[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46862-46889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18583]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ57


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the Ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia) 
under the Endangered Species Act (Act). In total, approximately 2,011 
acres (814 hectares) in Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra Counties in 
northeastern California and Washoe and Douglas Counties in northwestern 
Nevada fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat 
designation. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the 
Act's protections to this species' critical habitat. The effect of this 
regulation is to designate critical habitat for Ivesia webberi under 
the Act.

DATES: Comment submission: We will accept comments received or 
postmarked on or before October 1, 2013. Comments submitted 
electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES 
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. 
We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the 
address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by September 16, 2013.
    Public meeting: We will hold a public meeting on this proposed rule 
on August 22, 2013, in Reno, NV, from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. People needing 
reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the 
public hearing should contact Jeannie Stafford, Nevada Fish and 
Wildlife Office, as soon as possible (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may submit a 
comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Information Requested section below for more information).
    Public meeting: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. 
Department of the Interior Building, Great Basin Conference Room, 1340 
Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502.
    Details of units: The coordinates or plot points or both from which 
the maps are generated are included in the administrative record for 
this critical habitat designation and are available at (http://www.fws.gov/nevada/), www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-
0080, and at the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information 
that we may develop for this critical habitat designation will also be 
available at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office 
set out above and at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 
Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502, by telephone 775-861-
6300, or by facsimile 775-861-6301. Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, 
any species that is determined to be endangered or threatened requires 
critical habitat to be designated, to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable. Designations and revisions of critical habitat can be 
completed only by issuing a rule.
    This rule consists of: A proposed rule for designation of critical 
habitat for Ivesia webberi. This rule proposes designation of critical 
habitat necessary for the conservation of the species. Under this rule, 
we are proposing to designate a total of 2,011 acres (ac) (814 hectares 
(ha)) for Ivesia webberi within Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra Counties in 
northeastern California and Washoe and Douglas Counties in northwestern 
Nevada. We are proposing to list Ivesia webberi as a threatened species 
in a separate rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
    The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, any 
species that is determined to be a threatened or endangered species 
shall, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, have habitat 
designated that is considered to be critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions 
to critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data 
after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security 
impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area 
as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical 
habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, 
unless he determines, based on the best scientific data available, that 
the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in 
the extinction of the species.
    We are preparing an economic analysis of the proposed designation 
of critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we are 
preparing an analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed critical 
habitat designation and related factors. We will announce the 
availability of the draft economic analysis as soon as it is completed, 
at which time we will seek additional public review and comment.
    We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our listing proposal is based on 
scientifically sound data and analyses. We have invited these peer 
reviewers to comment on our specific assumptions and

[[Page 46863]]

conclusions in this listing proposal. Because we will consider all 
comments and information received during the comment period, our final 
determinations may differ from this proposal.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) including whether there are threats to the species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit 
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be 
prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Ivesia webberi habitat,
    (b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are 
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the 
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and 
why,
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change, and
    (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of the species and why.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to facilitate management of critical 
habitat by private, State, or Federal landowners. For example, could 
altering the configuration of critical habitat unit boundaries 
facilitate management of critical habitat?
    (5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families, 
and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these 
impacts.
    (6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (7) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    (8) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the Ivesia webberi and proposed critical habitat.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES section.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. You may request 
at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such 
as your street address, phone number, or email address from public 
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Previous Federal Actions

    Please see the proposed listing rule published elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register for a complete history of previous Federal actions. We 
identified Ivesia webberi as a candidate in the June 13, 2002, 
Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR, 67 FR 40657). Ivesia webberi was 
included in all subsequent annual CNORs. On May 11, 2004, we received a 
petition to list a total of 225 plant and animal species from the list 
of candidate species, including I. webberi. Because we previously found 
the species was warranted for proposed listing, no further action was 
taken on the petition. When it was first identified as a candidate in 
2002 (67 FR 40657), we assigned I. webberi a listing priority number 
(LPN) of 5, reflecting a species with threats that were considered high 
in magnitude but nonimminent; the LPN remained at 5 in all subsequent 
CNORs.

Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency 
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species 
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or 
adverse modification finding, the obligation of

[[Page 46864]]

the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or 
recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent 
alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those 
physical and biological features within an area, we focus on the 
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary 
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal 
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the 
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are those 
specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide 
for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but 
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the 
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat 
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area presently occupied by a species only when a 
designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure 
the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any 
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that 
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and 
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this 
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat 
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning 
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning 
efforts calls for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical 
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or 
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that 
the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of 
the following situations exist:
    (1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of threat to the species, or
    (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to 
the species.
    There is currently no imminent threat of take attributed to 
collection or vandalism for Ivesia webberi, and identification and 
mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such 
threat. In the absence of finding that the designation of critical 
habitat would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits 
to a critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. 
Here, the potential benefits of designation include: (1) Triggering 
consultation under section 7 of the Act in new areas for actions in 
which there may be a Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur 
because, for example, it is or has become unoccupied or the occupancy 
is in question; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most 
essential features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to 
State or county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing 
people from causing inadvertent harm to the species. Therefore, because 
we have determined that the designation of critical habitat will not 
likely increase the degree of threat to the species and may provide 
some measure of benefit, we find that designation of critical habitat 
is prudent for I. webberi.
Critical Habitat Determinability
    Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for Ivesia 
webberi is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state 
that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the 
following situations exist:
    (i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the 
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.

[[Page 46865]]

    When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the 
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
    We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological 
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where these species 
are located. This and other information represent the best scientific 
data available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical 
habitat is determinable for the Ivesia webberi.
Physical or Biological Features
    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as 
critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require 
special management considerations or protection. These include, but are 
not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential 
for Ivesia webberi from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and 
life history as described below. Additional information can be found in 
the proposed listing rule published elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register and in the Ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia) Species Report 
(Service 2013, pp. 1-46) available at http://www.regulations.gov (in 
the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080, which is the docket number 
for this rulemaking). Little is known about the habitat specificity and 
characteristics for I. webberi. Therefore, the physical and biological 
factors for I. webberi are based on our assessment of the ecosystem 
settings in which the species is most frequently detected. We have 
determined that the following physical or biological features are 
essential for I. webberi (see ``Habitat'' section in the Species Report 
(Service 2013, pp. 6-7)):

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

    Plant Community and Competitive Ability--Ivesia webberi is 
primarily associated with Artemisia arbuscula Nutt. (low sagebrush) and 
other perennial, rock garden-type plants such as: Antennaria dimorpha 
(low pussytoes), Balsamorhiza hookeri (Hooker's balsamroot), Elymus 
elymoides (squirreltail), Erigeron bloomeri (scabland fleabane), 
Lewisia rediviva (bitter root), Poa secunda (Sandburg bluegrass), and 
Viola beckwithii (Beckwith's violet) (Witham 2000, p. 17; Morefield 
2004, 2005, unpubl. survey; Howle and Henault 2009, unpubl. survey; BLM 
2011, 2012a, unpubl. survey; Howle and Chardon 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 
unpubl. survey). Overall, this plant community is open and sparsely 
vegetated and relatively short-statured, with I. webberi often 
dominating or co-dominating where it occurs (Witham 2000, p. 17).
    Because Ivesia webberi is found in an open, sparsely vegetated 
plant community, it is likely a poor competitor. Nonnative, invasive 
plant species such as Bromus tectorum L. (cheatgrass), Taeniatherum 
caput-medusae (medusahead), and Poa bulbosa (bulbous bluegrass) form 
dense stands of vegetation that compete with native plant species, such 
as I. webberi, for the physical space needed to establish individuals 
and recruit new seedlings. This competition for space is compounded as 
dead or dying nonnative vegetation accumulates, eventually forming a 
dense thatch that obscures the soil crevices used by native species as 
seed accumulation and seedling recruitment sites (Davies 2008, pp. 110-
111; Gonzalez et al. 2008, entire; Mazzola et al. 2011, pp. 514-515; 
Pierson et al. 2011, entire). Consequently, nonnative species deter 
recruitment and population expansion of I. webberi, as well as the 
entire Artemisia arbuscula-perennial bunchgrass-forb community with 
which I. webberi is associated. Therefore, we consider open, sparsely 
vegetated assemblages of A. arbuscula and other perennial grass and 
forb rock garden species to be a physical or biological feature for I. 
webberi.
    Elevation--Known populations of Ivesia webberi occur between 4,475 
and 6,237 feet (ft) (1,364 and 1,901 meters (m)) in elevation (Steele 
and Roe 1996, unpubl. survey; Witham 2000, p.16; Howle and Henault 
2009, unpubl. survey). Because plants are not currently known to occur 
outside of this elevation band, we have identified this elevation range 
as a physical or biological feature for I. webberi.
    Topography, Slope, and Aspect--Ivesia webberi occurs on flats, 
benches, or terraces that are generally above or adjacent to large 
valleys. These sites vary from slightly concave to slightly convex or 
gently sloped (0-15[deg]) and occur on all aspects (Witham 2000, p. 
16). Because plants have not been identified outside these landscape 
features or on slopes greater than 15[deg], we have identified slightly 
concave, convex, and gently sloped (0-15[deg]) landscapes to be 
physical and biological features for I. webberi.

