FR Doc 02-31631

[Federal Register: December 24, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 247)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 78569-78610]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24de02-23]

[[Page 78569]]

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

Part II

Department of the Interior

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

50 CFR Part 17

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

[[Page 78570]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AI27

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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

[[Page 78571]]

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

Species Descriptions

Astragalus Albens (Cushenbury Milk-Vetch)

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

Erigeron Parishii (Parish's Daisy)

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

[[Page 78572]]

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

Eriogonum Ovalifolium var. Vineum (Cushenbury Buckwheat)

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

Lesquerella Kingii ssp. Bernardina (San Bernardino Mountains
Bladderpod)

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

[[Page 78573]]

Oxytheca Parishii var. Goodmaniana (Cushenbury Oxytheca)

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

Habitat Descriptions

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

[[Page 78574]]

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

Ecology

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

[[Page 78575]]

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

Previous Federal Action

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

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Endangered Species
Act (Act), as amended, as--(i) the specific areas within the geographic
area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with
the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I)
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific
areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it
is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all
methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered
species or a threatened species to the point at which listing under the
Act is no longer necessary.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification
with regard to actions carried out, funded, permitted, or authorized by
a Federal agency. Section 7 of the Act also requires conferences on
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitat. Aside from the added
protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not
provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical
habitat. Further, consultation under section 7 of the Act does not
apply to activities on private or other non-Federal lands that lack a
Federal nexus.
In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the
habitat must first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.''
Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the
best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that
provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which
are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR
424.12(b)), and are, therefore, essential to the conservation of the
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(e)) also state that, ``The
Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the
geographic area presently occupied by a species only when a designation
limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species.'' Accordingly, when the best available
scientific and commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation
needs of the species require designation of critical habitat outside of
its present range, we will not designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographic area occupied by the species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires we take into consideration the
economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical
habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the
exclusion will not result in extinction of the species. Section 4 of
the Act also requires that we designate critical habitat, to the extent
such habitat is determinable, at the time of listing. When we designate
critical habitat at the time of listing or under short court-ordered
deadlines, we will often not have sufficient information to identify
all areas of critical habitat. We are required, nevertheless, to make a
decision and thus must base our designations on what, at the time of
designation, we know to be critical habitat.
Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we will
designate only areas currently known to be essential.

[[Page 78576]]

Essential areas should already have the features and habitat
characteristics that are necessary to sustain the species. We will not
speculate about what areas might be found to be essential if better
information became available, or what areas may become essential over
time. If the information available at the time of designation does not
show that an area provides essential life cycle needs of the species,
then the area should not be included in the critical habitat
designation.
Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271),
provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides guidance to
ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial
data available. This policy requires our biologists, to the extent
consistent with the Act, and with the use of the best scientific and
commercial data available, to use primary and original sources of
information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat. When determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary
source of information should, at a minimum, be the listing package for
the species. Additional information may be obtained from a recovery
plan, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed
by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies,
biological assessments, unpublished materials, and expert opinion.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat
based on what we know at the time of designation. Habitat is often
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time.
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, all
should understand that critical habitat designations do not signal that
habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required
for recovery. Areas outside the critical habitat designation will
continue to be subject to conservation actions that may be implemented
under section 7(a)(1) and to the regulatory protections afforded by the
section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the section 9 prohibitions, as
determined on the basis of the best available information at the time
of the action. We specifically anticipate that federally funded or
assisted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of
the best available information at the time of designation will not
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat
conservation plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if
new information available to these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.

Methods

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

[[Page 78577]]

goodmaniana into 19 aggregate occurrences.

Primary Constituent Elements

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

Astragalus Albens

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

Erigeron Parishii

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

Eriogonum Ovalifolium var. Vineum

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

Lesquerella Kingii ssp. Bernardina

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

Oxytheca Parishii var. Goodmaniana

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

[[Page 78578]]

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

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

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

Critical Habitat Designation

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

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

[[Page 78579]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 78580]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 78581]]

