect Stephens' kangaroo rat may still move 
forward. CEQA does not provide an adequate regulatory mechanism in the 
absence of listing under the Act to ensure effects to Stephens' 
kangaroo rat and its suitable or occupied habitat are avoided, reduced, 
or eliminated.
Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs)
    The NCCP program is a cooperative effort involving the State of 
California and numerous private and public partners to protect regional 
habitats and species. The primary objective of NCCPs is to conserve 
natural communities at the ecosystem scale while accommodating 
compatible land use, including urban development (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/). Natural Community Conservation Plans help 
identify and provide for the regional or area-wide protection of 
plants, animals, and their habitats, while allowing compatible and 
appropriate economic activity. Many NCCPs are developed in conjunction 
with habitat conservation plans prepared under the Act, including the 
HCP and the MSCHP. The HCP and the MSHCP are NCCP/habitat conservation 
plans. If the Stephens' kangaroo rat was delisted, the existing NCCPs, 
and the protections they provide, would remain in effect.
Federal Protections
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended (Act)
    Upon listing as endangered on September 30, 1988 (53 FR 38465), 
Stephens' kangaroo rat received benefit from the protections of the 
Act, which includes the prohibition against take and the requirement 
for interagency consultation for Federal actions that may affect the 
species. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the take of endangered wildlife 
without special exemption. The Service generally extends these 
prohibitions through regulations for threatened wildlife. The Act 
defines ``take'' as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct 
(16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). Our regulations define ``harm'' to include 
significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death 
or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential 
behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 
17.3). Our regulations also define ``harass'' as intentional or 
negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed 
species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior 
patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).
    Section 7(a)(1) of the Act requires all Federal agencies to utilize 
their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act by carrying 
out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened 
species. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure 
that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely 
modify their critical habitat. Thus, listing the Stephens' kangaroo rat 
provided a variety of protections, including the prohibition against 
take and the conservation mandates of section 7 for all Federal 
agencies. These procedures and protections would not be required if we 
delisted Stephens' kangaroo rat, and significant reductions in recovery 
effort and protection would likely result. As a delisted species, 
Stephens' kangaroo rat would continue to be protected by the Lacey Act 
(18 U.S.C. 42 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.), which prohibits 
trade in wildlife and plants that have been illegally taken, possessed, 
transported, or sold.
    Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, the Service may issue 
``incidental take'' (i.e., taking of endangered species that is 
incidental to, but not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise 
lawful activity, 50 CFR 402.02) permits for listed animal species to 
non-Federal applicants, which provide exemptions to the take 
prohibitions under section 9 of the Act. To qualify for an incidental 
take permit, applicants must develop, fund, and implement a Service-
approved habitat conservation plan that, among other requirements, 
details measures to minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking to 
listed species. Issuance of an incidental take permit by the Service is 
subject to the provisions of section 7 of the Act; thus, the Service is 
required to ensure that the actions to be covered by the habitat 
conservation plan are not likely to jeopardize the species or result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. As 
discussed under the Factor A discussion, there are two existing 
incidental take permits for Stephens' kangaroo rat. If the Stephens' 
kangaroo rat was delisted, the existing HCPs, and the protections they 
provide, would remain in effect. The HCP and the MSHCP are discussed 
below.
HCP (Western Riverside County)
    The development of the Riverside County Habitat Conservation 
Agency's Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat in 
Western Riverside County (the HCP) was in response to the threat of 
habitat loss due to rapid urban and agricultural development in western 
Riverside County. The boundaries of the HCP encompass an area of 
approximately 216,084 ha (533,954 ac) located within western Riverside 
County and bordered on the north by the San Bernardino County line and 
on the south by the San Diego County line. The area is generally 
defined as territory west of the San Jacinto Mountains with National 
Forest Lands flanking the western and eastern boundaries (Cleveland and 
San Bernardino National Forests, respectively) (RCHCA 1996, p. 31). 
Core reserve areas are not protected in perpetuity under the HCP; 
however, the core reserves will be protected through the term of the 
permit, which expires in 2026. When the HCP's initial 30-year term 
expires in 2026, the permittees have expressed their intention to 
process an amendment to the MSHCP to allow coverage for the Stephens' 
kangaroo rat throughout the MSHCP's area. Additionally, the HCP's core 
reserves are included within the Conservation Area under the MSHCP. 
Therefore, we anticipate a continued conservation benefit to the 
species even after the HCP expires. The primary threat identified in 
the 1988 listing rule, habitat destruction from urban and agricultural 
development resulting in isolated habitat patches has been largely 
ameliorated or addressed in Riverside County through the creation of 
the core reserve system and the implementation of the overarching 
habitat conservation plans.
MSHCP (Western Riverside County)
    The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation 
Plan (MSHCP) contains species-specific