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements

    Soils--Populations of Ivesia webberi occur on a variety of soil 
series types, including, but not limited to: Reno--a fine, smectitic, 
mesic Abruptic Xeric Argidurid; Xman--a clayey, smectitic, mesic, 
shallow Xeric Haplargids; Aldi--a clayey, smectitic, frigid Lithic 
Ultic Argixerolls; and Barshaad--a fine, smectitic, mesic Aridic 
Palexeroll (USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources 
Conservation Service) 2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2012a, 2012b). The majority 
of soils in which I. webberi occurs have an argillic (i.e., clay) 
horizon within 19.7 inches (in) (50 centimeters (cm)) of the soil 
surface (USDA NRCS 2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2012a, 2012b). An argillic 
horizon is defined as a subsurface horizon with a significantly higher 
percentage of clay than the overlying soil material (Soil Survey Staff 
2010, p. 30). The clay content (percent by weight) of an argillic 
horizon must be 1.2 times the clay content of an overlying horizon 
(Soil Survey Staff 1999, p. 31). Agrillic horizons are illuvial, 
meaning they form below the soil surface, but may be exposed at the 
surface later due to erosion. Typically there is little or no evidence 
of illuvial clay movement in soils on young landscapes; therefore, soil 
scientists have concluded that the formation of an argillic horizon 
required at least a few thousand years (Soil Survey Staff 1999, p. 29). 
This argillic horizon represents a time-landscape relationship that can 
be locally and regionally important because its presence indicates that 
the geomorphic surface has been relatively stable for a long period of 
time (Soil Survey Staff 1999, p. 31).
    The shallow, clay soils in which Ivesia webberi inhabits are very 
rocky on the surface and tend to be wet in the spring, but dry out as 
the season progresses (Zamudio 1999, p. 1). The high clay content in 
the soils creates a

[[Page 46866]]

shrink-swell behavior as the soils wet and dry, which helps to 
``heave'' rocks in the soil profile to the surface and creates the 
rocky surface ``pavement'' (Zamudio 1999, p. 1). The unique soils and 
hydrology of I. webberi sites may exclude competition from other 
species (Zamudio 1999, p. 1; Witham 2000, p. 16). The shrink-swell of 
the clay zone, which extends into the subsoil, favors perennials with 
deep taproots or annuals with shallow roots that can complete their 
life cycle before the surface soil dries out (Zamudio 1999, p. 1; 
Witham 2000, pp. 16, 20). The root systems of tap-rooted perennial 
forbs are suited to soil with clay subsoils because the roots branch 
profusely under the crown, spread laterally, and penetrate the clay B 
horizon along vertical cleavage planes (Hugie et al. 1964, p. 200). The 
roots are flattened, but unbroken by shrink-swell activity (Hugie et 
al. 1964, p. 200). Early maturing plants, such as I. webberi, 
presumably prefer soils with these heavy clay horizons because of the 
abundant spring moisture, which essentially saturates the surface 
horizons with water. Based on the information above, we consider soil 
with an argillic horizon characterized by shrink-swell behavior to 
represent a physical or biological feature for I. webberi.
    Water--Ivesia webberi is restricted to sites with soils that are 
vernally moist (Zamudio 1999a, p. 1; Witham 2000, p. 16). From this 
finding, we infer that sufficient winter and spring moisture not only 
contributes to the physical properties of the substrate in which I. 
webberi occurs (i.e., the shrink-swell pattern that contributes to the 
formation of soil crevices), but also triggers biological responses in 
I. webberi, in the form of stimulating germination, growth, flowering, 
and seed production. Moisture retention is influenced by site 
topography as well as soil properties. Therefore, we consider soils 
that are vernally moist as a physical or biological feature for I. 
webberi.
    Light--Although little is known regarding the light requirements of 
Ivesia webberi, inferences are possible from the plant species and the 
plant community from which I. webberi is associated (described under 
the ``Space--Plant Community and Competitive Ability'' section above, 
and the ``Habitat'' section of the Species Report (Service 2013, pp. 6-
7). Generally speaking, co-occurring plant species are short-statured; 
when assembled into an Artemisia arbuscula-perennial bunchgrass-forb 
community, plants tend to occur widely spaced with intervening patches 
of rocky, open ground. These factors suggest that I. webberi is not 
shade-tolerant. Therefore, we assume that I. webberi is able to 
persist, at least in part, due to a lack of light competition with 
taller plants.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring

    Reproduction--Ivesia webberi is a perennial plant species that is 
not rhizomatous or otherwise clonal. Therefore, like other Ivesia 
species, reproduction in I. webberi is presumed to occur primarily via 
sexual means (i.e., seed production and seedling recruitment). As with 
most plant species, I. webberi does not require separate sites for 
breeding, rearing, and reproduction other than the locations in which 
parent plants occur and any area necessary for pollinators and seed 
dispersal. Seeds of I. webberi are relatively large and unlikely to be 
dispersed by wind or animal vectors; upon maturation of the 
inflorescence and fruit, seeds are likely to fall to the ground in the 
immediate vicinity of parent plants (Witham 2000, p. 20). Depressions 
and crevices in soil frequently serve as seed accumulation or seedling 
establishment sites in arid ecosystems because they trap seeds and 
often have higher soil water due to trapped snow and accumulated 
precipitation (Reichman 1984, pp. 9-10; Eckert et al. 1986, pp. 417-
420). The cracks of the shrink-swell clay soils which typify I. webberi 
habitat are thought to trap seeds and retain them on-site, and may 
serve to protect seeds from desiccation from sunlight or wind. Although 
the long-term viability of these seeds is unknown, I. webberi seeds 
held within these crevices may accumulate and function as a seedbank 
for I. webberi reproduction. Thus, the physical and biological feature 
of soil with an argillic horizon and shrink-swell behavior identified 
above under the ``Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other 
Nutritional or Physiological Requirements'' section also has an 
important reproduction function for I. webberi.
    Pollination--Pollinators specific to Ivesia webberi have not been 
identified. However, most Ivesia species reproduce from seed with 
insect-mediated pollination occurring between flowers of the same or 
different plants (Witham 2000, p. 20). Floral visitors have been 
observed frequenting the flowers of I. aperta var. canina, which co-
occurs with I. webberi at one population (USFWS 5; J. Johnson, unpubl. 
photos 2007). Although these floral visitors can only represent 
presumed pollinators because they were not observed to be carrying 
pollen, they represent the best available information regarding 
possible pollinators of I. webberi. Since no single pollinator or group 
of pollinators is known for I. webberi, we are not able to define 
habitat requirements for I. webberi in terms of the distances that 
particular orders, genera, or species of insect pollinators are known 
to travel.
    Successful transfer of pollen among Ivesia webberi populations, 
therefore, may be inhibited if populations are separated by distances 
greater than pollinators can travel, or if a pollinator's nesting 
habitat or behavior is negatively affected (BLM 2012b, p. 2). Some bees 
such as bumblebees and other social species are able to fly extremely 
long distances. However, evidence suggests that their habitat does not 
need to remain contiguous, but it is more important that the protected 
habitat is large enough to maintain floral diversity to attract these 
pollinators (BLM 2012b, p. 18). By contrast, most solitary bees remain 
close to their nest, thus foraging distance tends to be 1,640 ft (500 
m) or less (BLM 2012b, p.19). Conservation strategies that strive to 
maintain not just I. webberi, but the range of associated native plant 
species (many of which are also insect-pollinated) would therefore 
serve to attract a wide array of insect pollinators, both social and 
solitary, that may also serve as pollinators of I. webberi (BLM 2012b, 
pp. 5-6, 19). Because annual, nonnative, invasive grasses (such as 
Bromus tectorum) are wind-pollinated, they offer no reward for 
pollinators; as such nonnative species become established, pollinators 
are likely to become deterred from visiting areas occupied by I. 
webberi. Therefore, we consider an area of sufficient size with an 
intact assemblage of native plant species to provide for pollinator 
foraging and nesting habitat to be a physical or biological feature for 
I. webberi.

Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the Historical 
Geographical and Ecological Distributions of the Species

    The long-term conservation of Ivesia webberi is dependent on 
several factors, including, but not limited to: Maintenance of areas 
necessary to sustain natural ecosystem components, functions, and 
processes (such as light and intact soil hydrology); and sufficient 
adjacent suitable habitat for vegetative reproduction, population 
expansion, and pollination.
    Disturbance--Soils with a high content of shrink-swell clays, such 
as those where Ivesia webberi is found, often create an unstable soil 
environment to which this species is presumably adapted (Belnap 2001, 
p.

[[Page 46867]]

183). These micro-scale disturbances are of light to moderate 
intensity; we are unaware of information to indicate that I. webberi 
has evolved with or is tolerant of moderate to heavy, landscape-scale 
disturbances. Moderate to heavy soil disturbances such as off-highway 
vehicle (OHV) use, road corridors, residential or commercial 
development, and livestock grazing can impact the species and its 
seedbank through habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation due to 
soil compaction and altered soil hydrology (Witham 2000, Appendix 1, p. 
1; Bergstrom 2009, pp. 25-26).
    Climate change projections in the Great Basin, where Ivesia webberi 
occurs, include increasing temperatures (Chambers and Pellant 2008, p. 
29; Finch 2012, p. 4), earlier spring snow runoff (Stewart et al. 2005, 
p. 1152), declines in snowpack (Knowles et al. 2006, p. 4557; Mote et 
al. 2005, entire), and increased frequencies of drought and fire 
(Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1181-1184; Littell et al. 2009, pp. 1014-1019; 
Abatzoglou and Kolden 2011, pp. 474-475). Nonnative, invasive plant 
species and modified fire regimes are already impacting the quality and 
composition of the Artemisia arbuscula-perennial bunchgrass--forb plant 
community where I. webberi occurs (BLM 2012c). We anticipate that 
climate-related changes expected across the Great Basin, such as 
altered precipitation and temperature patterns, will accelerate the 
pace and spatial extent of nonnative plant infestations and altered 
fire regimes. These patterns of climate change may also decrease 
survivorship of I. webberi by causing physiological stress, altering 
phenology, and reducing recruitment events and seedling establishment.
    Managing for appropriate disturbance regimes (in terms of the type 
or intensity of disturbance) is difficult, because sources of 
disturbance are numerous and our ability to predict the effects of 
multiple, interacting disturbance regimes upon species and their 
habitats is limited. In this document, we use qualitative terms, but 
specifically solicit further input on methods or mechanisms to better 
quantify or describe these measures (see Information Requested 
section). For the reasons discussed above, we identify areas not 
subject to moderate to heavy, landscape-scale disturbances, such as 
impacts from vehicles driven off established roads or trails, 
development, livestock grazing, and frequent wildfire, to be a physical 
or biological feature for I. webberi.
Primary Constituent Elements for Ivesia webberi
    According to 50 CFR 424.12(b), we are required to identify the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Ivesia 
webberi in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the 
features' primary constituent elements. We consider primary constituent 
elements to be those specific elements of the physical or biological 
features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are 
essential to the conservation of the species.
    Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological 
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' 
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent 
elements specific to Ivesia webberi are:
    (i) Suitable Soils and Hydrology:
    a. Vernally moist soils with an argillic horizon that shrink and 
swell upon drying and wetting; these soil conditions are characteristic 
of known Ivesia webberi populations and are likely important in the 
maintenance of the seedbank and population recruitment.
    a. Suitable soils that can include (but are not limited to): Reno--
a fine, smectitic, mesic Abruptic Xeric Argidurid; Xman--a clayey, 
smectitic, mesic, shallow Xeric Haplargids; Aldi--a clayey, smectitic, 
frigid Lithic Ultic Argixerolls; and Barshaad--a fine, smectitic, mesic 
Aridic Palexeroll; and
    (ii) Topography:
    a. Flats, benches, or terraces that are generally above or adjacent 
to large valleys. Occupied sites vary from slightly concave to slightly 
convex or gently sloped (0-15[deg]) and occur on all aspects; and
    (iii) Elevation:
    a. Elevations between 4,475 and 6,237 feet (ft) (1,364 and 1,901 
meters (m)); and
    (iv) Characterized by a plant community that contains:
    a. Open to sparely vegetated areas composed of generally short-
statured associated plant species.
    b. Presence of appropriate associated species that can include (but 
are not limited to): Antennaria dimorpha, Artemisia arbuscula, 
Balsamorhiza hookeri, Elymus elymoides, Erigeron bloomeri, Lewisia 
rediviva, Poa secunda, and Viola beckwithii.
    c. An intact assemblage of appropriate associated species to 
attract the floral visitors that may be acting as pollinators of Ivesia 
webberi.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. All areas proposed for designation as critical habitat 
contain features that will require some level of management to address 
the current and future threats. In all units, special management will 
be required to ensure that the habitat is able to provide for the 
growth and reproduction of the species.
    A detailed discussion of threats to Ivesia webberi and its habitat 
can be found in the Ivesia webberi Species Report (Service 2013, pp. 1-
46). The features essential to the conservation of I. webberi (plant 
community and competitive ability, and suitable topography, elevation, 
soils, and hydrology required for the persistence of adults as well as 
successful reproduction of such individuals and the formation of a 
seedbank) may require special management considerations or protection 
to reduce threats. The current range of I. webberi is subject to human-
caused modifications from the introduction and spread of nonnative 
invasive species including Bromus tectorum, Poa bulbosa, and 
Taeniatherum caput-medusae; modified wildfire regime; increased access 
and fragmentation of habitat by new roads and OHVs; agricultural, 
residential, and commercial development; and soil and seedbank 
disturbance by livestock (Service 2013, pp. 22-32).
    Special management considerations or protection are required within 
critical habitat areas to address these threats. Management activities 
that could ameliorate these threats include (but are not limited to): 
Treatment of nonnative, invasive plant species; minimization of OHV 
access and placement of new roads away from the species and its 
habitat; regulations or agreements to minimize the effects of 
development in areas where the species resides; minimization of 
livestock use or other disturbances that disturb the soil or seeds; and 
minimization of habitat fragmentation. Where the species occurs on 
private lands, protection and management could be enhanced by various 
forms of land acquisition from willing sellers, ranging from the 
purchase of conservation easements to fee title acquisition. These 
activities would protect the primary constituent