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

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

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

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

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

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

[[Page 78582]]

habitat'' is defined as a direct or indirect alteration that
appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for both the
survival and recovery of the species (50 CFR 402.02). Such alterations
include, but are not limited to, adverse changes to the physical or
biological features (i.e., the primary constituent elements) that were
the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.
Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with us on any
action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. Conference reports provide conservation
recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may
be caused by the proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a
conference report are advisory.
We may issue a formal conference report, if requested by the
Federal action agency. Formal conference reports include an opinion
that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species was
listed or critical habitat designated. We may adopt the formal
conference report as the biological opinion when the species is listed
or critical habitat designated, if no substantial new information or
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR
402.10(d)).
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, we
would ensure that the permitted actions do not destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat.
If we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we would also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to
the project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent
alternatives are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions
identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and
jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and
that the Service's Regional Director believes would avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and
prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to
extensive redesign or relocation of the project.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical
habitat is subsequently designated, and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated
critical habitat.
Activities on Federal lands that may affect the five carbonate
plants or their critical habitat will require section 7 consultation.
Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal
agency, such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the Service, or some other Federal action,
including funding (e.g., from the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA)); permits from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD); activities by Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) on their land or land under their jurisdiction;
activities funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Department of Energy (DOE), or any other Federal agency; regulation of
airport improvement activities by FAA; and construction of
communication sites licensed by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) will also continue to be subject to the section 7 consultation
process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical
habitat and actions on non-Federal lands that are not federally funded,
authorized, or permitted do not require section 7 consultation.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely
modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that may result in the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat include those that alter the primary constituent
elements to an extent that the value of critical habitat for the
conservation of the five carbonate plants is appreciably reduced. We
note that such activities may also jeopardize the continued existence
of the species. Activities that, when carried out, funded or authorized
by a Federal agency, may directly or indirectly destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Removing, thinning, or destroying the five carbonate plants
habitat (as defined in the primary constituent elements discussion),
whether by burning, mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g.,
plowing, grubbing, grading, grazing, woodcutting, construction, road
building, mining, herbicide application, etc.);
(2) Activities that appreciably degrade or destroy the five
carbonate plants' habitat (and their primary constituent elements),
including, but not limited to, livestock grazing, clearing, discing,
farming, residential or commercial development, introducing or
encouraging the spread of nonnative species, off-road vehicle use, and
heavy recreational use; and
(3) Appreciably decreasing habitat value or quality through
indirect effects (e.g., edge effects, invasion of exotic plants or
animals, or fragmentation).
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will
constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the Field
Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Requests for copies of the regulations on listed wildlife and plants,
and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species, 911 NE.
11th Ave., Portland, OR 97232 (telephone 503/231-6131; facsimile 503/
231-6243).

Relationship to Habitat Conservation Plans and Other Planning Efforts

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

[[Page 78583]]

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

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

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

Peer Review

We requested six biologists, who have knowledge of the five
carbonate plants, to provide peer review of the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the five carbonate plants. Five independent peer
reviewers submitted comments on our proposed critical habitat
designation. Each reviewer generally endorsed the proposal. Four of the
reviewers expressed some reservations as to the adequacy of the
proposed designation. More specifically, they advocated the inclusion
of additional lands to address the following issues: connectivity,
outlying occurrences, edge effects, and the importance of protecting
genetic diversity for the survival of the five carbonate plants. The
fifth reviewer supported the designation as proposed.
Similar comments were grouped into three general issues relating
specifically to the proposed critical habitat determination and draft
economic analysis on the proposed determination. Comments were either
incorporated directly into the final rule or final addendum to the
economic analysis or addressed in the following summary.

Issue 1: Biological Justification and Methodology

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

[[Page 78584]]

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

[[Page 78585]]

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

[[Page 78586]]

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

[[Page 78587]]

that soil structure, and/or habitat structure and function, and/or
population dynamics associated with carbonate plant occurrences on
disturbed surfaces are equivalent to those of undisturbed surfaces.
Consequently, we are unable to ascertain whether disturbance from
mining activities is compatible with the life histories of the five
carbonate plants.
Comment 16: One commenter concluded that there is no evidence that
present populations are at or near a minimum threshold for long-term
persistence, and that the listed plants can continue to sustain
population declines associated with mining operations well into the
future.
Our Response: Although the carbonate plant species may have some
ability to occupy reclaimed areas, mining operations have and continue
to impact the viability of populations needed to conserve the species.
The final listing rule for the five carbonate plants documented the
species decline and why they were considered to be threatened or
endangered. Limestone mining was cited as the primary threat to these
species (59 FR 43652) and the primary threats to these plants continue
to include population reduction and habitat loss, degradation, and
fragmentation from surface mining activities. While listing the species
and designating critical habitat provides significant regulatory
protections for the species, they do not automatically halt the loss of
individuals of the species. The goal of planning efforts such as the
CHMS is to maximize the species recovery potential while providing
opportunities