[[Page 51220]]

objectives for Stephens' kangaroo rat that augment the core reserve 
design system set forth in the HCP, which was the key document intended 
for the long-term conservation strategy for the Stephens' kangaroo rat. 
Incidental take of Stephens' kangaroo rat had already been permitted 
consistent with the HCP within the HCP boundary (or fee area). 
Additional terms and conditions within the MSHCP Conservation Area set 
forth three Objectives including: conservation of an additional 1,214 
ha (3,000 ac) of Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat, and that 30 
percent of the total occupied habitat conserved within the MSHCP and 
HCP's areas would be maintained at a population of medium or higher 
density (i.e., 5 to 10 individuals per hectare) with no single core 
area accounting for more than 30 percent of the conservation target 
(WRCMSHCP 2003, p. M-198). Recent scientific data indicates that these 
species-specific objectives may have not been met in terms of density 
or occupancy estimates either within the minimum two Core Areas outside 
the existing HCP boundary (WRMSHCP 2009, pp. 18-20), or, as previously 
discussed, within the HCP plan area (HCP core reserves), as no reliable 
density estimates are available to date. Until the species-specific 
objectives are met within the MSHCP plan area, threats due to habitat 
loss and fragmentation remain. Furthermore, while these threats are 
largely ameliorated within the plan boundary, the MSHCP is inadequate 
to address these threats rangewide.
Sikes Act
    The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a) authorizes the Secretary of Defense 
to develop cooperative plans for conservation and rehabilitation 
programs, and to establish outdoor recreation facilities on military 
installations. The Sikes Act also provides for the Secretaries of 
Agriculture and the Interior to develop cooperative plans for 
conservation and rehabilitation programs (INRMPs, described below) on 
public lands under their jurisdiction. While the Sikes Act of 1960 was 
in effect at the time of the Stephens' kangaroo rat's 1988 listing, it 
was not until the Sikes Act's 1997 amendment (Sikes Act Improvement 
Act) that Department of Defense (DOD) installations were required to 
prepare integrated natural resources management plans (INRMPs). 
Consistent with the use of military installations to ensure the 
readiness of the Armed Forces, INRMPs provide for the conservation and 
rehabilitation of natural resources on military lands. They 
incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable, ecosystem management 
principles and provide the landscape necessary to sustain military land 
uses. While the implementation of INRMPs is subject to funding 
availability, they address the conservation of natural resources on 
military lands and can be an added conservation tool in promoting the 
recovery of endangered and threatened species, and other fish and 
wildlife resources, present on military lands.
    The U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy have contributed to 
recovery efforts for Stephens' kangaroo rat on military lands in San 
Diego County through management and monitoring of Stephens' kangaroo 
rat populations. The Stephens' kangaroo rat populations at MCBCP and 
NWSSB Detachment Fallbrook are addressed under existing INRMPs and 
specific management and monitoring of these populations is a reasonable 
expectation; however, there is concern that Stephens' kangaroo rat 
occupied habitat may be reduced to less than one-third of the habitat 
identified in our baseline analysis (see Factor A discussion above). If 
the Stephens' kangaroo rat were no longer listed under the Act, we 
would expect management actions specific to maintaining Stephens' 
kangaroo rat populations at Camp Pendleton and Detachment Fallbrook to 
receive lower priority within their respective INRMPs. Although these 
INRMPs would likely continue to provide a benefit to the Stephens' 
kangaroo rat through the protection and management of habitat, these 
benefits would be subject to military funding allocations that 
generally give higher priority to management issues for endangered and 
threatened species (U.S. Marine Corps 2007, pp. 1-3).
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires all Federal agencies to 
formally document, consider, and publicly disclose the environmental 
impacts of major Federal actions and management decisions significantly 
affecting the human environment, including natural resources. NEPA 
documentation is provided in an environmental impact statement, an 
environmental assessment, or a categorical exclusion, and may be 
subject to administrative or judicial appeal. In cases where that 
analysis reveals significant environmental effects, the Federal agency 
must propose mitigation alternatives that would offset those effects 
(40 CFR 1502.14 and 1502.16). These mitigations usually provide some 
protection for listed species. However, NEPA does not require that 
adverse impacts be fully mitigated, only that impacts be assessed and 
the analysis disclosed to the public.
Summary of Factor D
    Although various State and Federal laws provide some protection for 
Stephens' kangaroo rat and its habitat, the Act is currently the 
primary law providing protection for Stephens' kangaroo rat since its 
listing as a federally endangered species in 1988. Existing regulatory 
mechanisms have not protected the species from further losses of 
populations and habitat.
    The primary tool for conserving the species has been the 1996 
Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency's Habitat Conservation 
Plan for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County (the 
HCP); however, the monitoring and management protocols and practices 
are incomplete. The 2004 Western Riverside County Multiple Species 
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) has the potential to enhance the 
long-term persistence of Stephens' kangaroo rat within western 
Riverside County, but as a multi-species plan, it has dynamic 
conservation objectives and priorities, and in terms of the provisions 
addressing Stephens' kangaroo rat, the MSHCP has not been fully 
implemented at this time. The San Diego North County MSCP is still in 
draft form, and therefore assures no protection to the species at this 
time.
    On military lands, integrated natural resources management plans 
(INRMPs) address the conservation of natural resources, including 
Stephens' kangaroo rat, and can be an added conservation tool in 
promoting the recovery of the species. Management practices under 
active INRMPs do provide guiding principles for preserving Stephens' 
kangaroo rat and its habitat while sustaining necessary military land 
uses.
    In spite of the existing regulatory mechanisms, Stephens' kangaroo 
rat continues to be impacted by habitat modification and fragmentation 
due to urban and agricultural development, nonnative species, off-
highway vehicles (OHVs), and the potential impacts associated with 
climate change. Current threats may be reduced or eliminated to 
insignificance through implementation of habitat conservation plans 
when appropriate adaptive management procedures are fully implemented. 
In summary, we conclude that significant rangewide threats remain and, 
absent the protections of the Act, the existing regulatory mechanisms 
(CEQA, CESA, NCCP, and NEPA) do not provide sufficient protections to 
provide for the long-term persistence of Stephens'