[[Page 46868]]

elements for the species by preventing the loss of habitats and 
individuals, protecting the plants habitat and soils from undesirable 
patterns or levels of disturbance, and facilitating the management for 
desirable conditions, including disturbance regimes.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify occupied areas at the time of listing that 
contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If 
after identifying currently occupied areas, a determination is made 
that those areas are inadequate to ensure conservation of the species, 
in accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.12(e), we then consider whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied--are essential for the conservation of 
the species. We are not currently proposing to designate any areas 
outside the geographical area presently occupied by the species because 
its present range is sufficient to ensure the conservation of Ivesia 
webberi.
    We delineated the critical habitat unit boundaries for Ivesia 
webberi using the following steps:
    (1) In determining what areas were occupied by Ivesia webberi, we 
used polygon data collected by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM 2011, 
2012a, unpubl. survey), California Natural Diversity Database 
(Schoolcraft 1992, 1998, unpubl. survey; Krumm and Clifton 1996, 
unpubl. survey; Steele and Roe 1996, unpubl. survey), California 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (Sustain Environmental Inc. 2009, p. 
III-19), Nevada Natural Heritage Program (Witham 1991, entire; Witham 
2000, entire; Morefield 2004, 2005, 2010a, 2010b, unpubl. survey; 
Picciani 2006, unpubl. survey), U.S. Forest Service, (Duron 1990, 
entire; Howle and Henault 2009, unpubl. survey; Howle and Chardon 
2011a, 2011b, 2011c, unpubl. survey) and consulting firms (Wood Rogers 
2007, Tables 2 and 3, pp. 5-6) to map specific locations of I. webberi 
using ArcMap 10.1. These locations were classified into discrete 
populations based on mapping standards devised by NatureServe and its 
network of Natural Heritage Programs (NatureServe 2004, entire).
    (2) We extended the boundaries of the polygon defining each 
population or subpopulation by 1,640 ft (500 m) to provide for 
sufficient pollinator habitat. This creates an area that is large 
enough to maintain flora diversity that would protect nesting areas of 
solitary pollinator species, while creating a large enough patch of 
flora diversity to attract social, wide-ranging pollinator species (as 
described above under the ``Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 
Rearing (or Development) of Offspring'' section; BLM 2012b, p. 19).
    (3) We then removed areas not containing the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of I. webberi within the 1,640-
ft-wide (500-m-wide) area surrounding each population. We used a 
habitat model to identify areas lacking physical or biological 
features. The habitat model was developed by comparing occupied areas 
and the known environmental variables of these areas, such as 
elevation, slope, and soil type that we determined to be physical and 
biological features for this species. The environmental variables with 
the highest predictive ability influenced the habitat the model 
identified. Finally, we used ESRI ArcGIS Imagery Basemap satellite 
imagery to exclude forested areas within the areas the model selected 
because this is not the vegetation type that is a physical and 
biological feature for I. webberi.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered 
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack 
physical or biological features necessary for Ivesia webberi. The scale 
of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the 
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such 
developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical 
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been 
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for 
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is 
finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not 
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the 
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would 
affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical 
habitat.
    We are proposing for designation of critical habitat lands that we 
have determined are occupied at the time of listing and contain 
sufficient elements of physical or biological features to support life-
history processes essential for the conservation of the species.
    Units are proposed for designation based on sufficient elements of 
physical or biological features being present to support Ivesia webberi 
life-history processes. Some units contained all of the identified 
elements of physical or biological features and supported multiple 
life-history processes. Some segments contained only some elements of 
the physical or biological features necessary to support I. webberi's 
particular use of that habitat.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information 
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble 
of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both 
on which each map is based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080, on our Internet 
site http://www.fws.gov/nevada/, and at the field office responsible 
for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing 16 units as critical habitat for Ivesia webberi; 2 
of these units have subunits. The critical habitat areas we describe 
below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the 
definition of critical habitat for I. webberi. The 18 areas we propose 
as critical habitat are: (1) Sierra Valley, (2) Constantia, (3) East of 
Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area (HJWA), Evans Canyon, (4) Hallelujah 
Junction Wildife Area (WA), (5) subunit--Dog Valley Meadow and 
subunit--Upper Dog Valley, (6) White Lake Overlook, (7) subunit--Mules 
Ear Flat and subunit--Three Pine Flat and Jeffrey Pine Saddle, (8) 
Ivesia Flat, (9) Stateline Road 1, (10) Stateline Road 2, (11) Hungry 
Valley, (12) Black Springs, (13) Raleigh Heights, (14) Dutch Louie 
Flat, (15) The Pines Powerline, and (16) Dante Mine Road. Table 1 lists 
the proposed critical habitat units and subunits and the area of each.

[[Page 46869]]



                                               Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Ivesia webberi
                                         [Area estimates reflect all land within the critical habitat boundary]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             State or local
                                                                                              Federally        Government       Privately     Total area
           CH Unit and subunit              Population         Unit or subunit name           owned land       owned land       owned land       acres
                                             (USFWS)                                            acres            acres            acres       (hectares)
                                                                                              (hectares)       (hectare)        (hectares)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................            1  Sierra Valley....................              51               44              179     274
                                                                                                      (21)             (18)             (73)  (111)
2........................................            2  Constantia.......................             155   ...............  ...............    155
                                                                                                      (63)                                     (63)
3........................................            3  East of HJWA, Evans Canyon.......              22              100   ...............    122
                                                                                                       (9)             (41)                    (49)
4........................................            4  Hallelujah Junction WA...........  ...............              69   ...............     69
                                                                                                                       (28)                    (28)
5:
    5a...................................            5  Dog Valley Meadow................             386   ...............  ...............    386
                                                                                                     (156)                                    (156)
    5b...................................            5  Upper Dog Valley.................              12   ...............              17      29
                                                                                                       (5)                               (7)   (12)
6........................................            6  White Lake Overlook..............              98   ...............              11     109
                                                                                                      (40)                               (4)   (44)
7:
    7a...................................            7  Mules Ear Flat...................              31   ...............              34      65
                                                                                                      (13)                              (14)   (27)
    7b...................................            7  Three Pine Flat; Jeffrey Pine                   3   ...............              65      68
                                                         Saddle.                                       (1)                              (26)   (27)
8........................................            8  Ivesia Flat......................              62   ...............  ...............     62
                                                                                                      (25)                                     (25)
9........................................            9  Stateline Road 1.................             125   ...............               7     132
                                                                                                      (50)                               (3)   (53)
10.......................................           10  Stateline Road 2.................              65   ...............  ...............     65
                                                                                                      (26)                                     (26)
11.......................................           11  Hungry Valley....................              56   ...............  ...............     56
                                                                                                      (23)                                     (23)
12.......................................           12  Black Springs....................             116   ...............              24     140
                                                                                                      (47)                              (10)   (57)
13.......................................           13  Raleigh Heights..................             163   ...............              14     177
                                                                                                      (66)                               (6)   (72)
14.......................................           14  Dutch Louie Flat.................              11   ...............              46      56
                                                                                                       (4)                              (19)   (23)
15.......................................           15  The Pines Powerline..............  ...............  ...............              32      32
                                                                                                                                        (13)   (13)
16.......................................           16  Dante Mine Road..................              10   ...............               4      14
                                                                                                       (4)                               (2)    (6)
                                                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------
        Total............................  ...........  .................................           1,365              214              432   2,011
                                                                                                     (552)             (86)            (175)  (814)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, below.

