Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation
of Critical Habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
[Federal Register: April 23, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 78)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19811-19845]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23ap02-27]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AH07
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation
of Critical Habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate
critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
merriami parvus) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). A total of approximately 13,485 hectares (33,295 acres)
in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, are designated as
critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
Critical habitat identifies specific areas, both occupied and
unoccupied, that are essential to the conservation of a listed species
and that may require special management considerations or protection.
Section 7 of the Act prohibits destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out
by any Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider
economic and other impacts of specifying any particular area as
critical habitat.
DATES: This rule is effective May 23, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at
the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone: 760/431-9440;
facsimile 760/431-9624).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) is one
of 19 recognized subspecies of Merriam's kangaroo rat (D. merriami), a
widespread species distributed throughout arid regions of the western
United States and northwestern Mexico (Hall and Kelson 1959, Williams
et al. 1993). In coastal southern California, Merriam's kangaroo rat is
the only species of kangaroo rat with four toes on each of its hind
feet. The San Bernardino kangaroo rat has a body length of about 95
millimeters (mm) (3.7 inches (in)) and a total length of 230 to 235 mm
(9.0 to 9.3 in). The hind foot measures less than 36 mm (1.4 in) in
length. The body color is pale yellow with a heavy overwash of dusky
brown. The tail stripes are medium to dark brown and the foot pads and
tail hairs are dark brown. The flanks and cheeks of the subspecies are
dusky (Lidicker 1960). The San Bernardino kangaroo rat is considerably
darker and smaller than either of the other two subspecies of Merriam's
kangaroo rat that occur in southern California, D. merriami merriami
and D. merriami collinus. The San Bernardino kangaroo rat, endemic to
southern California, is one of the most highly differentiated
subspecies of Merriam's kangaroo rat and, according to Lidicker (1960),
``it seems likely that it has achieved nearly species rank.''
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat, a member of the family
Heteromyidae, was first described by Rhoades (1894) under the name
Dipodomys parvus from specimens collected by R.B. Herron in Reche
Canyon, San Bernardino County, California. Elliot reduced D. parvus to
a subspecies of D. merriami (D. merriami parvus) in 1901, a taxonomic
treatment of the species which was confirmed by Hall and Kelson (1959)
and Williams et al. (1993). The San Bernardino kangaroo rat appears to
be separated from Merriam's kangaroo rat (D. merriami merriami) at the
northernmost extent of its range near Cajon Pass by an 8 to 13
kilometer (km) (5 to 8 mile (mi)) gap of unsuitable habitat.
The historical range of this species extends from the San
Bernardino Valley in San Bernardino County to the Menifee Valley in
Riverside County (Hall and Kelson 1959, Lidicker 1960). Prior to 1960,
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was known from more than 25 localities
within this range (McKernan 1993). From the early 1880s to the early
1930s, the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was a common resident of the San
Bernardino and San Jacinto Valleys of southern California (Lidicker
1960). At the time of listing, based on the distribution of apparent
suitable soils and museum collections of this species, we estimated
that the historical range encompassed approximately 130,587 hectares
(ha) (326,467 acres (ac)) (63 FR 51005). Recent studies indicate that
the species occupies a wider range of soil and vegetation types than
previously thought (Braden and McKernan 2000), which suggests that the
species' historical range may have been larger than we estimated at the
time of listing.
Although the entire area of the historical range would not have
been occupied at any given time due to hydrological processes and
resultant variation in habitat suitability, the San Bernardino kangaroo
rat was widely distributed across the San Bernardino and San Jacinto
valleys. By the 1930s, suitable habitat had been reduced to
approximately 11,200 ha (28,000 ac) (McKernan 1997). Habitat
destruction continued such that in 1997 the San Bernardino kangaroo rat
was thought to occupy only 1,299 ha (3,247 ac) of suitable habitat
divided unequally among seven locations (McKernan 1997). At the time of
listing, we estimated that an additional 5,277 ha (13,193 ac) of
habitat distributed within the Santa Ana River, Lytle and Cajon creeks,
and San Jacinto River was also likely occupied by the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat (63 FR 51005). Unlike the three largest habitat blocks, we
did not provide an estimate for additional habitat that was likely
occupied for the smaller remnant populations at City Creek, Etiwanda
alluvial fan and wash, Reche Canyon, and South Bloomington (including
Jurupa Hills). At the time of listing, we discounted approximately
1,358 ha (3,396 ac) of the 5,277 ha (13,193 ac) of additional habitat
as being too mature or degraded to support San Bernardino kangaroo
rats. Additional research following the listing of the species has
indicated that San Bernardino kangaroo rats can occupy mature alluvial
sage scrub, coastal sage scrub, and even chaparral vegetation types
(McKernan 2000). Moreover, systematic and general biological surveys
have resulted in the documentation of additional populations of the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, within and outside areas previously known to
be occupied by the species. Consequently, based on information relative
to habitat usage and species' distribution obtained since the listing,
we significantly underestimated the amount of area occupied by the
species at the time of listing. Thus, within the areas designated as
critical habitat, a minimum of approximately 13,155 ha (32,480 ac) of
habitat are believed to be occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
On December 8, 2000, we proposed 22,423 ha (55,408 ac) of lands for
designation as critical habitat in the Santa Ana River (including City
and Plunge Creeks), Lytle and Cajon Creeks, San Jacinto River and
Bautista Creek, and the Etiwanda alluvial fan (65 FR 77178). The areas
proposed and refined
[[Page 19813]]
for this final rule are within the known historical range for this
species. However, the majority of the remaining San Bernardino kangaroo
rat populations are primarily found in three areas, the Santa Ana Wash,
the San Jacinto Wash, and Lytle Creek and Cajon Wash. Other smaller
populations of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat are documented in washes
and hills in the areas surrounding the three main population centers.
Several of the areas containing these smaller populations were proposed
as critical habitat, but upon re-evaluation were not included in this
final designation because they were determined not to be essential to
the long-term conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The
basis for this determination and removing them from the final
designation was information indicating that the small scattered
populations or habitats occurred in areas that were highly fragmented
by urban and agricultural development and/or no longer subject to
hydrological and geomorphological processes that would naturally
maintain alluvial sage scrub vegetation. However, even though we
believe that these habitat areas are not essential to the long-term
conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, they are still
considered important and may assist in recovery efforts.
Habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat has been severely
reduced and fragmented by development and related activities in the San
Bernardino and San Jacinto valleys, resulting in reduced habitat patch
size and increased distances between patches of suitable habitat. As
noted by Andren (1994) in a discussion of highly fragmented landscapes,
reduced habitat patch size and isolation exacerbate the effects of
habitat loss on a species' persistence (i.e., the loss of species, or
decline in population size, will be greater than expected from habitat
loss alone) and may preclude recolonization of suitable habitat
following local extirpation events.
The loss of native vertebrates, including rodents, due to habitat
fragmentation is well documented (Soule et al. 1992, Andren 1994,
Bolger et al. 1997). Results of habitat fragmentation on rodents may
include increased extirpation rates due to increased vulnerability to
random demographic (population characteristics such as age and sex
structure) and environmental events (Hanski 1994, Bolger et al. 1997).
For example, isolated populations are more susceptible to local
extirpation by manmade or natural events, such as disease or floods,
than are larger, more connected populations. Furthermore, small
populations are more likely to experience detrimental effects
associated with reproduction (e.g., genetic drift, inbreeding
depression, and a loss of genetic variability) and increase the risk of
extinction (Caughley 1994, Lacy 1997). Past and ongoing causes of
fragmentation of San Bernardino kangaroo rat habitat include conversion
of lands to urban, industrial, agricultural, and recreational uses;
construction of roads and freeways; and development of flood control
structures such as dams, levees, detention basins, and channels. The
effect of these human-caused disturbances is three-fold--(1) they
reduce the amount of suitable habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo
rat, breaking large areas into smaller patches, (2) they act as
barriers to movement between the remaining suitable habitat patches,
and (3) they disrupt, preclude, or alter natural processes necessary to
maintain suitable habitat (i.e., sediment scour and deposition).
San Bernardino kangaroo rats are typically found on alluvial fans
(relatively flat or gently sloping masses of loose rock, gravel, and
sand deposited by a stream as it flows into a valley or upon a plain),
floodplains, along washes, in adjacent upland areas containing
appropriate physical and vegetative characteristics (McKernan 1997),
and in areas with historic braided channels (R. McKernan, Curator, San
Bernardino County Museum, pers. comm., 2002). These areas consist of
sand, loam, sandy loam, or gravelly soils (McKernan 1993, Braden and
McKernan 2000) that are associated with alluvial processes (i.e., the
scour and deposition of clay, silt, sand, gravel, or similar material
by running water such as rivers and streams; debris flows). San
Bernardino kangaroo rats also occupy areas where winds contribute to
the deposition of sandy soils (e.g., northwest of the Jurupa Hills)
(McKernan 1997). The soils deposited by alluvial or wind driven
processes typically support alluvial sage scrub and chaparral
vegetation and allow kangaroo rats to dig simple, shallow burrow
systems (McKernan 1997).
Alluvial sage scrub has been described as a variant of coastal sage
scrub (Smith 1980) and is also referred to as Riversidean alluvial fan
scrub, alluvial fan sage scrub, cismontane alluvial scrub, alluvial fan
scrub, or by Holland (1986) as Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub.
This relatively open vegetation type is adapted to periodic flooding
and erosion (Hanes et al. 1989) and is comprised of an assortment of
drought-deciduous shrubs and larger evergreen woody shrubs
characteristic of both coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities
(Smith 1980).
Three phases of alluvial sage scrub have been described: Pioneer,
intermediate, and mature. The phases are thought to correspond to
factors such as flood scour, distance from flood channel, time since
last flood, and substrate features (Smith 1980, Hanes et al. 1989).
Under natural conditions, flood waters periodically break out of the
main river channel in a complex pattern, resulting in a braided
appearance to the floodplain and a mosaic of vegetation stages. Pioneer
sage scrub, the earliest phase, is subject to frequent hydrological
disturbance and the sparse vegetation is usually renewed by frequent
floods (Smith 1980, Hanes et al. 1989). The intermediate phase, which
is typically found on benches between the active channel and mature
floodplain terraces, is subject to periodic flooding at longer
intervals. The vegetation of early and intermediate stages is
relatively open, and supports the highest densities of the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat (McKernan 1997).
The oldest, or mature, phase of alluvial sage scrub is rarely
affected by flooding and supports the highest plant density (Smith
1980). Although mature areas are generally used less frequently by the
kangaroo rats or occupied at lower densities than those supporting
earlier phases, these areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. Shallow burrows, such as those inhabited by the San Bernardino
kangaroo rats, are likely to become inundated or lost due to scour and
sediment deposition during flooding events. Therefore, mature phase
alluvial scrub areas can serve as refugia for San Bernardino kangaroo
rats from lower portions of the floodplain during large scale flooding
events, and they can support source populations for recolonization of
the lower floodplain areas after the flooding has subsided. Due to the
dynamic nature of the alluvial floodplain, all three elevations within
the floodplain and the associated phases of alluvial scrub habitat are
essential to the long-term survival of the San Bernardino kangaroo.
Alluvial sage scrub vegetation includes plant species that are
often associated with coastal sage scrub, chaparral, or desert
transition communities. Common plant species found within these plant
communities may include: Lepidospartum squamatum (scalebroom),
Eriogonum fasciculatum (California buckwheat), Eriodictyon crassifolium
(wooly yerba santa), Eriodictyon trichocalyx (hairy
[[Page 19814]]
yerba santa), Yucca whipplei (our Lord's candle), Rhus ovata (sugar
bush), Rhus integrifolia (lemonadeberry), Malosma laurina (laurel
sumac), Juniperus californicus (California juniper), Baccharis
salicifolia (mulefat), Penstemon spectabilis (showy penstemon),
Heterotheca villosa (golden aster), Eriogonum elongatum (tall
buckwheat), Encelia farinosa (brittle bush), Opuntia spp. (prickly pear
and cholla), Adenostoma fasciculatum (chamise), Prunus ilicifolia
(holly-leaf cherry), Quercus spp. (oaks), Salvia apiana (white sage),
and annual forbs (e.g., Phacelia spp. (phacelia), Lupinus spp.
(lupine), and Plagiobothrys spp. (popcorn flower)), and native and
nonnative grasses.