[[Page 51221]]

kangaroo rat now and in the foreseeable future.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' 
Continued Existence

    At listing, habitat for Stephens' kangaroo rat was severely reduced 
and fragmented by development and related activities in western 
Riverside County (53 FR 38467, September 30, 1988). At that time, we 
identified the following as Factor E threats: Nonnative grass 
succession (now discussed under Factor A, above), use of rodenticides, 
reduction in habitat size (now discussed as fragmentation under Factor 
A, above), and increased vulnerability to unpredictable catastrophic 
events due to small population size. After the 1988 listing, we 
identified climate change as a new threat to the species. Current 
Factor E threats impacting Stephens' kangaroo rat include rodenticides, 
small population size, and impacts of climate change.
Rodenticides
    Pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae), California ground squirrels 
(Spermophilus beecheyi), and nonnative rodents are sometimes considered 
nuisance species on public and private lands. These species are 
sometimes targeted for control through use of anticoagulant 
rodenticides. Stephens' kangaroo rats use burrow networks of pocket 
gopher (Thomomys bottae) and California ground squirrels (Spermophilus 
beecheyi) (Michael Brandman Associates 1989, p. 7), and are thus at 
risk of being unintentionally poisoned by anticoagulant rodenticides 
meant to target nuisance species.
    Baits containing anticoagulants are placed in and around burrows 
and may also be consumed by nontarget species, including Stephens' 
kangaroo rats. Use of rodenticides may have affected Stephens' kangaroo 
rat at State recreation areas that had rodent control programs and 
possibly at other locations where known Stephens' kangaroo rat 
populations have inexplicably disappeared. Direct ingestion of 
rodenticides at bait stations by Stephens' kangaroo rats can be 
ameliorated in part from the use of elevated bait stations (Whisson 
1999, p. 176), and the baiting of traps during daylight hours when 
kangaroo rats are inactive. However, poison bait that falls to the 
ground or that is cached at ground level by targeted species still 
poses a threat to Stephens' kangaroo rat if ingested during nocturnal 
foraging or encountered in use of abandoned burrows.
    To the best of our knowledge California State Parks (California 
Department of Parks and Recreation) no longer use rodenticides for 
rodent control within the Lake Perris State Recreation Area (Kietzer 
2010). While we do not know the magnitude of the threat of rodenticide 
exposure, we do consider rodenticide use a rangewide threat to the 
Stephens' kangaroo rat as the second-generation anticoagulants 
(brodifacoum, bromadialone and difethialone) are commonly used as 
rodenticides targeting rats, mice, ground squirrels and other rodents 
and are found in many over-the-counter pest control products (Erickson 
and Urban 2004, pp. ii, 1). Based on an evaluation of the ecological 
risks associated with the use of bait products containing rodenticide 
active ingredients, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
classifying many bait products as restricted-use pesticides. This will 
limit their use to certified applicators who have had sufficient 
training to know when and how to use the products to reduce the risk of 
nontarget organism exposure. EPA is also requiring modified and tamper-
resistant bait stations, which are expected to reduce overall nontarget 
wildlife exposures and resulting adverse effects (Erickson and Urban 
2004). These risk reduction measures should lower the potential for 
exposure now and in the future in both urban and rural areas adjacent 