Unit 1: Sierra Valley

    Unit 1 consists of 274 ac (111 ha) of Federal, State, and private 
lands. This Unit is located near the junction of State Highway 49 and 
County Highway A24 in Plumas County, California. Nineteen percent of 
this Unit is on Federal lands managed by the BLM, 16 percent is on 
California State land, and 65 percent is on private lands. This Unit is 
currently occupied and is the most western occupied Unit within the 
range of Ivesia webberi. The Sierra Valley Unit is important to the 
recovery of I. webberi because it supports 44.8 ac (18.1 ha), or nearly 
one-third (27.2 percent) of all habitat (165 ac (66.8 ha)) that is 
occupied by I. webberi across the species' range. Threats to I. webberi 
in this Unit include nonnative, invasive species, wildfire, OHV use, 
roads, livestock grazing, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. While these lands currently have the physical 
and biological features essential to the conservation of I. webberi, 
because of a lack of cohesive management and protections, special 
management will be required to maintain these features in this Unit. 
These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special 
Management Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 2: Constantia

    Unit 2 consists of 155 ac (63 ha) of Federal land. This unit is 
located east of U.S. Highway 395, southeast of the historic town of 
Constantia, in Lassen County, California. One hundred percent of this 
Unit is on Federal lands managed by the BLM. This Unit is currently 
occupied and is the most northern occupied Unit within the range of 
Ivesia webberi. The Constantia Unit is important to the recovery of I. 
webberi primarily because it represents one of relatively few locations 
within the Great Basin where the species is known to exist. Given the 
increasing prevalence of both site-specific and landscape-scale threats 
operating throughout this region and specifically within areas occupied

[[Page 46870]]

by I. webberi (Service 2013, entire), this location and most others 
where the species occurs confer redundancy within the species' 
distribution, thereby buffering the species against the risk of 
extirpation likely to result from these threats or other less-
predicable stochastic events. Not a lot is known about the current 
condition of I. webberi and its habitat at this site, however, wildfire 
and any other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities are 
threats to I. webberi in this Unit. While these lands currently have 
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of 
I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and protections, 
special management will be required to maintain these features in this 
Unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the 
``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 3: East of Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area (HJWA)--Evans Canyon

    Unit 3 consists of 122 ac (49 ha) of Federal and State lands. This 
Unit is located east of U.S. Highway 395 on the border of HJWA in 
Lassen County, California. Eighty-two percent of this Unit is on 
California State land managed as the HJWA and 18 percent is on Federal 
land managed by the BLM. This Unit is currently occupied and is 
approximately 1.6 mi (2.6 km) away from Unit 4, which may allow for 
social pollinator dispersal between these two Units. Additionally, this 
is the only place where Ivesia webberi is found as a co-dominant in an 
Artemisia tridentata Nutt. (big sagebrush) community instead of an 
Artemisia arbuscula community. The perennial bunchgrass and forb 
components of the Artemisia tridentata community found within this Unit 
are the same as those occurring in locations where A. arbuscula is co-
dominant with I. webberi. The East of HJWA--Evans Canyon Unit is 
important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents 
one of relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the 
species is known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both 
site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this 
region and specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 
2013, entire), this location and most others where the species occurs 
confer redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering 
the species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these 
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Wildfire and any 
other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities are threats 
to I. webberi in this Unit. While these lands currently have the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of I. 
webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and protections, 
special management will be required to maintain these features in this 
Unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the 
``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 4: Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area (HJWA)

    Unit 4 consists of 69 ac (28 ha) of State lands. This Unit is 
located west of U.S. Highway 395 within HJWA in Sierra County, 
California. One hundred percent of this Unit is on California State 
land managed as the HJWA. This Unit is currently occupied and is 
approximately 1.6 mi (2.6 km) away from Unit 3, which may allow for 
social pollinator dispersal between these Units. The HJWA Unit is 
important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents 
one of relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the 
species is known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both 
site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this 
region and specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 
2013, entire), this location and most others where the species occurs 
confer redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering 
the species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these 
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Wildfire and any 
other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities are threats 
to I. webberi in this Unit. While these lands currently have the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of I. 
webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and protections, 
special management will be required to maintain these features in this 
Unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the 
``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 5: Subunit 5a--Dog Valley Meadow and Subunit 5b--Upper Dog Valley

Subunit 5a--Dog Valley Meadow
    Subunit 5a consists of 386 ac (156 ha) of Federal lands. This 
Subunit is located east of Long Valley Road in Dog Valley in Sierra 
County, California. One hundred percent of this Subunit is on Federal 
lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). This Unit is currently 
occupied and is 0.5 mi (0.8 km) away from Subunit 5b, which may allow 
for social pollinator dispersal between these Subunits. The Dog Valley 
Meadow Unit is important to the recovery of Ivesia webberi because it 
supports 71.58 ac (28.97 ha), or nearly half (43.5 percent) of all 
habitat (165 ac (66.8 ha)) that is occupied by I. webberi across the 
species' range and 100,000 plants, or approximately 2 to 10 percent 
(i.e., dependent on which population estimate range is used for the 
calculation) of individuals known to exist across the species' range 
(Service 2013, pp. 15-16). Threats to I. webberi in this Subunit 
include nonnative, invasive plant species, wildfire, OHV and other 
recreational use, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this Subunit historically was 
grazed, but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2013, p. 
16). While these lands currently have the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack 
of cohesive management and protections, special management will be 
required to maintain these features in this Subunit. These threats 
should be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management 
Considerations or Protection'' section.
Subunit 5b--Upper Dog Valley
    Subunit 5b consists of 29 ac (12 ha) of Federal and private lands. 
This Subunit is located west of Long Valley Road and south of the Dog 
Valley campground in Dog Valley in Sierra County, California. Forty-one 
percent of this Subunit is on Federal lands managed by the USFS and 59 
percent is on private lands. This Unit is currently occupied and is 0.5 
mi (0.8 km) away from Subunit 5a, which may allow for social pollinator 
dispersal between these Subunits. The Upper Dog Valley Subunit is 
important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents 
one of relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the 
species is known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both 
site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this 
region and specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 
2013, entire), this location and most others where the species occurs 
confer redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering 
the species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these 
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I. 
webberi in this Subunit include nonnative, invasive plant species, 
wildfire, OHV use, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this Subunit historically

[[Page 46871]]

was grazed, but the grazing allotment is currently vacant (Service 
2013, p. 16). While these lands currently have the physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of I. webberi, 
because of a lack of cohesive management and protections, special 
management will be required to maintain these features in this Subunit. 
These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special 
Management Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 6: White Lake Overlook

    Unit 6 consists of 109 ac (44 ha) of Federal and private lands. 
This Unit is located north of Long Valley Road in Sierra County, 
California. Ninety percent of this Unit is on Federal lands managed by 
the USFS and 10 percent is on private lands. This Unit is currently 
occupied and is 1 mi (1.6 km) or less away from Units 7 and 9, which 
may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these Units. The 
White Lake Overlook Unit is important to the recovery of Ivesia webberi 
because it supports 13.56 ac (5.49 ha) or 8.2 percent of all habitat 
(165 ac (66.8 ha)) that is occupied by I. webberi across the species 
range. Threats to I. webberi in this Unit include wildfire and any 
other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities. While these 
lands currently have the physical and biological features essential to 
the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive 
management and protections, special management will be required to 
maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should be addressed 
as detailed above in the ``Special Management Considerations or 
Protection'' section.

Unit 7: Subunit 7a--Mules Ear Flat and Subunit 7b--Three Pine Flat and 
Jeffrey Pine Saddle

Subunit 7a--Mules Ear Flat
    Subunit 7a consists of 65 ac (27 ha) of Federal and private lands. 
This Subunit is located west of the California-Nevada border and 
southeast of Long Valley Road in Sierra County, California. Forty-eight 
percent of this Subunit is on Federal land managed by the USFS, and 52 
percent is on private lands. This Subunit is currently occupied and is 
1 mi (1.6 km) or less away from Units 6 and 9, which may allow for 
social pollinator dispersal between these Units. The Mules Ear Flat 
Subunit is important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it 
represents one of relatively few locations within the Great Basin where 
the species is known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both 
site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this 
region and specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 
2013, entire), this location and most others where the species occurs 
confer redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering 
the species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these 
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I. 
webberi in this Subunit include nonnative, invasive plant species, 
wildfire, OHV use, roads, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this Subunit historically was 
grazed, but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2013, p. 
17). While these lands currently have the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack 
of cohesive management and protections, special management will be 
required to maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should 
be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management 
Considerations or Protection'' section.
Subunit 7b--Three Pine Flat and Jeffrey Pine Saddle
    Subunit 7b consists of 68 ac (27 ha) of Federal and private lands. 
This Subunit is located east of the California-Nevada border in Washoe 
County, Nevada. Four percent of this Subunit is on Federal lands 
managed by the USFS, and 96 percent is on private lands. This Subunit 
is currently occupied and is 1 mi (1.6 km) or less away from Units 6, 
8, and 9, which may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these 
Units. The Three Pine Flat and Jeffery Pine Saddle Subunit is important 
to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents one of 
relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the species is 
known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both site-specific 
and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this region and 
specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 2013, 
entire), this location and most others where the species occurs confer 
redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering the 
species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these 
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I. 
webberi in this Subunit include nonnative, invasive plant species, 
wildfire, OHV use, roads, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this Subunit historically was 
grazed, but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2013, p. 
17). While these lands currently have the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack 
of cohesive management and protections, special management will be 
required to maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should 
be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management 
Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 8: Ivesia Flat