Similar to other subspecies of Merriam's kangaroo rat, the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat prefers moderately open habitats characterized
by low shrub canopy cover (McKernan 1997). However, the species uses
areas of denser vegetation (Braden and McKernan 2000). McKernan (pers.
comm., 2000) further stated that such areas are essential to San
Bernardino kangaroo rat conservation. Research conducted by Braden and
McKernan (2000) during 1998 and 1999 demonstrated that areas with late
phases of the floodplain vegetation, such as mature alluvial fan sage
scrub and associated coastal sage scrub and chaparral, including some
areas of moderate to dense vegetation such as nonnative grasslands, are
at least periodically occupied by the species.
A study of San Bernardino kangaroo rats conducted by Braden and
McKernan (2000) provided additional new, specific data about the
habitat characteristics in which the species was found. While this
study indicated the range of habitat characteristics in which the
species can occur, it was not designed to describe habitat preferences
for the species. Braden and McKernan determined that within habitat
occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat: (1) Perennial cover varies
from 0 to 100 percent; (2) annual cover (primarily nonnative grasses)
varies from 0 to 70 percent; (3) the proportion of surface fine sands
varies from 0 to 100 percent; (4) surface cover of small rock fragments
varies from 0 to 90 percent; and (5) surface cover of large rock
fragments varies from 0 to 51 percent. The San Bernardino kangaroo rat
has also been documented in areas of human disturbance not typically
associated with the species, including nonnative grasslands, margins of
orchards and out-of-use vineyards, alluvial sage scrub, and areas of
wildland/urban interface within floodplains or terraces and adjacent to
occupied habitat (McKernan, in litt. 2000).
Areas that contain low densities of San Bernardino kangaroo rats
may be important for dispersal, genetic exchange, colonization of newly
suitable habitat, and re-colonization of areas after severe storm
events. The dynamic nature of the alluvial habitat leads to a situation
where not all the habitat associated with alluvial processes is
suitable for the species at any point in time. However, areas generally
considered unsuitable habitat, such as out-of-production vineyards and
margins of orchards, can and do develop into suitable habitat for the
species through natural processes (McKernan, pers. comm., 2000).
Little is known about home range size, dispersal distances, or
other spatial requirements of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. However,
home ranges for the Merriam's kangaroo rat in the Palm Springs,
California, area averaged 0.33 ha (0.8 ac) for males and 0.31 ha (0.8
ac) for females (Behrends et al. 1986). Furthermore, Blair (1943)
reported much larger home ranges for Merriam's kangaroo rats in New
Mexico, where home ranges averaged 1.7 ha (4.1 ac) for males and 1.6 ha
(3.8 ac) for females. Space requirements for the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat likely vary according to season, age and sex of animal,
food availability, and other factors. Although outlying areas of their
home ranges may overlap, Dipodomys adults actively defend small core
areas near their burrows (Jones 1993). Home range overlap between males
and between males and females is extensive, but female-female overlap
is slight (Jones 1993). The degree of competition between San
Bernardino kangaroo rats and sympatric (living in the same geographical
area) species of kangaroo rats for food and other resources is not
presently known.
Similar to other kangaroo rats, the Merriam's kangaroo rat is
generally granivorous (feeds on seeds and grains) and often stores
large quantities of seeds in surface caches (Reichman and Price 1993).
Green vegetation and insects are also important seasonal food sources.
Insects, when available, have been documented to constitute as much as
50 percent of a kangaroo rat's diet (Reichman and Price 1993).
Wilson et al. (1985) reported that compared to other rodents,
Merriam's kangaroo rat, and heteromyids in general, have relatively low
reproductive output. Rainfall and the availability of food have been
cited as factors affecting kangaroo rat populations. Droughts lasting
more than a year can cause rapid declines in population numbers after
seed caches are depleted (Goldingay et al. 1997).
Little information exists on the specific types and local
abundances of predators that feed on the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
Potential native predators include the common barn owl (Tyto alba),
great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), long-eared owl (Asio otus), gray
fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), coyote (Canis latrans), long-tailed
weasel (Mustela frenata), bobcat (Felis rufus), badger (Taxidea taxus),
San Diego gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus annectens), California
king snake (Lampropeltis getulus californiae), red diamond rattlesnake
(Crotalus ruber), and southern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus viridus).
Domestic cats (Felis cattus) are known to be predators of native
rodents (Hubbs 1951, George 1974) and have the ability to reduce
population sizes of rodents (Crooks and Soule 1999). Predation of San
Bernardino kangaroo rats by domestic cats has been documented
(McKernan, pers. comm., 2000). Continued fragmentation of habitat is
likely to promote higher levels of predation by native animals (Bolger
et al. 1997) and urban-associated animals (e.g., domestic cats,
opossums (Didelphis virginianus), and striped skunks (Mephitis
mephitis)) as the interface between natural habitat and urban areas is
increased (Churcher and Lawton 1987).
A limited amount of data exists pertaining to population dynamics
of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Information is not currently
available on several aspects of the species' life history such as
fecundity (the capacity of an organism to produce offspring), survival,
population age and sex structure, intra- and interspecific competition,
and causes and rates of mortality. With respect to population density,
Braden and McKernan (2000) documented substantial annual variation on a
trapping grid in San Bernardino County, where densities ranged from 2
to 26 animals per ha (2.47 ac). The reasons for these greatly disparate
values during the 15-month study are unknown. These fluctuations bring
to light several important aspects of the species' distribution and
life history which should be considered when identifying areas
essential for the conservation of the species--(1) a low population
density observed in an area at one point in time does not mean the area
is occupied at the same low density any other month, season, or year;
(2) a low population density is not an indicator of low habitat quality
or low overall value of the land for the conservation of the species;
(3) an
[[Page 19815]]
abundance of San Bernardino kangaroo rats can decrease rapidly; and (4)
one or more factors (e.g., food availability, fecundity, disease,
predation, genetics, environment) are strongly influencing the species'
population dynamics in one or more areas. High-amplitude, high-
frequency fluctuations in small, isolated populations make them
extremely susceptible to local extirpation.
Previous Federal Action
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat was emergency listed as endangered
on January 27, 1998; concurrently, a proposal to make provisions of the
emergency listing permanent was also published in the Federal Register
(63 FR 3835 and 63 FR 3877, respectively). On September 24, 1998, we
published a final rule determining the San Bernardino kangaroo rat to
be an endangered species under the Act (63 FR 51005). Critical habitat
was determined not to be prudent at the time of listing because an
increase in the degree of threat and the lack of benefit to the species
(63 FR 51005).
On March 4, 1999, the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity and
Christians Caring for Creation filed a lawsuit in the Federal District
Court for the Northern District of California challenging our failure
to designate critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and
six other federally listed species. A settlement agreement was entered
into on November 3, 1999, in which we were to re-evaluate the prudency
of designating critical habitat. If designation of critical habitat for
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was determined to be prudent, we would
publish a proposed rule critical habitat designation by December 1,
2000, and a final designation by December 1, 2001.
In accordance with the stipulated settlement agreement, we re-
evaluated the not prudent finding as determined at the time of listing.
Following our re-evaluation, we determined that critical habitat was,
in fact, prudent and published a proposed rule to designate critical
habitat on December 8, 2000 (65 FR 77178). A discussion of our re-
evaluation of the prudency of designating critical habitat for the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat is contained within the Previous Federal Action
section of our rule proposing the designation (65 FR 77178).
Following delayed completion of the draft economic analysis for the
proposed designation and time required to hold public hearings, we
requested a 90-day extension from the plaintiffs to adequately address
public comments and complete the final designation. On November 19,
2001, the plaintiffs agreed to the extension. The District Court
subsequently approved the 90-day extension requiring us to complete the
final designation by March 1, 2002. Through agreement of the parties,
this deadline was subsequently extended to April 15, 2002.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations
or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are
necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point
at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitat. In regulations at 50 CFR
402.02, we define destruction or adverse modification as ``...the
direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed
species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations
adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features that
were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.'' Aside from
the added protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does
not provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical
habitat. Because consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply
to activities on private or other non-Federal lands that do not involve
a Federal nexus, critical habitat designation would not result in any
regulatory requirements for these actions.
The designation of critical habitat does not, in itself, lead to
the recovery of a listed species. The designation of critical habitat
does not create a management plan, establish a preserve, reserve, or
wilderness area where no actions are allowed, it does not establish
numerical population goals, prescribe specific management actions
(inside or outside of critical habitat), or directly affect areas not
designated as critical habitat.
In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the
habitat must first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.''
Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known, and using
the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that
provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which
are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR
424.12(b)).
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat at
the time of listing to the extent such habitat is determinable, at the
time of listing. When we designate critical habitat at the time of
listing or under short court-ordered deadlines, we often may not have
sufficient information to identify all areas which are essential for
the conservation of the species. Nevertheless, we are required to
designate those areas we know to be critical habitat, using the best
information available to us.
Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we are
designating only areas currently known to be essential. Essential areas
contain the features and habitat characteristics that are necessary to
sustain the species, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b). We will not
speculate about what areas might be found to be essential if better
information became available, or what areas may become essential over
time. Moreover, certain known populations of the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat have not been designated as critical habitat. We did not
designate critical habitat for small scattered populations or habitats
which were in areas that were highly fragmented by urban and
agricultural development or were no longer subject to hydrological and
geomorphological processes that would naturally maintain alluvial sage
scrub vegetation (the primary plant community containing its habitat)
because we do not believe that these areas are essential to the
conservation of the species based on current scientific and commercial
information.
Based on the limited and fragmented range of the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat, we are including 330 ha (815 ac) of habitat determined to
be essential to the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat
that is not currently known to be occupied. This area is located in
Riverside County at the northern end of the San Jacinto Unit (Unit 3).
A more detailed discussion of this area and the rationale as to why it
is essential to the
[[Page 19816]]
conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is contained in the
description for this critical habitat unit.
The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271), provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides
guidance to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the
best scientific and commercial data available. This policy requires
Service biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the
use of the best scientific and commercial data available, to use
primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat. When determining which
areas are critical habitat, a primary source of information should be
the listing package for the species. Additional information may be
obtained from a recovery plan; articles in peer-reviewed journals;
conservation plans developed, or under development, by States and
counties; scientific status surveys and studies; and biological
assessments or other unpublished materials (e.g., gray literature).
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that any designation of
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may
eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, it is important to understand that critical
habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation
is unimportant or may not be necessary for the conservation of the
species. Areas outside the critical habitat designation will continue
to be subject to conservation actions that may be implemented under
section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded
by the section 7(a)(2) of the Act jeopardy standard and the section 9
of the Act take prohibitions, as determined on the basis of the best
available information at the time of the action. We specifically
anticipate that federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical habitat units may still
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species
conservation planning efforts if new information available to these
planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Methods
In determining areas that are essential to conserve the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we used the best scientific and commercial
data available. These data included research and survey observations
published in peer reviewed articles; regional Geographic Information
System (GIS) coverages; San Bernardino County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Program (MSHCP) database; the University of California,
Riverside, species database; and data from reports submitted by
biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits, including
results from on-going research on the San Bernardino kangaroo rat by
the San Bernardino County Museum.
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12 in determining which areas to propose as critical
habitat, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the
best scientific and commercial data available and to consider those
physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation
of the species and that may require special management considerations
or protection. These physical and biological features, as outlined in
50 CFR 424.12, include but are not limited to: space for individual and
population growth, and for normal behavior; food, water, or other
nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for
breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; habitats that are
protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical
geographical and ecological distributions of a species. All areas
designated as critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat
contain one or more of these physical or biological features, also
called primary constituent elements.
The primary constituent elements for the San Bernardino kangaroo
rat are those habitat components that are essential for the primary
biological needs of foraging, reproducing, rearing of young, intra-
specific communication, dispersal, genetic exchange, and/or sheltering.
The primary constituent elements are found in areas influenced by
historic and/or current geomorphological and hydrological processes and
areas of wind-blown sand that support alluvial sage scrub vegetation or
a mosaic of alluvial sage scrub and associated vegetation types (e.g.,
coastal sage scrub, chaparral) in San Bernardino and Riverside
counties. Primary constituent elements associated with the biological
needs of dispersal are also found in areas that provide connectivity or
linkage between or within larger core population areas, including open
space and disturbed areas that may contain introduced plant species.