to lands where Stephens' kangaroo rat overlaps with nuisance species 
(e.g., at Lake Perris Reserve and in Ramona Grasslands) and near 
private agricultural lands, such as orchards and rangelands.
Small Geographic Range and Population Size
    The best available scientific data suggest that Stephens' kangaroo 
rat is extant within a relatively restricted range within western 
Riverside and northern San Diego Counties. Small geographic range has 
been identified as the most important single indicator of elevated 
extinction risk in mammals (Purvis et al. 2000, p. 1949; Cardillo et 
al. 2006, pp. 4157-4158; Cardillo et al. 2008, p. 1445). The inherent 
vulnerability associated with small geographic range is due to the fact 
that a single localized threat, whether it is manmade (e.g., 
development) or environmental (e.g., increased and intense 
precipitation), can potentially impact the entire distribution of the 
species, resulting in an increased probability of extinction. Price and 
Endo (1989, p. 299) and O'Farrell and Uptain (1989, p. 5) verified that 
the majority of remaining Stephens' kangaroo rat populations occur in 
small, isolated areas (habitat patches) and are fragmented from a wider 
historical distribution.
    Although fragmentation does not necessarily lead to extinction of a 
species within a habitat patch, small populations in small habitat 
patches have an increased likelihood of extinction and are increasingly 
affected by their surroundings (e.g., edge effects such as physical 
effects differing at the boundaries of a patch and the interior of a 
patch) (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 51-54). Isolation compounds 
risks associated with small population size, because it reduces the 
chance that populations will naturally recover through immigration of 
dispersing individuals from nearby populations (Hanski 1994, p. 132), 
as has been documented for several Stephens' kangaroo rat populations 
(O'Farrell and Uptain 1989, p. 5; Shultz et al. 1991, p. 12). 
Theoretical predictions and empirical evidence indicate that smaller 
populations such as are found with Stephens' kangaroo rat tend to have 
higher mortality rates and reduced reproductive output, leading to 
demographic fluctuations and an increased susceptibility to 
environmental catastrophes (Lande 1988, pp. 1456-1458; Lacy 1997, p. 
321; Frankham et al. 2002, pp. 24, 32). Small populations have a higher 
probability of extinction than larger populations, as their low 
abundance renders them susceptible to inbreeding, losses of genetic 
variability, and demographic problems (Lande 1988, p. 1455).
    While populations of Stephens' kangaroo rat are small, we do not 
have any information regarding genetic fitness of any populations. A 
general principle of conservation biology states that a species' long-
term persistence is dependent upon its capacity to adapt to changes in 
environmental conditions, competition, predation, disease risk, and 
parasites. Maintenance of genetic diversity helps to ensure that a 
species' adaptive capabilities are maintained (Caughley 1994, pp. 217-
221; Frankham and Ralls 1998, p. 441). Results of previous studies 
regarding the genetic variability within and between populations of 
Stephens' kangaroo rat are conflicting, and further investigation is 
required to better understand the adaptive capabilities of Stephens' 
kangaroo rat and its ability to persist.
    Population viability models were developed to recommend the minimum 
viable population sizes for Stephens' kangaroo rat needed to sustain 
the species at a 95 percent probability (Burke et al. 1991, p. 1). The 
model developed by Burke et al. (1991, pp.