    Unit 8 consists of 62 ac (25 ha) of Federal land. This Unit is 
located south of U.S. Highway 395 in Washoe County, NV. One hundred 
percent of this Unit is on Federal land managed by the USFS. This Unit 
is currently occupied and is 1 mi (1.6 km) away from Subunit 7b, which 
may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these Units. The 
Ivesia Flat Unit is important to the recovery of Ivesia webberi because 
it supports 100,000 plants (Service 2013, p. 17), or approximately 
between 2 and 10 percent (i.e., dependent on which population estimate 
range is used for the calculation) of individuals known to exist across 
the species' range. Threats to I. webberi in this Unit include 
nonnative, invasive plant species, wildfire, OHV use, roads, and any 
other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities. 
Additionally, this Unit historically was grazed, but the grazing 
allotment currently is vacant (Service 2013, p. 17). While these lands 
currently have the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management 
and protections, special management will be required to maintain these 
features in this Unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed 
above in the ``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' 
section.

Unit 9: Stateline Road 1

    Unit 9 consists of 132 ac (53 ha) of Federal and private lands. 
This Unit is located along the California-Nevada border in Sierra 
County, California, and Washoe County, Nevada. Ninety-four percent of 
this Unit is on Federal land managed by the USFS, and 6 percent is on 
private lands. This Unit is currently occupied and is 1 mi (1.6 km) or 
less away from Units 6, 7, and 10, which may allow for social 
pollinator dispersal between these Units. The Stateline Road 1 Unit is 
important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents 
one of relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the 
species is known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both 
site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating

[[Page 46872]]

throughout this region and specifically within areas occupied by I. 
webberi (Service 2013, entire), this location and most others where the 
species occurs confer redundancy within the species' distribution, 
thereby buffering the species against the risk of extirpation likely to 
result from these threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. 
Threats to I. webberi in this Unit include nonnative, invasive plant 
species, wildfire, development, and any other forms of vegetation or 
ground-disturbing activities. Additionally, this Unit historically was 
grazed, but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2013, p. 
18). While these lands currently have the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack 
of cohesive management and protections, special management will be 
required to maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should 
be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management 
Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 10: Stateline Road 2

    Unit 10 consists of 65 ac (26 ha) of Federal land. This Unit is 
located along the California-Nevada border in Sierra County, 
California, and Washoe County, Nevada. One hundred percent of this Unit 
is on Federal land managed by the USFS. This Unit is currently occupied 
and is less than 1 mi (1.6 km) away from Unit 9, which may allow for 
social pollinator dispersal between these Units. The Stateline Road 2 
Unit is important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it 
represents one of relatively few locations within the Great Basin where 
the species is known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both 
site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this 
region and specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 
2013, entire), this location and most others where the species occurs 
confer redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering 
the species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these 
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I. 
webberi in this Unit include nonnative, invasive plant species, 
wildfire, development, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this Unit historically was grazed, 
but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2013, p. 18). 
While these lands currently have the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of 
cohesive management and protections, special management will be 
required to maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should 
be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management 
Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 11: Hungry Valley

    Unit 11 consists of 56 ac (23 ha) of Federal land. This Unit is 
located west of Eagle Canyon Drive in Washoe County, Nevada. One 
hundred percent of this Unit is on Federal land managed by the BLM. 
This Unit is currently occupied and is the eastern most occupied Unit 
within the range of Ivesia webberi. The Hungry Valley Unit is important 
to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents one of 
relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the species is 
known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both site-specific 
and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this region and 
specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 2013, 
entire), this location and most others where the species occurs confer 
redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering the 
species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these 
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I. 
webberi in this Unit include nonnative, invasive plant species, 
wildfire, OHV use and other recreational use, roads, livestock grazing, 
and any other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities. 
While these lands currently have the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of 
cohesive management and protections, special management will be 
required to maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should 
be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management 
Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 12: Black Springs

    Unit 12 consists of 140 ac (57 ha) of Federal and private lands. 
This Unit is located northwest of North Virginia Street and south of 
U.S. Highway 395 in Washoe County, Nevada. Eighty-three percent of this 
Unit is on Federal land managed by the USFS, and 17 percent is on 
private lands. This Unit is currently occupied and is approximately 1 
mi (1.6 km) away from Unit 13, which may allow for social pollinator 
dispersal between these Units. The Black Springs Unit is important to 
the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents one of 
relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the species is 
known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both site-specific 
and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this region and 
specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 2013, 
entire), this location and most others where the species occurs confer 
redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering the 
species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these 
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I. 
webberi in this Unit include nonnative, invasive plant species, 
wildfire, OHV use, roads, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this Unit historically was grazed, 
but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2013, p. 18). 
While these lands currently have the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of 
cohesive management and protections, special management will be 
required to maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should 
be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management 
Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 13: Raleigh Heights

    Unit 13 consists of 177 ac (72 ha) of Federal and private lands. 
This Unit is located northwest of North Virginia Street and south of US 
Highway 395 in Washoe County, Nevada. Ninety-two percent of this Unit 
is on Federal land managed by the USFS, and 8 percent is on private 
lands. This Unit is currently occupied and is approximately 1 mi (1.6 
km) away from Unit 12, which may allow for social pollinator dispersal 
between these Units. The Raleigh Heights Unit is important to the 
recovery of Ivesia webberi because it supports between 100,000 to 
4,000,000 plants (Service 2013, p. 19), or approximately 10 to 79.5 
percent (i.e., dependent on which population estimate range is used for 
the calculation) of individuals known to exist across the species 
range. Threats to I. webberi in this Unit include nonnative, invasive 
plant species, wildfire, OHV use, roads, and any other forms of 
vegetation or ground-disturbing activities. While these lands currently 
have the physical and biological features essential to the conservation 
of I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and 
protections, special management will be required to maintain these 
features in this Unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed 
above in the ``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' 
section.

[[Page 46873]]

Unit 14: Dutch Louie Flat

    Unit 14 consists of 56 ac (23 ha) of Federal and private lands. 
This Unit is located southwest of South McCarran Boulevard in Washoe 
County, Nevada. Nineteen percent of this Unit is on Federal lands 
managed by the USFS and 81 percent is on private lands. This Unit it 
currently occupied and is approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) away from Unit 
15, which may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these 
Units. The Dutch Louie Flat Unit is important to the recovery of Ivesia 
webberi because it supports between 600,000 to 693,795 plants (Service 
2013, p. 19), or approximately 14 to 61 percent (i.e., dependent on 
which population estimate range is used for the calculation) of 
individuals known to exist across the species range. Threats to I. 
webberi in this Unit include nonnative, invasive plant species, 
wildfire, OHV and other recreational use, roads, development, and any 
other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities. While these 
lands currently have the physical and biological features essential to 
the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive 
management and protections, special management will be required to 
maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should be addressed 
as detailed above in the ``Special Management Considerations or 
Protection'' section.