The long-term conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is
dependent upon a number of factors including the protection and
management of occupied habitat, the protection of linkages between core
areas to maintain gene flow and minimize loss of genetic diversity (W.
Spencer, conservation biologist, Conservation Biology Institute, pers.
comm., 2002; Lande 1988), the protection of upland areas adjacent to
suitable habitat that serve as refugia from lower portions of the
floodplain during large scale flooding events and/or provide source
populations for recolonization of the lower floodplain after the
flooding has subsided (R. McKernan, pers. comm., 2002), and the
protection of geomorphological, hydrological, and aeolian (wind-driven)
processes essential to the continued existence and conservation of
suitable habitat. The location and dynamic nature of the alluvial
habitat occupied by this species makes it especially vulnerable to
flood control activities throughout the drainages in which it occurs.
Based on our current knowledge of this species, the primary
constituent elements include:
(1) Soil series consisting predominantly of sand, loamy sand, sandy
loam, or loam;
(2) Alluvial sage scrub and associated vegetation, such as coastal
sage scrub and chamise chaparral, with a moderately open canopy;
(3) River, creek, stream, and wash channels; alluvial fans;
floodplains; floodplain benches and terraces; and historic braided
channels that are subject to dynamic geomorphological and hydrological
processes typical of fluvial systems within the historical range of the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat. These areas may include a mosaic of
suitable and unsuitable soils and vegetation that either (a) occur at a
scale smaller than the home range of the animal, or (b) form a series
of core areas and linkages between them; and
(4) Upland areas proximal to floodplains with suitable habitat
(e.g., floodplains that support the soils, vegetation, or
geomorphological, hydrological and aeolian processes essential to this
species). These areas are essential due to their geographic proximity
to suitable habitat and the functions they serve during flooding
events. These areas may include
[[Page 19817]]
marginal habitats such as agricultural lands that are disced annually,
out-of-production vineyards, margins of orchards, areas of active or
inactive industrial or resource extraction activities, and urban/
wildland interfaces.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
In identifying areas essential to the conservation of the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we used data regarding the habitat elements
essential to the species, including vegetation types, hydrology,
elevation, topography, and soil type and texture. We identified
suitable and necessary habitat components within the species' current
and historic range, and examined the degree of existing urbanization
and other forms of anthropogenic habitat disturbance, excluding from
the designation, as feasible, those areas in which development has
permanently precluded occupation by the species.
To identify those lands essential to the conservation of the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we used data regarding (1) known San
Bernardino kangaroo rat occurrences, (2) alluvial fan sage scrub and
associated vegetation, (3) geomorphology, and (4) connectivity
corridors between San Bernardino kangaroo rat populations. We delimited
a study area by selecting geographic boundaries based on the four
factors described above. We determined conservation value based on the
presence of, or proximity to, extant San Bernardino kangaroo rat
populations and/or alluvial fan sage scrub and associated vegetation,
surrounding land-uses, and the potential to allow dispersal of the
species between occupied areas. We then evaluated within this area
those areas where ongoing habitat conservation planning efforts have
resulted in the preparation of biological analyses that identify
habitat important for the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo
rat. These include the proposed Western Riverside County MSHCP and the
proposed San Bernardino Valley-Wide MSHCP. Finally, we evaluated
adjacent lands that may not have been included in the original data due
to data limitations but have conservation value for the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat based on the factors described above.
Once essential habitat was identified and delineated, we evaluated
those lands to determine if they were covered by an approved Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) or other special management plan that provided
protection and management for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and its
habitat. We determined that none of the essential lands were covered by
an approved HCP or other special management plan in which the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat is a covered species.
Critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was delineated
based on interpretation of the multiple sources available during the
preparation of this final rule, including aerial photography at a scale
of 1:24,000 (comparable to the scale of a 7.5 minute U.S. Geological
Survey Quadrangle topographic map), current (2001) digital ortho-
photography, and projects authorized for take through consultations
under section 7 of the Act. These lands were divided into specific map
units, i.e., critical habitat units.
In defining critical habitat boundaries, we made an effort to avoid
development, such as urbanized areas (e.g., cities) and similar lands
that do not contain the primary constituent elements that defined lands
essential for the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
However, our minimum mapping unit did not allow us to exclude all
developed areas. Existing features and structures within the boundaries
of the mapped units, such as buildings, roads, railroads, airports,
other paved areas, lawns, and other urban landscaped areas will not
contain one or more of the primary constituent elements. Federal
actions limited to those areas, therefore, would not trigger a
consultation under section 7 of the Act unless they affect the species
and/or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
Critical Habitat Designation
The approximate area of critical habitat by county and land
ownership is shown in Table 1. Critical habitat includes San Bernardino
kangaroo rat habitat throughout the species' remaining range in
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California. Lands designated are
under private, State, Tribal, and Federal ownership, with Federal lands
including lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Four critical habitat units have been
delineated: Santa Ana River; Lytle and Cajon Creeks; San Jacinto River-
Bautista Creek; and Etiwanda Alluvial Fan and Wash. These areas support
important concentrations of San Bernardino kangaroo rats and are the
major strongholds of this species within its geographical range. In
summary, the critical habitat areas described below constitute our best
assessment of areas needed for the survival and conservation of the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat. A brief description of each unit, and reasons
for designating it as critical habitat, are presented below.
Table 1.--Approximate Critical Habitat in Hectares (ha) (Acres (ac)) by County and Land Ownership
[Area estimates reflect critical habitat unit boundaries\1\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Federal \2\ Tribal Local/State\3\ Private Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riverside......................... 135 ha 290 ha 0 ha 1,835 ha 2,260 ha
(330 ac) (710 ac) (0 ac) (4,530 ac) (5,565 ac)
San Bernardino.................... 800 ac 0 ha 215 ha 10,210 ha 11,225 ha
(1,970 ac) (0 ac) (535 ac) (25,220 ac) (27,725 ac)
Total......................... 935 ha 290 ha 215 ha 12,045 ha 13,485 ha
(2,300 ac) (710 ac) (535 ac) (29,750 ac) (33,295 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Approximate hectares have been converted to acres (1 ha = 2.47 ac). Based on the level of imprecision of mapping at this scale, approximate hectares
and acres have been rounded to the nearest 5.
\2\ Federal lands include BLM and Forest Service lands.
\3\ Local/State lands defined for San Bernardino County are those lands formerly owned by the U.S. Air Force as part of Norton Air Force Base. These
lands are in the process of being acquired by the San Bernardino County International Airport Authority and the Inland Valley Development Agency.
[[Page 19818]]
Critical Habitat Unit 1: Santa Ana River
The Santa Ana River critical habitat unit, located in San
Bernardino County, encompasses approximately 3,615 ha (8,935 ac), and
includes the Santa Ana River and portions of City, Plunge, and Mill
creeks. Bounded by Seven Oaks Dam to the northeast, the area includes
lands within the San Bernardino National Forest and portions of the
cities of San Bernardino, Redlands, Highland, and Colton. Although
Seven Oaks Dam impedes sediment transport and reduces the magnitude,
frequency, and extent of flood events, the system still retains partial
fluvial dynamics because contributions from Mill Creek are not impeded
by a dam or debris basin.
A large tract of undeveloped land in San Bernardino National Forest
is partially within and adjacent to the northern and eastern portions
of this critical habitat unit. In addition, this unit contains upland
refugia and tributaries (e.g., City and Plunge creeks) that are
occupied by the species, active hydrological channels, floodplain
terraces, and areas of habitat immediately adjacent to floodplain
terraces.
The Santa Ana River unit contains the approximately 310 ha (765 ac)
Woolly-Star Preservation Area (WSPA), a section of the floodplain
downstream of Seven Oaks Dam that was preserved by the flood control
districts of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The WSPA
was established in 1988 by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) in an
attempt to minimize the effects of Seven Oaks Dam on the federally
endangered Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum (Santa Ana River
woolly-star) along the Santa Ana River. This area of alluvial fan scrub
in the wash near the low-flow channel of the river was designated for
preservation because these sections of the wash were thought to have
the highest potential to maintain the hydrology necessary for the
periodic regeneration of early phases of alluvial fan sage scrub. Most
of the area is likely to support San Bernardino kangaroo rats (MEC
Analytical Systems, Inc 2000).
We are now coordinating with the BLM, ACOE, San Bernardino Valley
Conservation District, Cemex Construction Materials, Robertson's Ready
Mix, and other local interests in an attempt to establish the Santa Ana
River Wash Conservation Area. The objective of these discussions is to
consolidate a conservation area consisting of alluvial fan scrub
occupied by three federally endangered species, the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat, Santa Ana River woolly-star, and Dodecahema leptoceras
(slender-horned spineflower); and one federally threatened species, the
coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica).
The area is envisioned to include an Area of Critical Environmental
Concern or ACEC (see below) and the ACOE's preservation lands for Santa
Ana River woolly-star. This cooperative agreement would reconfigure and
consolidate sand and gravel mining operations in this unit to reduce
adverse effects to these listed species and remaining alluvial fan
scrub communities.
In 1994, the BLM designated three parcels in the Santa Ana River, a
total of approximately 305 ha (760 ac), as an ACEC. The primary goal of
this designation was to protect and enhance the habitat of federally
listed plant species occurring in the area while providing for the
administration of existing water conservation rights. Although the
establishment of this ACEC was important in regard to conservation of
sensitive species and communities in this area, the administration of
these valid existing water conservation rights may conflict with the
BLM's ability to manage their lands for the San Bernardino kangaroo
rat. Existing rights include a withdrawal of Federal lands for water
conservation through an act of Congress on February 20, 1909 (Public,
No. 248). The entire ACEC is included in this withdrawn land and may be
used for water conservation measures such as the construction of
percolation basins. These lands are not managed specifically for the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
Additionally, approximately 30 ha (54 ac) of occupied habitat in
the Santa Ana River has been set aside in perpetuity by the U.S. Air
Force as part of on-base site remediation efforts at the former Norton
Air Force Base in San Bernardino, California. The area will be
monitored and managed specifically for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat,
as well as the woolly-star.
Critical Habitat Unit 2: Lytle and Cajon Creeks
The Lytle and Cajon Creeks Unit, which encompasses approximately
5,655 ha (13,970 ac) in San Bernardino County, includes the northern
extent of this species' remaining distribution. This unit contains
habitat along and between Lytle and Cajon creeks from the point that
the creeks emanate from canyons within San Bernardino National Forest
to flood control channels downstream. This unit includes alluvial fans,
floodplain terraces, and historic braided river channels. Alluvial sage
scrub and other vegetation types that provide habitat for San
Bernardino kangaroo rat occur on terraces and adjacent areas with sandy
soils. This unit includes Glen Helen Regional Park and portions of the
City of Muscoy.
The hydro-geomorphological processes that apparently rejuvenate and
maintain the dynamic mosaic of alluvial fan sage scrub are still
largely intact in Lytle and Cajon creeks (i.e., stream flows are not
impeded by dams or debris basins), and the remaining habitat allows
dispersal between these two drainages, which is important for genetic
exchange between populations. This unit is adjacent to large tracts of
undeveloped land and contains upland areas occupied by the species.
Therefore, these areas are essential because of the presence of
substantial, existing populations of the species and habitat
connectivity within and between Lytle and Cajon Creeks, as well as with
the Etiwanda alluvial fan to the west.
The approximately 560 ha (1,380 ac) Cajon Creek Habitat
Conservation Management Area, managed by Vulcan Materials Co., Western
Division, was created in 1996 to offset approximately 920 ha (2,270 ac)
of sand and gravel mining proposed within and adjacent to Cajon Creek.
Of this, an estimated 245 ha (610 ac) is the Cajon Creek Conservation
Bank established to help conserve populations of 24 species associated
with alluvial fan scrub, including the Santa Ana River woolly-star, San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, and coastal California gnatcatcher. We are
working, through the section 7 consultation process, with project
proponents to encourage the purchase of lands within this conservation
bank by the year 2006, when interim protection under a 10-year
conservation easement ends. The entire Cajon Creek Habitat Conservation
Management Area and adjacent mitigation lands set aside for the
development of the County of San Bernardino Sheriff's training facility
would form the nucleus for a larger reserve to protect the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat and other listed species in this area.