[[Page 51222]]

27-28) is the most recent quantitative assessment of Stephens' kangaroo 
rat population viability and provides probabilities of Stephens' 
kangaroo rat persistence for intervals of 50 and 100 years. However, 
this model relies upon the fundamental assumption that the extent of 
suitable habitat at each site will not decrease throughout the duration 
of the 50- and 100-year intervals, and precipitation was modeled over 
50-, 100-, and 200-year timeframes based on precipitation during the 
previous century. Given the significant advances in climate change 
science and the emerging threat of changes of precipitation regimes due 
to climate change, newer studies with a refined methodology are needed 
to determine an effective population size for Stephens' kangaroo rat.
Climate Change
    Since the 1988 listing of Stephens' kangaroo rat, ongoing, 
accelerated climate change has been identified as a potential threat to 
species and ecosystems in the United States (IPCC 2007). The 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that warming 
of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2007, p. 5). Current climate 
change predictions for terrestrial areas in the Northern Hemisphere 
include warmer air temperatures, more intense precipitation events, and 
increased summer continental drying (Field et al. 1999, pp. 2-3; IPCC 
2007, p. 9).
    The general prediction for climate change impacts suggest increased 
frequency of extreme weather events (i.e., heat waves, droughts, and 
floods) (IPCC 2007). Stephens' kangaroo rat may respond well after 
increased precipitation events in the short term, because increased 
precipitation results in more forbs for seed production. However, if 
increased intensity of precipitation events favor the increased 
persistence or an expansion in distribution of annual nonnative 
grasses, which are less preferred by Stephens' kangaroo rat, then these 
extreme weather events may negatively affect the species and its 
habitat. However, there is no substantive information as to how the 
changes in regional climate patterns (i.e., frequency and intensity of 
precipitation) will affect Stephens' kangaroo rat or its habitat; 
predictions are based on continental-scale general models (e.g., 
precipitation estimates) that do not yet account for localized 
consequences, including land use and land cover change effects on 
climate or other regional phenomena.
    While we recognize that climate change is an important issue with 
potential effects to listed species and their habitats, we currently do 
not have specific information to make meaningful predictions regarding 
climate change effects to the Stephens' kangaroo rat or its habitat.
Summary of Factor E
    Impacts to Stephens' kangaroo rat by Factor E threats have changed 
little since the species' 1988 listing. Although reduced, the threat 
from rodenticide use remains rangewide. Small population size continues 
to affect this species throughout its range and exacerbates the effects 
of other threats, making Stephens' kangaroo rat susceptible to 
stochastic events. Although it is uncertain how climate change will 
affect Stephens' kangaroo rat or its habitat, modeling predictions 
suggest more extreme weather events, which could impact the extent of 
suitable habitat or induce stresses on the species. Therefore, based on 
our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, 
we find other natural or manmade factors, including rodenticides, 
impacts of climate change, and small population size, threaten the 
continued existence of the Stephens' kangaroo rat now and in the 
foreseeable future.