Unit 15: The Pines Powerline

    Unit 15 consists of 32 ac (13 ha) of private lands. This Unit is 
located southwest of South McCarran Boulevard in Washoe County, Nevada. 
One hundred percent of this Unit is on private lands. This Unit is 
currently occupied and is approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) away from Unit 
14, which may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these 
Units. The Pines Powerline Unit is important to the recovery of I. 
webberi primarily because it represents one of relatively few locations 
within the Great Basin where the species is known to exist. Given the 
increasing prevalence of both site-specific and landscape-scale threats 
operating throughout this region and specifically within areas occupied 
by I. webberi (Service 2013, entire), this location and most others 
where the species occurs confer redundancy within the species' 
distribution, thereby buffering the species against the risk of 
extirpation likely to result from these threats or other less-
predicable stochastic events. Threats to I. webberi in this Unit 
include nonnative, invasive plant species, wildfire, OHV and other 
recreational use, roads, development, and any other forms of vegetation 
or ground-disturbing activities. While these lands currently have the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of I. 
webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and protections, 
special management will be required to maintain these features in this 
Unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the 
``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 16: Dante Mine Road

    Unit 16 consists of 14 ac (6 ha) of Federal and private lands. This 
Unit is located east of US Highway 395 in Douglas County, Nevada. 
Seventy-three percent of this Unit is on Federal land managed by the 
BLM, and 27 percent is on private lands. This Unit is currently 
occupied and is the most southern occupied Unit within the range of 
Ivesia webberi. The Dante Mine Road Unit is important to the recovery 
of I. webberi primarily because it represents one of relatively few 
locations within the Great Basin where the species is known to exist. 
Given the increasing prevalence of both site-specific and landscape-
scale threats operating throughout this region and specifically within 
areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 2013, entire), this location and 
most others where the species occurs confer redundancy within the 
species' distribution, thereby buffering the species against the risk 
of extirpation likely to result from these threats or other less-
predicable stochastic events. Threats to I. webberi in this Unit 
include nonnative, invasive plant species, wildfire, roads, 
development, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing 
activities. While these lands currently have the physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of I. webberi, 
because of a lack of cohesive management and protections, special 
management will be required to maintain these features in this Unit. 
These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special 
Management Considerations or Protection'' section.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action that is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have 
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra 
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th 
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when 
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we 
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, 
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected 
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role 
for the species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions 
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded 
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
    As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with 
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we

[[Page 46874]]

provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are 
identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define 
``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as 
alternative actions identified during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid 
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or 
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the 
conservation value of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi. As discussed 
above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-history needs of 
the species and provide for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
consultation for the Ivesia webberi. These activities include, but are 
not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would lead to the destruction or alteration of 
plants, their seedbank, or their habitat; or actions that destroy or 
result in continual or excessive disturbance of the clay soils where 
Ivesia webberi is found. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to: Activities associated with road construction and 
maintenance; excessive OHV use; activies associated with commercial and 
residential development including roads and associated infrastructure; 
utility corridors or infrastructure; and excessive livestock grazing. 
These activities could lead to the loss of individuals, reduce plant 
numbers by prohibiting recruitment, remove the seedbank, fragment the 
habitat, introduce nonnative, invasive species, and alter the soil such 
that important shrink and swell processes no longer occur.
    (2) Actions that would result in the loss of pollinators or their 
habitat, such that reproduction could be diminished. Such activities 
could include, but are not limited to: Destroying ground nesting 
habitat; habitat fragmentation that prohibits pollinator movement from 
one area to the next; spraying pesticides that would kill pollinators; 
and eliminating other plant species on which pollinators are reliant on 
for floral resources (this could include the replacement of native forb 
species with nonnative, invasive annual grasses, which do not provide 
floral resources for pollinators). These activities could result in 
reduced reproduction, fruit production, and recruitment in Ivesia 
webberi.
    (3) Actions that would result in excessive plant competition at 
Ivesia webberi populations. These activities could include, but are not 
limited to, using highly competitive species in restoration efforts or 
creating disturbances that allow nonnative, invasive species such as 
Bromus tectorum, Poa bulbosa, and Taeniatherum caput-medusae. These 
activities could cause I. webberi to be outcompeted and subsequently 
either lost or reduced in numbers of individuals.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 
provides that: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat 
any lands or other geographic areas owned or controlled by the 
Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to 
an integrated natural resources management plan [INRMP] prepared under 
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary 
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species 
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.'' There are no 
Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP within the proposed 
critical habitat designation.

Exclusions

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well 
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad 
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give 
to any factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from 
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on 
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering 
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify 
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the 
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate 
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. 
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to 
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the 
extinction of the species.

[[Page 46875]]

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to 
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic 
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related 
factors. Many of the units, as proposed, include private lands. Federal 
lands with special use permits for development, grazing permits, and 
recreational uses are also included. State parcels are included where 
hunting or recreational activities occur. These areas and activities 
will be evaluated in a draft economic analysis.
    During the development of a final designation, we will consider 
economic impacts based on information in our economic analysis, public 
comments, and other new information, and areas may be excluded from the 
final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and 
our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands where a national security impact might exist. In preparing this 
proposal, we have determined that the lands within the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi are not owned or 
managed by the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland 
Security, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. 
Consequently, the Secretary is not intending to exercise his discretion 
to exclude any areas from the final designation based on impacts on 
national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the 
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the 
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We 
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the 
designation.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are 
currently no HCPs or other management plans for Ivesia webberi, and the 
proposed designation does not include any tribal lands or trust 
resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or 
HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the 
Secretary does not intend to exercise his discretion to exclude any 
areas from the final designation based on other relevant impacts.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure 
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound 
data, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers to comment 
during this public comment period.
    We will consider all comments and information received during this 
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final 
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearings

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal 
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this 
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and 
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable 
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 
15 days before the hearing.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will 
review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent 
with these requirements.

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include such businesses as manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer 
than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 
employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in 
annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than 
$27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less 
than $11.5 million in annual business, and forestry and logging 
operations with fewer than 500 employees and annual business less than 
$7 million. To determine whether small entities may be affected, we 
will consider the types of activities that might trigger regulatory 
impacts under this designation as well as types of project 
modifications that may result. In general, the term ``significant 
economic impact'' is meant

[[Page 46876]]

to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    Importantly, the incremental impacts of a rule must be both 
significant and substantial to prevent certification of the rule under 
the RFA and to require the preparation of an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis. If a substantial number of small entities are 
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation, but the per-
entity economic impact is not significant, the Service may certify. 
Likewise, if the per-entity economic impact is likely to be 
significant, but the number of affected entities is not substantial, 
the Service may also certify.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, 
Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential incremental 
impacts of rulemaking only on those entities directly regulated by the 
rulemaking itself, and not the potential impacts to indirectly affected 
entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat 
protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires 
Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any 
action authorized, funded, or carried by the Agency is not likely to 
adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal action 
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement 
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical 
habitat designation. Under these circumstances, our position is that 
only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this 
designation. Therefore, because Federal agencies are not small 
entities, the Service may certify that the proposed critical habitat 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    We acknowledge, however, that in some cases, third-party proponents 
of the action subject to permitting or funding may participate in a 
section 7 consultation, and thus may be indirectly affected. We believe 
it is good policy to assess these impacts if we have sufficient data 
before us to complete the necessary analysis, whether or not this 
analysis is strictly required by the RFA. While this regulation does 
not directly regulate these entities, in our draft economic analysis we 
will conduct a brief evaluation of the potential number of third 
parties participating in consultations on an annual basis in order to 
ensure a more complete examination of the incremental effects of this 
proposed rule in the context of the RFA.
    In conclusion, we believe that, based on our interpretation of 
directly regulated entities under the RFA and relevant case law, this 
designation of critical habitat will directly regulate only Federal 
agencies, which are not by definition small business entities. And as 
such, we certify that, if promulgated, this designation of critical 
habitat would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required. However, though not necessarily 
required by the RFA, in our draft economic analysis for this proposal, 
we will consider and evaluate the potential effects to third parties 
that may be involved with consultations with Federal action agencies 
related to this action.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. We do not expect the designation of this proposed 
critical habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, 
or use because of the small area of proposed critical habitat (total 
area of 2,011 ac (814 ha)) and lack of known significant energy 
supplies within the proposed critical habitat. Therefore, this action 
is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects 
is required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct 
our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as 
warranted.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
With Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate 
of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on 
State or local governments and, as such, a Small Government Agency Plan 
is not required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we 
conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment if 
appropriate.