Critical Habitat Unit 3: San Jacinto River-Bautista Creek
The San Jacinto River-Bautista Creek Unit encompasses approximately
2,260 ha (5,565 ac) in Riverside County and includes portions of San
Bernardino National Forest, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation,
Bautista Creek, and areas along the San Jacinto River in the vicinity
of San Jacinto, Hemet, and Valle Vista. This unit, which represents the
southern extent of the currently known distribution of the
[[Page 19819]]
species, is adjacent to San Bernardino National Forest and includes
occupied habitat and approximately 330 ha (815 ac) of lands not
currently known to be occupied.
Along the San Jacinto River the species occurs from the upper reach
of habitat in the River downstream to State Route 79, within the
confined portion of the floodplain, beyond the earthen flood control
levee, along the river into the San Jacinto Valley and foothills of the
Badlands. In Bautista Creek, the species occurs upstream of the
Bautista flood control basin until the topography of the canyon becomes
too steep. On Tribal lands two occupied tributaries to the San Jacinto
River are included. All non-Tribal lands within Riverside County
designated as critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat are
within the planning area of the Western Riverside MSHCP.
Since the time of listing, additional areas along the San Jacinto
River and Bautista Creek have been identified as essential for the
conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. New essential areas
were identified based on additional occupation information, a better
understanding of the species' habitat needs and vegetation providing
habitat, the need for habitat connectivity, and the importance of
maintenance of hydrological conditions. New information indicates that
the habitat occupied within the floodplain by the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat is larger than previously thought (McKernan, in litt.
1999, Braden and McKernan 2000), and includes areas of higher
vegetation density. We have also received additional information on the
distribution of the species within the watershed (e.g., Bautista
Creek), and are including areas essential for maintaining habitat
connectivity along the floodplain. This additional information further
supports the identification of this area as a major concentration of
San Bernardino kangaroo rat in the final listing rule and the
importance of this area for the long-term conservation for this
species.
Approximately 290 ha (710 ac) of lands within the Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians Reservation within this critical habitat unit have been
determined to be essential to the conservation of the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat and designated as critical habitat. These lands include
portions of the San Jacinto River and two tributary washes. This
portion of the unit is least affected by flood control activities and
supports the largest known density of animals in the unit. Inclusion of
the Tribal portion of the unit is also necessary to maintain the
hydrologic functions of the unit. Please refer to the Government-to
Government Relationship with Tribes section of this final rule for a
more detailed explanation of why these Tribal lands have been included
in this final designation.
The San Jacinto River/Bautista Canyon population is the only known
remaining population in Riverside County. Although this population is
the smallest of the three large remaining populations, it is essential
for the long-term survival and recovery of the species. The other two
large populations (Santa Ana River and Lytle Creek/Cajon Wash) are in
relatively close proximity to one another, leaving them simultaneously
vulnerable to regional catastrophes. As a result, the San Jacinto
population is essential for the recovery of the species, and any
permanent reduction in its viability would affect the long-term
survival of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
The portion of designated critical habitat located downstream
(west) of State Route 79, an estimated 330 ha (815 ac), is currently
not known to be occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. This area
was historically occupied but we are not aware of any recent trapping
efforts that could provide additional information as to current status
of occupancy. This portion of the unit provides additional habitat
essential for recovery to maintain a viable population and by reducing
the risks from deleterious stochastic (random naturally occurring)
events within the unit.
The population of San Bernardino kangaroo rats in this unit is at
risk due to its small size and the limited area that it occupies. As
discussed above, low abundance renders the population susceptible to
stochastic events such as inbreeding, the loss of genetic variation,
demographic problems like skewed variability in age and sex ratios, and
catastrophes such as floods, droughts, or disease epidemics (Lande
1988, Frankham and Ralls 1998, Saccheri et al. 1998).
The risks of catastrophic stochastic events due to small population
size and isolation is exacerbated by normal population fluctuation
cycles. During a severe population decline due to a natural fluctuation
or a stochastic event, populations contract into disjunct groups. As
populations rebound these groups become the source for recolonization
of previously occupied and new areas. Areas that include varying
habitat conditions (e.g., topography, position on the floodplain,
vegetation characteristics, substrate, areas for population expansion)
have an increased ability to support populations through stochastic
events. Population expansion in good years results in reservoirs of
individuals that survive in more difficult years. Therefore, essential
habitat areas supporting relatively small populations should include
varying habitat conditions.
The area of this unit that is not known to be occupied is on the
broadest portion of the historic floodplain and is contiguous to known
occupied habitat. It will provide area for population expansion during
expansion years and provides important habitat variability for
persistence in years of decline.
Critical Habitat Unit 4: Etiwanda Alluvial Fan and Wash
The Etiwanda Alluvial Fan and Wash, which encompasses approximately
1,950 ha (4,820 ac), is located in western San Bernardino County and
represents the approximate westernmost extent of the known range of the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Within the northern boundary of the unit
are portions of San Bernardino National Forest. This unit includes
lands within and between the active hydrological channels of Deer, Day,
and Etiwanda creeks. A large alluvial fan, floodplains, and terraces
occur throughout the unit. Soils are primarily sandy or sandy loam and
support alluvial fan sage scrub. This unit also includes portions
within the boundaries of the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana;
and the approximately 310 ha (760 ac) North Etiwanda Preserve.
Lands designated as critical habitat within this unit contain a
population of the species and upland refugia from catastrophic
flooding. Neither dams nor debris basins exist at the mouths of East
Etiwanda and San Sevaine creeks, enabling natural fluvial processes to
maintain favorable habitat conditions on the upper alluvial fan and in
other portions of the critical habitat unit. However, urban development
and existing and proposed flood control structures will preclude the
occurrence of future natural fluvial processes in the Etiwanda alluvial
fan south of 24th Street/Wilson Avenue (Biological Opinion, FWS-SB-
1743.5 Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, February 7, 2002). Despite
these conditions, the San Bernardino kangaroo rat persists within San
Bernardino County Transportation and Flood Control District property
and approximately 65 ha (155 ac) of this habitat within the critical
habitat unit has been set aside and will be managed primarily for the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Recognized local San Bernardino kangaroo
rat authority, Robert McKernan, states that areas
[[Page 19820]]
within historic flood regimes (such as western Lytle Creek fan
including the Etiwanda wash) should be given equal priority to the
major population areas of the Santa Ana River and Cajon Wash in
considering the survival and recovery of the San Bernardino kangaroo
rat (R. McKernan 1999).
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do
not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat to the extent that the
action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for the
conservation of the species. Individuals, organizations, States, local
governments, and other non-Federal entities are affected by the
designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on Federal
lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other authorization, or
involve Federal funding.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into
consultation with us. Through this consultation, we would ensure that
the permitted actions do not adversely modify critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the
project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives
are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during
consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the
intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of
the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are
economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director
believes would avoid resulting in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical
habitat is subsequently designated, and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation or conferencing with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical
habitat. Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to
assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the
proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a conference
report are advisory.
We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal
action agency. Formal conference reports include a biological opinion
that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species was
listed or critical habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal
conference report as the biological opinion when the species is listed
or critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR
402.10(d)).
Activities on Federal lands that may affect the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat or its critical habitat will require consultation under
section 7 of the Act. Activities on private or State lands requiring a
permit from a Federal agency, such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or some
other Federal action, including funding (e.g., Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or Federal Emergency
Management Agency) will also continue to be subject to the consultation
process pursuant to section 7 of the Act. Federal actions not affecting
listed species or critical habitat and actions on non-Federal lands
that are not federally funded or permitted do not require consultation
under section 7 of the Act.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely
modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat
include those that alter the primary constituent elements to an extent
that the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery
of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is appreciably reduced. We note that
such activities may also jeopardize the continued existence of the
species. Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Any activity that results in changes in the hydrology of the
unit, including activities associated with flood control structures and
operations; construction of levees, berms, and concrete channels;
flooding; sediment, sand, or gravel removal, transfer, or deposition;
grading; excavation; and construction or modification of bridges;
(2) Any activity that results in development or alteration of the
landscape within or immediately adjacent to fluvial systems, including
water diversion, reclamation, and recharge activities; agricultural
activities; urban and industrial development; water conservation
activities; off-road activity; and mechanized land clearing or discing;
(3) Any activity that results in changes to the water quality or
quantity to an extent that habitat becomes unsuitable to support the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat;
(4) Any activity that could lead to the introduction, expansion, or
increased density of exotic plant or animal species, urban-associated
domestic animals (e.g., cats), or livestock into San Bernardino
kangaroo rat habitat;
(5) Any activity that results in appreciable detrimental changes to
the density or diversity of plant or animal populations in San
Bernardino kangaroo rat habitat, such as grubbing, grading,
overgrazing, mining, discing, off-road vehicle use, or the application
of herbicides, rodenticides, or other pesticides; and
(6) Any activity that could result in an appreciably decreased
habitat value or quality through indirect effects, such as noise, edge
effects, night-time lighting, or fragmentation.
To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we
must first compare the requirements pursuant to section 7 of the Act
for actions that
[[Page 19821]]
may affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may
affect a listed species. Section 7 of the Act prohibits actions funded,
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the
continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely
modifying the listed species' critical habitat. Actions likely to
``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a species are those that
would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and
recovery. Actions likely to ``destroy or adversely modify'' critical
habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the value of critical
habitat for the recovery of the listed species.
Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on
recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of these
definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species
concerned, particularly when the area of the proposed action is
occupied by the species concerned. Designation of critical habitat in
areas occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is not likely to
result in a significant regulatory burden above that already in place
due to the presence of the listed species. In that portion of critical
habitat that is not currently known to be occupied or if occupied
habitat becomes unoccupied in the future, critical habitat may provide
a benefit through the recognition of the importance of these areas to
the conservation of the species. However, the Corps already currently
requires review of most or all projects requiring permits in all
fluvial systems, whether San Bernardino kangaroo rats are known to be
present.
Designation of critical habitat could affect Federal agency
activities. Federal agencies already consult pursuant to section 7 of
the Act with the Service on activities in areas known to be occupied by
the species to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. These actions include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the U.S. by the
Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
(2) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation,
and regulation of agricultural activities;
(3) Regulation of airport construction and improvement activities
by the Federal Aviation Administration;
(4) Licensing of construction of communication sites by the Federal
Communications Commission; and
(5) Funding of activities by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Energy, or any other Federal agency.
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will
likely constitute destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, contact the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of the regulations
on listed wildlife, and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be
addressed to the Division of Endangered Species, U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181
(telephone 503-231-6158; facsimile 503-231-6243).
Relationship to Habitat Conservation Plans and Other Planning
Efforts
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes the Service to issue to
non-Federal entities a permit for the incidental take of endangered and
threatened species. This permit allows a non-Federal landowner to
proceed with an activity that is legal in all other respects, but that
results in the incidental taking of a listed species. The Act defines
incidental take as take that is ``incidental to, and not the purpose
of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.'' A habitat
conservation plan, or HCP, must accompany an application for an
incidental take permit. The purpose of the HCP is to describe and
ensure that the effects of the permitted action on covered species are
adequately minimized and mitigated and that the action does not
appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of the species.
The State of California instituted a conservation planning program
parallel to the Federal HCP program. Under the Natural Community
Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act of 1991, a NCCP is a plan for the
conservation of natural communities that takes an ecosystem approach
and encourages cooperation between private and government interests.
The Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) work
with applicants to develop plans that serve both as an HCP under the
Federal Endangered Species Act as well as an NCCP under the State's
NCCP Act. Much like a regional HCP, an NCCP identifies and provides for
the regional or area-wide protection and perpetuation of plants,
animals, and their habitats, while allowing compatible land use and
economic activity. The initial focus of this program is coastal sage
scrub. Within this program, the CDFG included the long-term
conservation of alluvial sage scrub, which is in part occupied by the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat. However, participation in NCCP is
voluntary. San Bernardino and Riverside counties have signed planning
agreements (memoranda of understanding (MOUs)) to develop multi-species
plans that meet NCCP criteria, but have not enrolled in the NCCP
program in the interim.
We are coordinating with the BLM, Corps, San Bernardino Valley
Conservation District, Sun West Materials, Robertson's Ready Mix, and
other local interests in an attempt to establish the Santa Ana River
Wash Conservation Area. The objective of these discussions is to
consolidate a conservation area consisting of alluvial fan scrub
communities occupied by four federally listed species, but as yet, we
have not completed this process.
Because there are no approved HCPs/NCCPs in which the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat is a covered species or other conservation
plans that are currently completed that specifically address the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we did not exclude any lands from this
critical habitat designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act on
this basis.