Finding

    An assessment of the need for a species' protection under the Act 
is based on threats to that species and the regulatory mechanisms in 
place to ameliorate impacts from these threats. As required by the Act, 
we considered the five factors in assessing whether the Stephens' 
kangaroo rat is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by the Stephens' kangaroo rat. We reviewed the May 
1, 1995, and February 25, 2002, petitions; comments and information 
received after publication of our 90-day finding (69 FR 21567, April 
21, 2004); information available in our files; and other available 
published and unpublished information. We also consulted with 
recognized experts on Stephens' kangaroo rat and its habitat and with 
other Federal and State agencies.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine 
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual 
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no 
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If 
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may 
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat 
it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the 
risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants 
listing as endangered or threatened, as those terms are defined by the 
Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The 
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the 
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of 
factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to 
compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that 
these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the 
point that the species meets the definition of endangered or threatened 
under the Act.
    The primary threats identified in the 1988 listing rule (53 FR 
38465), habitat destruction from urban and agricultural development 
resulting in isolated habitat patches, has been largely ameliorated 
through the implementation and design of the core reserve system 
(through the HCP), through ongoing land acquisitions and easements, and 
with other conservation plans and efforts (MSHCP and INRMPs). 
Significant areas of habitat have been protected in western Riverside 
County and San Diego Counties since the species was listed. Populations 
in San Diego County that are on privately held lands may enhance the 
survival and recovery of the species, including some habitat under 
permanent conservation supporting the Ramona Grasslands population. The 
Stephens' kangaroo rat population at Camp Pendleton/Detachment 
Fallbrook in San Diego County is covered by active INRMPs that include 
actions to provide for the long-term conservation of the Stephens' 
kangaroo rat on Federal military lands.
    In spite of these conservation gains, significant threats to 
Stephens' kangaroo rat in Riverside and San Diego Counties remain. 
There has been loss, fragmentation, and degradation of Stephens' 
kangaroo rat habitat in the past, and we have identified information 
indicating that Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat continues to be 
threatened by fragmentation and degradation associated with urban 
development (see Factor A) in western Riverside and San Diego Counties. 
This habitat degradation is associated with the lack of boundary 
security at some of the core reserves, which allows trespass, OHV use, 
and trash dumping, and the lack of appropriate management (such as fire 
suppression) to prevent invasive species or succession to shrub-

[[Page 51223]]

dominated communities. Lands currently or historically dedicated to 
agricultural activities likely continue to serve as a source of 
invasive, nonnative plants. Encroachment of nonnative grasses and 
succession to more shrub-dominated communities threaten Stephens' 
kangaroo rat habitat throughout the species' range by filling open 
spaces and reducing the presence of forbs (Factor A).
    While existing data are not adequate to estimate population size, 
within the existing core reserves in western Riverside County or in San 
Diego County, surveys indicate that the amount of Stephens' kangaroo 
rat occupied habitat may be in decline in localities within both 
counties. Latest survey data indicate that Camp Pendleton, Detachment 
Fallbrook, and Lake Henshaw, in addition to previous declines in 
habitat populations, may have suffered declines in the amount of 
Stephens' kangaroo rat occupied habitat. Predation (Factor C) and 
rodenticide (Factor E) continue to threaten the species and may 
contribute additively to other threats affecting this species. Existing 
regulatory mechanisms, absent the protections of the Act, provide 
insufficient certainty (Factor D) that efforts needed to address long-
term conservation of the species will be implemented or that they will 
be effective in reducing the level of threats to the Stephens' kangaroo 
rat throughout its range. Therefore, we find that, in absence of the 
Act, the existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to conserve 
Stephens' kangaroo rat throughout its range in the foreseeable future.
    In conclusion, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by this species. Our review of the information 
pertaining to the five threat factors does not support a conclusion 
that the threats have been sufficiently removed or their imminence, 
intensity, or magnitude have been reduced to the extent that the 
species no longer requires the protections of the Act. Therefore, we 
find the Stephens' kangaroo rat is in danger of extinction, or likely 
to become so within the foreseeable future, throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range and does not warrant delisting at this 
time.
    We request that you submit any new information concerning the 
status of, or threats to, the Stephens' kangaroo rat to our Carlsbad 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes available. 
New information will help us monitor the Stephens' kangaroo rat and 
encourage its conservation.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this document is available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.

    Authority: The authority for this action is section 4 of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: August 6, 2010.
Wendi Weber,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-20518 Filed 8-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P