[[Page 46877]]

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference With Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), this rule is not anticipated to have significant takings 
implications. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat 
affects only Federal actions. Critical habitat designation does not 
affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or 
permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation 
programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that 
do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. Due to current 
public knowledge of the species protections and the prohibition against 
take of the species both within and outside of the proposed areas, we 
do not anticipate that property values will be affected by the critical 
habitat designation. However, we have not yet completed the economic 
analysis for this proposed rule. Once the economic analysis is 
available, we will review and revise this preliminary assessment as 
warranted, and prepare a Takings Implication Assessment.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we request 
information from, and coordinated development of this proposed critical 
habitat designation with, appropriate State resource agencies in 
California and Nevada. From a federalism perspective, the designation 
of critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of 
Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties with respect to 
critical habitat, either for States and local governments, or for 
anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have substantial direct 
effects either on the States, or on the relationship between the 
national government and the States, or on the distribution of powers 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The 
designation may have some benefit to these governments because the 
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the 
species are more clearly defined, and the physical and biological 
features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species 
are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and 
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist 
these local governments in long-range planning (because these local 
governments no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating 
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To 
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, 
the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species. The designated areas of 
critical habitat are presented on maps, and the rule provides several 
options for the interested public to obtain more detailed location 
information, if desired.

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

    This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of 
information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose 
recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, 
individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating 
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to tribes.
    We have determined that there are no tribal lands occupied by 
Ivesia webberi at the time of listing that contain the features 
essential for conservation of the species, and no tribal lands that are 
unoccupied by the I. webberi that are essential for the conservation of 
the species. Therefore, we are not proposing to designate critical 
habitat for I. webberi on tribal lands.

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly

[[Page 46878]]

written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where 
you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rulemaking are the staff 
members of the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245; unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for ``Ivesia 
webberi (Webber's ivesia),'' in alphabetical order under Family 
Rosaceae, to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
    Family Rosaceae: Ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Plumas, Lassen, and 
Sierra Counties, California, and Washoe and Douglas Counties, Nevada, 
on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Ivesia 
webberi consist of four components:
    (i) Plant community.
    (A) Open to sparsely vegetated areas composed of generally short-
statured associated plant species.
    (B) Presence of appropriate associated species that can include 
(but are not limited to): Antennaria dimorpha, Artemisia arbuscula, 
Balsamorhiza hookeri, Elymus elymoides, Erigeron bloomeri, Lewisia 
rediviva, Poa secunda, and Viola beckwithii.
    (C) An intact assemblage of appropriate associated species to 
attract the floral visitors that may be acting as pollinators of Ivesia 
webberi.
    (ii) Topography.
    Flats, benches, or terraces that are generally above or adjacent to 
large valleys. Occupied sites vary from slightly concave to slightly 
convex or gently sloped (0-15[deg]) and occur on all aspects.
    (iii) Elevation.
    Elevations between 4,475 and 6,237 ft (1,364 and 1,901 m).
    (iv) Suitable soils and hydrology.
    (A) Vernally moist soils with an argillic horizon that shrink and 
swell upon drying and wetting; these soil conditions are characteristic 
of known Ivesia webberi populations and are likely important in the 
maintenance of the seedbank and population recruitment.
    (B) Suitable soils that can include (but are not limited to): 
Reno--a fine, smectitic, mesic Abruptic Xeric Argidurid; Xman--a 
clayey, smectitic, mesic, shallow Xeric Haplargids; Aldi--a clayey, 
smectitic, frigid Lithic Ultic Argixerolls; and Barshaad--a fine, 
smectitic, mesic Aridic Palexeroll.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
[INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created on the base of both satellite imagery (ESRI ArcGIS Imagery 
Basemap) as well as USGS geospatial quadrangle maps and were mapped 
using NAD 83 Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), zone 11N coordinates. 
The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory 
text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are 
available to the public at the Service's internet site, (http://www.fws.gov/nevada/), http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2013-0080 and at the field office responsible for this designation. 
You may obtain field office location information by contacting one of 
the Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 
CFR 2.2.
    (5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 46879]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.028

    (6) Unit 1, Sierra Valley: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, 
Plumas County, California.
    (i) Unit 1 includes 274 ac (111 ha).
    (ii) Note: A map of Unit 1 follows:

[[Page 46880]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.029

    (7) Unit 2, Constantia: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, Lassen 
County, California.
    (i) Unit 2 includes 155 ac (63 ha).
    (ii) Note: A map of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 46881]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.030

    (8) Unit 3, East of HJWA--Evans Canyon and Unit 4, Hallelujah 
Junction WA: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, Lassen and Sierra 
Counties, California.
    (i) Unit 3 includes 122 ac (49 ha) and Unit 4 includes 69 ac (28 
ha).
    (ii) Note: A map of Units 3 and 4 follows:

[[Page 46882]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.031

    (9) Unit 5, Subunit 5a, Dog Valley Meadow; and Subunit 5b, Upper 
Dog Valley: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, Sierra County, 
California.
    (i) Subunit 5a includes 386 ac (156 ha) and Subunit 5b includes 29 
ac (12 ha). Combined, Unit 5 includes 415 ac (168 ha).
    (ii) Note: A map of Unit 5 (Subunits 5a and 5b) follows:

[[Page 46883]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.032

    (10) Unit 6, White Lake Overlook, Sierra County, California; Unit 
7, Subunit 7a, Mules Ear Flat, Sierra County, California; Unit 7, 
Subunit 7b, Three Pine Flat and Jeffery Pine Saddle, Washoe County, 
Nevada; Unit 8, Ivesia Flat, Washoe County, Nevada; Unit 9, Stateline 
Road 1, Washoe County, Nevada; and Unit 10, Stateline Road 2, Washoe 
County, Nevada: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, Sierra County, 
California, and Washoe County, Nevada.
    (i) Unit 6 includes 109 ac (44 ha), Subunit 7a includes 65 ac (27 
ha), Subunit 7b includes 68 ac (27 ha), Unit 8 includes 62 ac (25 ha), 
Unit 9 includes 132 ac (53 ha), and Unit 10 includes 65 ac (26 ha).
    (ii) Note: A map of Units 6 through 10 follows:

[[Page 46884]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.033

    (11) Unit 11, Hungry Valley: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, 
Washoe County, Nevada.
    (i) Unit 11 includes 56 ac (23 ha).
    (ii) Note: A map of Unit 11 follows:

[[Page 46885]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.034

    (12) Unit 12, Black Springs and Unit 13, Raleigh Heights: Critical 
habitat for Ivesia webberi, Washoe County, Nevada.
    (i) Unit 12 includes 140 ac (57 ha) and Unit 13 includes 177 ac (72 
ha).
    (ii) Note: A map of Units 12 and 13 follows:

[[Page 46886]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.035

    (13) Unit 14, Dutch Louie Flat and Unit 15, The Pines Powerline: 
Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, Washoe County, Nevada.
    (i) Unit 14 includes 56 ac (23 ha) and Unit 15 includes 32 ac (13 
ha).
    (ii) Note: A map of Units 14 and 15 follows:

[[Page 46887]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.036

    (14) Unit 16, Dante Mine Road: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, 
Douglas County, Nevada.
    (i) Unit 16 includes 14 ac (6 ha).
    (ii) Note: A map of Unit 16 follows:

[[Page 46888]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.037

* * * * *

    Dated: July 23, 2013.
Rachel Jacobsen,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-18583 Filed 8-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C