In the event that future HCPs covering the San Bernardino kangaroo
rat are developed within the boundaries of designated critical habitat,
we will work with applicants to ensure that the HCPs provide for
protection and management of habitat areas essential for the
conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat by either directing
development and habitat modification to nonessential areas or
appropriately modifying activities within essential habitat areas so
that such activities will not adversely modify the primary constituent
elements. The HCP development process provides an opportunity for more
intensive data collection and analysis regarding the use of particular
habitat areas by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The process also
enables us to conduct detailed evaluations of the importance of such
lands to the long-term survival of the species in the context of
constructing a biologically configured system of interlinked habitat
blocks.
We will provide technical assistance and work closely with
applicants throughout the development of future HCPs to identify
appropriate management for lands essential for the long-term
conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The take minimization
and compensation measures provided under these HCPs are expected to
protect the essential habitat lands designated as critical habitat in
this rule. If an HCP that addresses the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as
a covered species is ultimately approved, the Service may reassess the
[[Page 19822]]
critical habitat boundaries in light of the HCP.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the December 8, 2000, proposed critical habitat designation (65
FR 77178), we requested all interested parties to submit comments on
the specifics of the proposal including information related to
biological justification, policy, economics, and proposed critical
habitat boundaries. The first comment period closed on February 6,
2001. The comment period was reopened from September 4, 2001, to
October 4, 2001 (66 FR 46251), to allow for additional comments on the
proposed designation, and comments on the draft economic analysis of
the proposed critical habitat. Comments received after the close of
this last comment period were determined not to provide substantive
comment that had not already been raised or addressed and entered into
the supportive record for this rulemaking.
We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, Tribes,
county governments, elected officials, and other interested parties and
invited them to comment. In addition, we invited public comment through
the publication of legal notices in two newspapers in southern
California: San Bernardino County Sun and Riverside Press Enterprise on
December 11, 2000, and again in both papers on September 4, 2001. We
provided notification of the draft economic analysis through telephone
calls, letters, and news releases faxed and/or mailed to affected
elected officials, media outlets, local jurisdictions, and interest
groups. We also published the draft economic analysis and associated
material on our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Internet site
following its release on September 4, 2001. In addition to inviting
public comment on the proposed designation and the draft economic
analysis on the proposed designation, the latter notices announced the
dates and times of public hearings on the proposed designation. These
hearings were held on September 20, 2001, in San Bernardino, California
from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Transcripts of
these hearings are available for inspection (see ADDRESSES section).
We asked nine biologists, who have knowledge of the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat, to provide peer review of the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat; six responded.
Five of the six supported the designation, although several expressed
concerns with the ability of the amount of habitat proposed to provide
for the persistence and recovery of the species; one was non-committal.
Several of the reviewers felt that the Braden and McKernan (2000) study
could be misleading, as their methods for quantifying the percent cover
of habitat could give the impression that marginal upland mature shrub
habitat had the same value as high quality alluvial scrub. Their
comments have been either addressed in the text or responded to below.
We received a total of 66 comment letters/testimonies, from 54
separate parties, during the two public comment periods. Comments were
received from a number of Federal and local agencies, and separate
private organizations or individuals. Of these 66 comments, 10 were in
favor of the designation, 52 against it, and 4 were neutral. We
reviewed all comments received for substantive issues and comments, and
new information regarding the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Similar
comments were grouped into three general issues relating specifically
to the proposed critical habitat determination and draft economic
analysis on the proposed determination. Comments have been incorporated
directly into the final rule or final addendum to the economic analysis
or addressed in the following summary.
Issue 1: Biological Justification and Methodology
1. Comment: The scale of the proposed critical habitat for the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat is overly broad, resulting in vague unit
boundaries. Several commenters questioned the biological justification
for proposing critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat
using such a landscape-scale approach. Several commenters were
concerned that the mapping lacked precision for use by the public.
Several commenters voiced concern that areas that should not be
designated as critical habitat were included because of the mapping
scale.
Our Response: We recognize that not all parcels of land designated
as critical habitat will contain the habitat components essential to
the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Due to time
constraints, and the absence of more detailed map information during
the preparation of the proposed designation, we used a 100-m UTM grid
to delineate the critical habitat boundaries. This resulted in the
inclusion of some lands that did not provide the primary constituent
elements for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, such as homes and urban
landscapes.
In developing the final designation, we made an effort to minimize
the inclusion of nonessential areas that do not contain the primary
constituent elements for the kangaroo rat. However, due to our mapping
scale, some areas not essential to the conservation of the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat were included within the boundaries of proposed
and final critical habitat. We were able to refine our boundaries
considerably with recent (2001) aerial imagery which allowed for the
exclusion of many areas that do not contain the primary constituent
elements. These areas, such as towns, housing developments, mines, or
other developed lands are unlikely to provide essential habitat for the
kangaroo rat. Because they do not contain one or more of the primary
constituent elements for the species, Federal actions limited to those
areas will not trigger a section 7 consultation, unless they affect the
species or the primary constituent elements of adjacent critical
habitat.
2. Comment: Several peer reviewers, in addition to other
commenters, had concerns that the amount of land proposed as critical
habitat was not sufficient for the survival and long-term conservation
of the species. Additionally, some commenters thought that the critical
habitat proposal was overly broad, containing too much land, and one
commenter supported the delineation of the proposed designation.
Our Response: In proposing critical habitat for the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat, we identified those areas that we believed to be
essential to the conservation of this species. However, the mapping
scale that we used resulted in a more inclusive proposal. We did not
include all areas currently occupied by the kangaroo rat, but
designated those areas that possess larger populations, have unique
ecological characteristics, and/or represent the historic geographic
areas where the species can be re-established. Please refer to the
Background and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections of
this final rule for further discussion on this topic.
After refining our proposal and weighing the best available
information, we conclude that the areas designated by this final rule,
including currently occupied areas that were not known to be occupied
at the time the species was listed, are essential for the conservation
of the species.
3. Comment: Several peer reviewers and other commenters indicated
that certain areas within the proposed critical habitat were either
known to be occupied (e.g., Etiwanda Creek Channel, Day Creek Channel,
San Antonio Wash
[[Page 19823]]
near Baseline Road, Etiwanda Fan) or were not occupied (e.g., Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District facilities, Rancho
Cucamonga, Fontana).
Our Response: Data used in the preparation of our proposed and
final designations indicate that the Etiwanda Creek Channel, Day Creek
Channel, San Antonio Wash near Baseline Road, Etiwanda Fan, and areas
in Fontana are occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The
majority of the Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District
facilities mentioned by the commenters (e.g., small properties,
buildings, wells) are located in areas of the San Jacinto Wash in which
we have current documentation of occupancy by the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat.
4. Comment: Some commenters were concerned with the definition of
``occupied'' in the proposed rule claiming that it was problematic,
unsupportable, and inconsistent.
Our Response: In the proposed rule and for this final designation,
we defined occupancy based on documented occurrence data for the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat for the last fifteen years. We evaluated the
location of observations relative to other documented occurrences to
obtain an understanding of the mosaic of occupied habitat within
appropriate suitable plant communities and wash habitat. We then
evaluated the estimated territory size, potential use area and
dispersal distances documented for other kangaroo rat species and
applied those trends for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
We understand that this definition of occupancy may differ from
public perception of detectable presence of a kangaroo rat during each
survey event over all of designated critical habitat. We believe that
based on the behavior and ecology of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as
extrapolated from the best available scientific data, the animal may
not be detectable at all times across all areas designated as critical
habitat. Based on our analysis we believe we have properly defined
occupancy as it relates to the behavior and ecology of the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat.
5. Comment: Several peer reviewers pointed out that small, isolated
populations of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat may contain important
genetic material for the species. They also suggested that the Service
conduct a population genetics study to determine whether or not to
include them in critical habitat.
Our Response: Small isolated populations of the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat may provide important genetic material for the species and
its long-term conservation. However, we currently do not have any
information concerning the genetic diversity of these populations.
Further, due to the time constraints for completing this designation,
we were unable to develop and or conduct a biologically and
statistically rigorous study to evaluate the genetics of the remaining
San Bernardino kangaroo rat populations. Therefore, we did not have
substantive information to determine and support that these small
isolated populations are essential to the long-term conservation of the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Thus, the areas containing them were not
designated as critical habitat.
6. Comment: The descriptions of the primary constituent elements of
critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat are not specific,
or are vague, incorrect, and/or confusing.
Our Response: The description of the primary constituent elements
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is based on the best available
scientific and commercial data regarding the species, including a
compilation of data from peer-reviewed, published literature;
unpublished or non-peer-reviewed survey and research reports; and
opinions of biologists knowledgeable about the San Bernardino kangaroo
rat and its habitat. Additionally, we updated the biological
information, including the primary constituent elements, in this final
rule based on information that we received from survey reports during
2002, public comments, and scientific and commercial data.
Consequently, the primary constituent elements, as described in this
final rule, represent our best estimate of what habitat components are
essential for the conservation of the species. Please refer to the
Primary Constituent Elements section of this final rule for a further
discussion on this topic.
7. Comment: One commenter questioned the methodology that we used
to determine the critical habitat boundaries and indicated that the
proposed designation must be substantially revised and resubmitted for
public comments before it is finalized
Our Response: As described in the Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat section of this final rule we describe the methods
used to define critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. In
general, to delineate critical habitat boundaries we used data
regarding (1) known San Bernardino kangaroo rat occurrences, (2)
alluvial fan sage scrub and associated vegetation, (3) geomorphology,
and (4) connectivity corridors between San Bernardino kangaroo rat
population. Once these areas were defined, we then evaluated them for
conservation value and removed any lands determined not to be essential
to the long-term conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (e.g.,
urban, active mining, and agriculture).
During the development of this final designation, the lands
proposed for designation were further re-evaluated and refined based on
more recent aerial photography, public comment, and information
received since the publication of the proposed designation. The
critical habitat boundaries defined in this final rule have been
reduced from those identified in the proposal.
8. Comment: Several peer reviewers and one commenter expressed
concern with the use of the data from Braden and McKernan (2000) to
include upland areas such as vineyards (current/historical),
agricultural lands, and mature alluvial fan sage scrub in the proposed
critical habitat.
Our Response: The Braden and McKernan (2000) study provided
additional new, specific data about the habitat characteristics where
the species has been documented; we realize that this study indicates
the range of habitat characteristics in which the species can occur. We
recognize that the study was not designed to indicate/describe habitat
affinities or habitat preferences by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
We used this information, realizing its limitations, when developing
our best estimate of areas that are important for the conservation of
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Please refer to the background section
in this final rule for an expanded discussion on this topic.
9. Comment: Several peer reviewers were concerned that the survey
protocol was insufficient to determine presence/absence; therefore,
data used to determine the proposed critical habitat was flawed.
Additionally, one commenter was concerned that the Service assumed that
many areas were occupied without protocol surveys.
Our Response: We currently do not have an approved survey protocol
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. However, based on repeated field
sampling, we have developed a standard minimum methodology for
conducting presence/absence surveys. We are currently reviewing
proposed changes to increase the accuracy of this survey methodology
and decrease the chances of error in detecting the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat if present.
For determining critical habitat, we evaluated the current
distribution of the
[[Page 19824]]
San Bernardino kangaroo rat based on documented sightings or captures
and incorporated those areas that we believed to be essential to the
conservation of the species based on this occurrence information in the
critical habitat designation.
10. Comment: The proposed rule inappropriately uses a ``recovery
standard'' to determine critical habitat for the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat.
Our Response: The definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A)
of the Act includes ``(i) specific areas within the geographic area
occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the
Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I)
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific
areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it
is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species.'' The term ``conservation'', as defined in
section 3(3) of the Act, means ``to use and the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to the Act are no longer necessary.''
In designating critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo
rat, pursuant to the Act, we identified those areas that currently
contain one or more of the physical or biological features, primary
constituent elements, essential to the conservation of the species. We
did not include all areas currently occupied by the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat or containing the primary constituent elements, but
designated only those areas determined to be essential to the species
conservation and characterized by large populations, unique ecological
characteristics, and historic geographic areas where the species can be
re-established.
11. Comment: The lands that are being proposed as critical habitat
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat represent a huge, unsubstantiated
increase from the amount of habitat that was described in the final
listing rule, and even now, as being occupied by this species. There is
a lack of data to support this increase in occupied area for the
species.
Our Response: In our final rule to list the San Bernardino kangaroo
rat as endangered (63 FR 51005), we estimated that approximately 5,279
ha (13,044 ac) were likely occupied. In this final critical habitat
designation we are designating approximately 13,485 ha (33,295 ac) as
essential, of which approximately 330 ha (815 ac) are currently not
known to be occupied. The approximate two-fold increase over the
approximate amount of land occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat
at the time it was federally listed is based on additional data and
research that has expanded our knowledge on the distribution and
habitat needs of the species. Please refer to the background section of
this final rule for a more detailed discussion of this issue.
12. Comment: The broad scale of the proposed critical habitat maps
is not specific enough to allow for reasonable public comment,
therefore violating the Act and 50 CFR 424.12(c).
Our Response: We identified specific areas in the proposed
determination that are referenced by public land surveys and UTM
coordinates, which are found on standard topographic maps. We also made
available a public viewing room where maps with the proposed critical
habitat superimposed on 7.5 minute topographic maps and spot imagery
could be inspected. Further, we distributed GIS coverages and maps of
the proposed critical habitat to everyone who requested them. We
believe the information made available to the public was sufficiently
detailed to allow for informed public comment. This final rule contains
the legal descriptions of areas designated as critical habitat required
under 50 CFR 424.12(c). The accompanying maps are for illustration
purposes only. If additional clarification is necessary, please contact
the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section).
13. Comment: According to one peer reviewer, geomorphological and
hydrological processes, and presently unoccupied habitat are critical
to the survival and conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
The commenter recommended including side channels in the critical
habitat designation.
Our Response: As we discuss in the Background section of this rule,
we concur with the commenter on the importance of these
geomorphological and hydrological processes for creating and
maintaining habitat essential to the survival and conservation of the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat. We considered the importance of these
processes and side channels when delineating the boundaries of critical
habitat for this final designation and included the areas providing for
those geomorphological and hydrological processes that are essential
for the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
14. Comment: Several commenters felt that we proposed critical
habitat before we obtained all of ``the best scientific evidence'; that
we should conduct additional surveys or research (such as estimate the
minimum viable population size); and that there is evidence to
designate critical habitat areas outside of occupied habitat.
Our Response: We are required to use the best available information
in designating critical habitat. During the development of the proposed
designation and following its publication during the two open comment
periods, we solicited biological data and public participation in the
rule making process. These comments have been taken into consideration
in the development of this final designation. As stated in several
sections of this final designation, we used data collected during 2001
and 2002 to determine the final configuration of critical habitat. Data
from 2002 corroborated occupancy and assisted in further defining
critical habitat boundaries. We are currently unable to conduct a
population viability analysis for or more detailed research on the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat due to time and funding constraints. We are
currently required under a court-approved settlement agreement to
finalize this designation by April 15, 2002. However, we will continue
to monitor the species and collect new information and may revise the
critical habitat designation in the future, funding permitting, if new
information supports a change.
Issue 2: Policy and Regulations
15. Comment: The Service violated the Administrative Procedure Act
by not providing adequate public notice to all affected landowners, not
providing sufficient opportunity for public comment, or extending the
comment period to allow for adequate time for comment.
Our Response: We published the proposed rule to designate critical
habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat on December 8, 2000 (65 FR
77178), and accepted comments from the public for 60 days, until
February 6, 2001. The comment period was reopened from September 4,
2001, to October 4, 2001 (66 FR 46251), to allow for additional
comments on the proposed designation, and comments on the draft
economic analysis on the proposed critical habitat. Comments received
after the close of the last comment period were determined not to
provide substantive comments that had not already been raised or
addressed and entered into the supportive record for this rulemaking.
We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, Tribes,
county governments, elected officials, and other
[[Page 19825]]
interested parties and invited them to comment. In addition, we invited
public comment through the publication of notices in the following
newspapers in southern California: San Bernardino Sun and Riverside
Press Enterprise on December 11, 2000, and again in both papers on
September 4, 2001. We provided notification of the draft economic
analysis through telephone calls, letters, and news releases faxed and/
or mailed to affected elected officials, media local jurisdictions, and
interest groups. We also published the draft economic analysis and
associated material on our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Internet
site following the draft's release on September 4, 2001. In addition to
inviting public comment on the proposed designation and the draft
economic analysis for the proposed designation, the latter notices
announced the dates and times of public hearings on the proposed
designation. These hearings were held on September 20, 2001, in San
Bernardino, California from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to
8:00 p.m. Transcripts of these hearings are available for inspection
(see ADDRESSES section).
16. Comment: A commenter indicated that our re-evaluation of the
prudency of designating critical habitat for the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat was insufficient.
Our Response: In our final rule listing the San Bernardino kangaroo
rat as endangered under the Act (63 FR 51005), we found that
designation of critical habitat was not prudent because we believed
that designation could result in an increase in the degree of threat to
the species. As we discuss in the Previous Federal Action section of
this final rule, we were challenged on our original ``not prudent''
finding. On November 3, 1999, we agreed to a stipulated settlement that
required us to publish a proposal to withdraw the existing ``not
prudent'' critical habitat determination and re-evaluate the prudency
of designating critical habitat. If designation of critical habitat for
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was determined to be prudent, we agreed
to publish a proposed designation by December 1, 2000, and a final
designation by December 1, 2001. The publication of our December 8,
2000, proposal and this final rule are in compliance with the
stipulated settlement agreement and subsequent court orders. A detailed
discussion of our re-evaluation of the prudency of designating critical
habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is located in the Previous
Federal Action section of the proposed designation. In short, our re-
evaluation of the prudency of designating critical habitat resulted in
our concluding that the benefits of designating critical habitat
outweighed the benefits of not designating (i.e., threats to the
species due to the release of specific habitat or occurrence
information). Pursuant to section 3 of the Act, and the implementing
regulations, in the absence of finding that critical habitat would
increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to critical
habitat being designated, then a prudent finding is warranted.
17. Comment: The Service violated the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) by failing to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for the designation of critical habitat.
Our Response: As discussed in the National Environmental Policy Act
section of the proposed rule and this final, we have determined that it
is not necessary to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an
Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to
section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act as amended. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
18. Comment: Tribal lands should be excluded from critical habitat
based on either section 4(b)(2) of the Act, Secretarial Order 3206, or
because Tribal lands are managed better voluntarily.
Our Response: In our proposed critical habitat rule, we indicated
that approximately 465 ha (1,150 ac) of lands within the Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians Reservation in western Riverside County were essential
for the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. In the
development of the final critical habitat designation for the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we re-evaluated these Tribal lands to
determine if they were essential to the conservation of the kangaroo
rat and whether they should be designated as critical habitat. Based on
distribution information for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat in the San
Jacinto Wash, the continuity of kangaroo rat habitat extending up the
tributaries adjacent to occupied habitat, and slope, vegetation, and
disturbance information; we have re-defined the area designated as
critical habitat on the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation.
Additionally, we refined the 100 meter grid line used in the proposal
to the essential critical habitat line along the edges of the two
washes and the main portion of the river on Tribal land and removed
from the designation a non-essential disturbed area on the western edge
of Tribal lands on the north side of the river that is proposed for
economic development. The result of this analysis and refinement was
the reduction of critical habitat on Tribal land to 290 ha (710 ac).
Currently the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians does not have a
resource management plan which provides protection or conservation for
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and its habitat. We are committed to
maintaining a positive working relationship with the Tribe and will
continue to work with them on developing a resource management plan for
the Reservation including conservation measures for the kangaroo rat.
However, due to the time constraints for completing this final rule and
the lack of an existing resource management plan covering the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we were required to finalize the designation
based on our analysis of the relative importance of the lands within
the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation for the conservation of
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
For a further discussion of this issue please refer to the
Government-To-Government Relationship With Tribes section of this final
rule.
19. Comment: Many commenters, including all of the peer reviewers,
suggested that additional lands be designated as critical habitat for
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The areas suggested include additional
lands upwind and upstream from lands contained within proposed critical
habitat that are important to maintain San Bernardino kangaroo rat
habitat, upland refugia areas up to 600 meters (1,950 feet) from
channels, other known occupied sites, and other lands to connect the
proposed critical habitat units together. The commenters indicated that
these areas are needed for the long-term conservation of the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat.
Our Response: We did not include all of the lands, both general and
specific, suggested by the commenters in proposed critical habitat
because, at the time of proposal, we concluded that these lands were
not essential for the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat
based on available information concerning status of the species in the
specific areas and level of habitat disturbance and fragmentation. Only
those lands that we believed to be essential to the conservation of the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat based on the best scientific and commercial
data available at the time the proposal was being developed were
included in the proposed critical habitat designation.
[[Page 19826]]
20. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern over the
inclusion of the former Norton Air Force Base in final critical
habitat.
Our Response: Portions of the lands within the former Norton Air
Force Base (NAFB) were included in the proposed designation of critical
habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Currently, NAFB is in the
process of being turned over to the San Bernardino County Airport
Authority and the Inland Valley Development Agency for use as a
regional airport. During the development of the final designation, we
re-evaluated those lands proposed as critical habitat that fell within
the NAFB. Based on this re-evaluation and refinement, most of the land
within the former NAFB was not included in this final critical habitat
because it was determined not to be essential to the conservation of
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. All areas north of (and including) the
runway have been removed from the final critical habitat designation
because additional evaluation showed the area to be too highly degraded
and fragmented to provide for conservation of the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat. Areas south of the runway, adjacent to or in the Santa
Ana River channel, are still considered essential to the conservation
of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat because these support suitable
habitat and existing populations.
Further, we completed an informal consultation with the Federal
Aviation Authority regarding two grants, a $7 million grant to
construct a Joint Powers Authority training facility and another grant
between $5 and $20 million to rehabilitate the main runway. In our
consultations on these two grants, following the proposal of critical
habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, we determined that the
construction of the JPA facility and the rehabilitation of the main
runway will not adversely affect proposed critical habitat. The primary
areas affected by these projects have been removed from designated
critical habitat because they were determined to not be essential to
the long-term conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat due to
the degraded condition of the area.
Commenters were additionally concerned that the designation of
critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat would affect a
$1.3 million grant that the San Bernardino International Airport
Authority was applying for to construct a hanger. A consultation with
us pursuant to section 7 of the Act was not necessary because the
proposed action did not affect any San Bernardino kangaroo rats or
their habitat and was not within proposed critical habitat. The grant
has since been awarded to the airport authority.
21. Comment: Emergency maintenance activities for the County of San
Bernardino and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District should
be exempted from designation within critical habitat.
Our Response: Emergency maintenance activities are not exempt from
consultation under section 7 of the Act. The regulations at 50 CFR
402.05 allow for informal consultation where emergency circumstances
mandate the need to consult in an expedited manner. Formal consultation
should be initiated as soon as possible after the emergency is under
control. We have conducted programmatic consultations with FEMA and
other Federal agencies for future anticipated emergency actions. These
consultations can be conducted prior to the emergency and address
anticipated response activities. In addition, there is a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the Service and FEMA which involves
expedited consultation time frames.
22. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern regarding the
inclusion of water and flood control district properties and facilities
(e.g., Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Redlands)
in the proposed critical habitat areas.
Our Response: Lands proposed and designated in this final rule have
been determined to be essential to the conservation of the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat by providing biological and physical requisites
for the animals survival and long-term conservation. In developing our
designation we attempted to exclude those areas that do not currently
contain the primary constituent elements essential to the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, such as urban areas and land altered by active
agriculture or mining. However, due to our minimum mapping scale and
based on the photographic accuracy of our GIS data, some areas not
containing the primary constituent elements essential to the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat were included in designated critical habitat.
Activities in which there is a Federal nexus that occur in these areas
would not trigger a consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act
unless those activities may affect a listed species or may directly or
indirectly affect primary constituent elements in adjacent critical
habitat.
23. Comment: A number of commenters identified specific areas that
they thought should not be designated as critical habitat (e.g.,
Etiwanda and San Sevine Channel south of State Route 30; all of Units
4, 5, and 6; various project development areas).
Our Response: Where site-specific documentation was submitted to us
providing a rationale and supporting documentation as to why an area
should not be designated critical habitat, we evaluated that
information in accordance with the definition of critical habitat
pursuant to section 3 of the Act and made a determination as to whether
modifications to the proposal were appropriate. As discussed in the
background sections of the proposed rule and this final rule, areas
containing smaller populations of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat were
removed from critical habitat in this final designation because they
were determined not to be essential to the long-term conservation of
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The basis for this determination and
removing them from the final designation was based on the information
indicating that the small scattered populations or habitats occurred in
areas that were highly fragmented by urban and agricultural development
or no longer subject to hydrological and geomorphological processes
that would naturally maintain alluvial sage scrub vegetation. Lands
proposed as critical habitat that were excluded from this final
designation based on this re-evaluation included portions of Etiwanda
and San Sevine channels within Unit 4, and Units 5 and 6 in their
entirety.
24. Comment: Critical habitat should be retained within the
boundaries of approved HCPs. HCPs cannot be viewed as a functional
substitute for critical habitat designation, and they provide
inadequate protection and special management considerations for the
species and their habitat. Other commenters supported the exclusion of
approved HCPs from critical habitat designation, and several commenters
wanted pending HCPs to be excluded, as well. They supported their
recommendations by asserting that landowners will be reluctant to
participate in HCPs unless they have incentives, including the removal
of critical habitat from HCP boundaries.
Our Response: The designation of critical habitat should not deter
participation in the Natural Community Conservation Program (NCCP) or
HCP processes. Approvals issued under these processes include
assurances of no additional mitigation through the HCP No Surprises
regulation (63 FR 8859). We recognize that critical habitat is only one
of many conservation tools for federally listed species. HCPs are one
of
[[Page 19827]]
the most important tools for reconciling land use with the conservation
of listed species on non-Federal lands. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
allows us to exclude from critical habitat areas where the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, provided the exclusion
will not result in the extinction of the species. We believe that in
most instances the benefits of excluding HCPs from critical habitat
designations will outweigh the benefits of including them. Currently,
there are no approved and legally operative HCPs in which the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat is a covered species and management is provided
for the species' long-term conservation.
25. Comment: The Service violated the Administrative Procedure Act
and Endangered Species Act by not making the scientific data relied on
in formulating the proposed rule available for public review and
comment despite requests from interested parties and that we should
also inform the public of areas that are occupied that we did not
propose as critical habitat.
Our Response: In the proposed rule, we stated that all supporting
documentation, including the references and unpublished data used in
the preparation of the proposed rule, would be available for public
inspection at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. A public viewing
room was made available at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office where
the proposed critical habitat units, superimposed on 7.5 minute
topographic maps, could be inspected. In addition, we responded to each
request for GIS maps and data supporting the rulemaking in a timely
manner by providing copies of the maps and data. Additionally, data
concerning the occurrences of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat used in
the analysis for the proposed designation were also made available to
the public, if requested. These data have also been provided to several
of the local jurisdictions in western Riverside and San Bernardino
counties for use in the development of the regional HCPs. The
occurrence data and supporting documentation used in the rulemaking are
available for inspection at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office by
appointment (Please see ADDRESSES Section of this rule).
26. Comment: The designation of critical habitat would place an
additional burden on landowners above and beyond what the listing of
the species would require. The number of section 7 consultations will
increase; areas where no San Bernardino kangaroo rat are known to occur
will now be subject to consultations under section 7 of the Act since
many Federal agencies previously have been making ``no effect''
determinations within unoccupied suitable habitat. Now, with the
designation of critical habitat the Federal agencies may be required to
consult and there could be an increase in ``may effect''
determinations, if any primary constituent elements are effected by the
proposed action.
Our Response: As discussed in this rule and our economic analysis,
consultations pursuant to section 7 of the Act would only occur for
activities that may affect a federally listed species or critical
habitat in which there is a Federal nexus. We acknowledge that there
may be some additional consultations pursuant to section 7 of the Act
because of the designation critical habitat for the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat. However, we believe that in the areas occupied by the
species (i.e., approximately 97.5 percent of designated critical
habitat), Federal agencies should have already been consulting with us
on activities affecting the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and its habitat
due to it being listed as a federally endangered species. Further,
because the portion of critical habitat that is not currently known to
be occupied is located downstream of occupied habitat, activities
occurring in this area with a Federal nexus may have also been
subjected to consultation under section 7 of the Act. Therefore, we
believe that additional consultations, or efforts such as technical
assistance, would be minimal as the result of the designation of
critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
27. Comment: Critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat
is needed because the current legal protections are insufficient to
protect the species and its habitat (both occupied and unoccupied) from
direct and indirect impacts.
Our Response: The San Bernardino kangaroo rat and lands occupied by
the species currently receive protection under sections 7, 9, and 10 of
the Act. Much of the remaining habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo
rat occurs in areas that are under the ACOE jurisdiction. The ACOE, as
well as other Federal agencies, are required to consult with us when an
action they permit, fund or authorize ``may affect'' a listed species.
Additionally, habitats used by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (e.g.,
Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub, coastal sage scrub, alluvial fan
scrub) are considered sensitive under California Environmental Quality
Act and must be addressed during that process. We will continue to work
with local landowners to protect and enhance kangaroo rat habitat.
28. Comment: Consultations under section 7 of the Act are required
for projects (e.g., building, development) on private property in
critical habitat because an HCP is needed for these projects regardless
of occupancy because there is a ``may effect'' to critical habitat.
Our Response: We disagree with the commenter that any development
project occurring in designated critical habitat for the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat would require a Federal permit. A consultation pursuant to
section 7 of the Act would only be triggered if there was a Federal
action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat. A Federal
action is any action funded, permitted or otherwise authorized by a
Federal action agency. Where there is no Federal nexus, a consultation
pursuant to section 7 of the Act would not be triggered. If a Federal
nexus does not exist, we would work with the project proponent on the
development of a HCP and issuance of an incidental take permit for
actions that may affect a federally listed species. As part of this
process, we are required, pursuant to section 7 of the Act, to evaluate
the issuance of the incidental take permit for the proposed action to
ensure that the action as proposed would not jeopardize the continued
existence of the species covered under the HCP, nor result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat designated
within the planning area of the HCP such that it would appreciably
reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species.
29. Comment: The proposed critical habitat rule violates section
4(b)(8) of the Act by not including (1) a summary of data used in the
development of the proposal, (2) relationship of the data to proposed
critical habitat, and (3) a description of activities that may
adversely modify critical habitat.
Our Response: We disagree with the commenter that we violated
section 4(b)(8) of the Act by not including a summary of data used in
the development of the proposal, did not provide a discussion of the
relationship of the data to proposed critical habitat, and did not
provide a description of activities that may adversely modify critical
habitat. In the Background section of this final rule, and the
proposal, we discuss at length the biology and ecology of the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat and the relationship of this information to
proposed and final critical habitat. The relationship of this data to
designated critical habitat is also discussed in the Primary
Constituent Elements section and in the description of each of the
[[Page 19828]]
critical habitat units. Within these discussions, we cite references or
data sources that our conclusions are based on. A list and copy of each
data source used in the development of this rulemaking are within the
supporting documentation and available for inspection at the Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office (please refer to ADDRESSES section). Further,
the GIS data layers used in the development of critical habitat
boundaries are discussed in the Methods and Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat sections of the proposed rule and this final rule.
Copies of these data layers are also available for inspection at the
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. The description of activities that
may adversely modify critical habitat is discussed in the Section 7
section of this rule. Here we list those activities that would result
in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
30. Comment: Several commenters asserted that too much critical
habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was being proposed on
private land and that critical habitat should only be designated on
Federal lands.
Our Response: The definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A)
of the Act includes ``(i) specific areas within the geographic area
occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the
Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I)
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific
areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it
is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species''. The term ``conservation'', as defined in
section 3(3) of the Act, means ``to use and the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to the Act are no longer necessary.''
In designating critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo
rat, we identified those areas that we know are essential to the
conservation of this species, regardless of land ownership. The Act
does not direct us to limit the designation to Federal lands, or take
into consideration land ownership when developing the designation.
Therefore, we analyzed the area within the current range of this San
Bernardino kangaroo rat to determine which areas are biologically
essential to its conservation. The areas designated as critical habitat
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat provide those habitat components
essential for the survival and conservation of this species.
31. Comment: Critical habitat represents the Service's efforts to
control local government land use and to usurp local governments'
rights to regulate land uses.
Our Response: The designation of critical habitat does not create a
management plan, establish a preserve, reserve, or wilderness area
where no actions are allowed, it does not establish numerical
population goals, prescribe specific management actions (inside or
outside of critical habitat), or directly affect areas not designated
as critical habitat (as discussed in the Critical Habitat section of
this rule). Critical habitat does not ``usurp'' local governments'
rights to regulate land uses. However, the designation may result in
some additional effort by the State and local jurisdictions to review
proposed actions in designated critical habitat pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act and other State or local land use
regulations.
32. Comment: One commenter asserted that we should account for the
loss of critical habitat, and that this loss should be counted against
the permissible ``take'' as per the California Department of Fish and
Game's Natural Community Conservation Program guidelines.
Our Response: The referenced NCCP guidelines directs habitat loss
to areas with low long-term conservation potential that will not
preclude development of adequate preserves and ensures that
connectivity between areas of high habitat value will be maintained.
Under the NCCP guidelines, jurisdictions that are participating in the
program can authorize the loss of or ``take'' of up to five percent of
coastal sage scrub vegetation within their planning area through a
habitat loss permit that requires the concurrence of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game while
they are developing their regional habitat conservation plan. In these
enrolled subregions, habitat loss is regulated by the local
jurisdiction and Service oversight is not dependent upon a Federal
nexus. Therefore, the participating jurisdictions are responsible for
tracking the habitat loss authorized under their habitat loss permit.
Currently, the local jurisdictions in which critical habitat for the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat is being designated are not participating
in the NCCP program.
Additionally, even though habitat loss under the NCCP is not
applicable to consultations under section 7 of the Act, the loss of the
habitat is analyzed in each section 7 consultation for effects to the
baseline of listed species.
Issue 3: Economic Issues
33. Comment: One commenter expressed concern over the use of
Service files, in particular those of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office, to extrapolate future consultations, project modifications, and
re-initiation of consultations based on consultation histories for the
purpose of evaluating potential economic effects of the designation.
The commenter cited the findings of a recent Government Accounting
Office report that indicated that the files at the Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office were unorganized, incomplete, and poorly managed.
Our Response: As a result of the Government Accounting Office's
review of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office's files and the
subsequent report indicating some weaknesses in file management, we
have instituted an electronic file management system which has
corrected many of the apparent weaknesses. Because the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat has only been listed since 1998, and it has been a highly
scrutinized listed species, files and information relevant to the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat have been, and are, well organized, complete,
and properly managed. Therefore, we have a high level of confidence in
information extrapolated from those files. Additionally, as discussed
in the draft economic analysis, values associated with future costs
attributable to future consultations, project modifications, etc. are
averaged from data collected at Fish and Wildlife Offices across the
country.
34. Comment: The public comment period for the Economic Analysis
must be at least 60 days long.
Our Response: According to Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 424.16
(c)(2), we are required to have a public comment period of ``at least
60 days * * * following publication in the Federal Register of a rule
proposing the listing, delisting, or reclassification of a species, or
the designation or revision of critical habitat.'' We published the
proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat on December 8, 2000 (65 FR 77178), and accepted comments
from the public for 60 days, until February 6, 2001. The comment period
was reopened from September 4, 2001, to October 4, 2001 (66 FR 46251),
to allow for additional comments on the proposed designation, and
comments on the draft economic analysis on the proposed critical
habitat. We have fulfilled our requirements under the Act and the CFR
regarding the
[[Page 19829]]
public comment period for the proposed designation of critical habitat
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
35. Comment: We violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act by not
preparing and providing for public comment a detailed initial
regulatory flexibility analysis at the same time as the proposed rule.
Our Response: The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, generally requires
an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act, or any other statute, unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. We are certifying that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities and as a result, neither an initial or final
regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Please refer to the
sections, Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act for further
discussions concerning the potential economic effects for this
designation.
36. Comment: Demographic and economic information regarding the
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians was included in the Draft Economic
Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat, yet they were not personally contacted regarding this
information.
Our Response: Although we try to contact as many stakeholders as
possible, we are not able to contact every potential stakeholder in
order for us to develop a draft economic analysis due to time and
budget constraints. Especially in light of the limited resources and
time available to us, we believe that we were adequately able to
understand the issues of concern to local communities based on public
comments submitted on the proposed rule, on transcripts from public
hearings, and from detailed discussions among our staff and with
representatives from other Federal, State, Tribal, and local government
agencies, as well as some landowners. Information that was used in the
draft Economic Analysis regarding the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
was obtained from existing documents available to the Service. Based on
comments during the public comment period, we attempted to update the
information in the Addendum to the Economic Analysis on the Soboba Band
of Luiseno Indians. We obtained publicly available information
regarding the Tribe from a U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs web site and
included it in our Addendum. In addition, we met with the Tribe during
the development of the critical habitat designation (September 19,
2001) to discuss the potential impacts on Tribal lands. After
discussions with the Tribe and analysis of our biological and physical
data, we have revised the boundaries relative to Tribal lands.
37. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed
rule was not accompanied by an economic analysis as required by law.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.19 requires
us to consider the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We published our
proposed designation of critical habitat for the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat in the Federal Register on December 8, 2000 (65 FR 77178).
At that time, our Division of Economics and their consultants
Industrial Economics, Inc. initiated the draft economic analysis. The
draft Economic Analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation
was made available for public comment and review beginning on September
4, 2001 (66 FR 46251). Following a 30-day public comment period on the
proposal and draft Economic Analysis, a final Addendum to the Economic
Analysis was written based on public comments. Both the draft Economic
Analysis and final Addendum were used in the development of this final
designation of critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
Please refer to the Economic Analysis section of this final rule for a
more detailed discussion of these documents.
38. Comment: The draft Economic Analysis does not provide enough
information to conduct an analysis pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
Our Response: We disagree that the Economic Analysis does not
provide sufficient information to make an informed decision under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We believe that the Economic Analysis very
specifically discusses likely impacts to entities based on probable
land use activities. Furthermore, the Addendum very specifically
addresses weaknesses in the draft Economic Analysis that were
identified during the public comment period. Taken together, we believe
both documents adequately identify where the potential economic impacts
of the proposed rule may lie and the assumptions that were necessary to
generate these estimates. Therefore, they are sufficient to identify
any areas where the economic costs may outweigh the biological benefits
of the designation.
39. Comment: Specific lands should be excluded from proposed
critical habitat pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act because the
economic effects of excluding particular areas outweigh the benefits.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.19 requires
us to consider the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an
area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designating the area as critical
habitat, unless that exclusion will lead to extinction of the species.
As discussed in this final rule and our economic analyses for this
rulemaking, we have determined that no significant adverse economic
effects will result from this critical habitat designation. Further,
based on our re-evaluation of lands proposed as critical habitat, we
believe that the designation of the lands in this final rule as
critical habitat outweigh the benefits of their exclusion from being
designated as critical habitat. Consequently, none of the proposed
lands have been excluded from the designation based on economic impacts
or other relevant factors pursuant to section 4 (b)(2) of the Act.
40. Comment: The Service is obligated to consider ``other relevant
impacts'' in our analysis pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act for
potential exclusions from critical habitat such as the ``projected''
housing crisis in southern California.
Our Response: As previously discussed in this final rule, section
4(b)(2) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.19 require us to consider the
economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from
critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of designating the area as critical habitat,
unless that exclusion will lead to extinction of the species.
We are aware that some of the land that we have designated as
critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat faces significant
development pressure. Development activities can have a significant
effect on the land and the species dependent on the habitat being
developed. We also recognize that many large-scale development projects
are subject to a Federal nexus. As a result, we expect that future
consultations will, in part, include planned and future real estate
development.
However, we believe that these resulting consultations will not
take
[[Page 19830]]
place solely with respect to critical habitat issues. While it is true
that development activities can adversely affect designated critical
habitat, we believe that our future consultations regarding new housing
development will take place because such actions have the potential to
adversely affect a federally listed species. We believe that such
planned projects would require a section 7 consultation regardless of
the critical habitat designation. Again, as we have previously
mentioned, section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult
with us whenever actions they fund, authorize, or carry out may affect
a listed species or its critical habitat.
41. Comment: Several commenters were concerned that the critical
habitat designation would have significant adverse economic impacts to
particular projects, agencies, and/or the economic recovery of entire
region.
Our Response: During the development of critical habitat for the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat, we conducted an analysis of the economic
impacts that were likely to occur as a result of the designation. The
results of our analysis are contained in our draft Economic Analysis
and the final Addendum to the Economic Analysis. Because the areas
being designated are primarily occupied, our Economic Analysis
concluded that the designation would not result in significant economic
impacts to the lands being designated as critical habitat or the
economic recovery of the region as a whole.
42. Comment: The Draft Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat
Designation for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat is flawed, inaccurate,
contains numerous errors, and makes improper assumptions.
Our Response: As previously discussed, section 4(b)(2) of the Act
and 50 CFR 424.19 requires us to consider the economic impact, and any
other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. We published our proposed designation of critical habitat for
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat in the Federal Register on December 8,
2000 (65 FR 77178). At that time, our Division of Economics and their
consultants Industrial Economics, Inc., initiated the draft Economic
Analysis. The draft Economic Analysis of the proposed critical habitat
designation was made available for review and public comment during a
30-day public comment period beginning on September 4, 2001 (66 FR
46251). Based on the public comments received during the open comment
period, a final Addendum to the Economic Analysis of critical habitat
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat was drafted. This final Addendum
addressed the concerns raised through the comment period and took into
consideration new data and a revised methodology. Please refer to the
Economic Analysis section of this final rule for a more detailed
discussion of these documents. Copies of both the draft Economic
Analysis and the final Addendum are in the supporting record for this
rulemaking and can be inspected by contacting the Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (refer to the ADDRESSES section of this rule).
43. Comment: The Economic Analysis failed to adequately estimate
various potential economic impacts.
Our Response: In the Addendum to the Economic Analysis of Critical
Habitat Designation for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat we conducted a
revised analysis to address all concerns that were brought up during
the public comment process. In some instances we obtained additional
data and increased our estimates, in other instances we presented
arguments/rebuttals to concerns mentioned by particular commenters
which explained why our estimate might be more accurate/appropriate.
Please refer to the Addendum to the Economic Analysis for a more
thorough discussion regarding potential economic impacts.
44. Comment: The draft Economic Analysis had errors in the land
ownership data.
Our Response: In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we are directed to use the best
scientific and commercial data available in determining which areas to
propose as critical habitat. We recognize that data used in our
analysis may not be the most accurate relative to land ownership. The
data concerning land ownership is obtained from a variety of sources
including Federal and State agencies, data clearing-houses, and local
and county jurisdictions. Once data is obtained by the lead agency or
data source, time is required to process and verify the data, which may
take up to one to two years. Consequently, the data that we obtain for
our analysis may be one to two years older than what is reflective of
current land ownership. As best as possible, we attempt to correct
discrepancies or errors that are detected in the data. However, there
will most likely be some factor of error in the data.
45. Comment: No monetary benefits for the survival of the species
were included in the draft Economic Analysis.
Our Response: While we have acknowledged the potential for society
to experience such benefits in our economic analyses for critical
habitat rulemakings, our ability to actually measure these benefits in
any meaningful way is difficult and imprecise at best. While we are
aware of many studies that attempt to identify the value (in monetary
units) of listed species, open space, the use of public lands for
recreational purposes, the cost of sprawl, etc.; few of these studies
provide any meaningful information that can be used to develop
estimates associated with a critical habitat designation. The
designation of critical habitat does not necessarily inhibit
development of private property, which makes it difficult to draw upon
the literature of the economic values of open space to identify
potential benefits of critical habitat designation. Also, while some
economic studies attempt to measure the social value of protecting
endangered species, the species that are often valued are well known
and easy to identify (e.g. bighorn sheep) in contrast to other species
such as the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Furthermore, the values
identified in these studies would be most closely associated with the
listing of a species as endangered or threatened because the listing
serves to provide the majority of protection and conservation benefits
under the Act.
While we will continue to explore ways that will allow us to
provide more meaningful descriptions of the potential benefits
associated with a critical habitat designation, we believe that due to
the current lack of available data specific to these rulemakings, along
with the time and resource constraints imposed upon the Service, the
benefits of a critical habitat designation are best expressed in
biological terms that can then be weighed against the expected social
costs of the rulemaking.
46. Comment: The draft Economic Analysis violates the Endangered
Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by limiting its scope
to a ten year time frame.
Our Response: Neither the Endangered Species Act nor the
Administrative Procedure Act address limitations on a time frame for
the scope of economic analyses for critical habitat rules. In
developing the Economic Analysis we attempted to estimate the impacts
of critical habitat designation on activities that are ``reasonably
foreseeable.'' Small changes in current trends, plans, and projections
(in land use and economic estimates) may have large effects on long-
range predictions. Independent of these uncertainties, the endangered
status of the kangaroo rat may change in the future (e.g. from
endangered to recovered). A change in status may reduce the need for
the
[[Page 19831]]
critical habitat designation. Thus, in order to reduce uncertainty, the
analysis bases estimates on activities that are likely to occur within
a ten-year time horizon. Cost estimates beyond this ten-year time
horizon are likely to be highly inaccurate because socioeconomic and
other conditions may shift dramatically.
47. Comment: The draft Economic Analysis is not a full analysis. It
is still an incremental analysis, and it is not in compliance with the
recent Tenth Circuit Court ruling on the southwestern willow flycatcher
critical habitat.
Our Response: On May 11, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the
Tenth Circuit issued a ruling that addressed the analytical approach
used by the Service to estimate the economic impacts associated with
the critical habitat designation for the southwestern willow
flycatcher. Specifically, the court rejected the approach used by the
Service to define and characterize baseline conditions. Defining the
baseline is a critical step within an economic analysis, as the
baseline in turn identifies the type and magnitude of incremental
impacts that are attributed to the policy or change under scrutiny. In
the flycatcher analysis, the Service defined baseline conditions to
include the effects associated with the listing of the flycatcher and,
as is typical of many regulatory analyses, proceeded to present only
the incremental effects of the rule.
The court's decision, in part, reflects the uniqueness of many of
the more recent critical habitat rulemakings. Specifically, the
flycatcher was initially listed by the Service as an endangered species
in 1995, several years prior to designating critical habitat. Once a
species has been officially listed as endangered under the Act, it is
afforded special protection under Federal law. In particular, it is
illegal to ``take'' a protected species without authorization once it
is listed. Take is defined to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Implementing regulations promulgated by the Service
further define ``harm'' to mean ``. . . an act which actually kills or
injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat
modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife
by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including
breeding, feeding, or sheltering.''
Because the southwestern willow flycatcher was initially listed as
endangered by the Service in 1995, several years before the designation
of critical habitat, the flycatcher, along with its habitat, already
received considerable protection before the designation of critical
habitat in 1997. As a result, the economic analysis concluded that the
resulting impacts of the designation would be insignificant. This
conclusion was based on the facts that: (1) The designation of critical
habitat only requires the Federal government to consider whether their
actions could adversely modify critical habitat; and (2) the Federal
government already was required to consult on actions that may
adversely affect the flycatcher and to ensure that its actions did not
jeopardize the flycatcher.
For a Federal action to adversely modify critical habitat the
action would have to adversely affect the critical habitat's
constituent elements or their management in a manner likely to
appreciably diminish or preclude the role of that habitat in the
recovery of the species. The Service defines jeopardy, which was a pre-
existing condition prior to the designation of critical habitat, as to
``engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or
indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival
and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the
reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species.'' The recovery
standard is used in the definition of both terms and as a result, the
additional protection afforded the flycatcher due to the designation of
critical habitat was determined to be negligible.
The court, however, considered why Congress would want an economic
analysis performed by the Service when making a decision about
designating critical habitat if in fact the designation of critical
habitat adds no significant additional protection to a listed species.
In the court's mind, ``(b)ecause (the) economic analysis done using the
Service's baseline model is rendered essentially without meaning by 50
CFR 402.02, we conclude Congress intended that the Service conduct a
full analysis of all of the economic impacts of a critical habitat
designation, regardless of whether those impacts are attributable co-
extensively to other causes.''
Even though the court's ruling applies only to the designation of
critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher, this analysis
attempts to comply with the court's instructions by revising the
approach to defining baseline conditions within the areas of proposed
critical habitat. Specifically, this analysis presents a detailed
discussion of existing Federal, State, and local requirements and both
current and planned activities within proposed critical habitat that
are reasonably expected to occur regardless of whether the area is
designated as critical habitat. Only after considering how these
activities most likely will be affected given existing conditions, does
the analysis estimate how the designation of critical habitat could
impact forecasted activities.
This approach to baseline definition employed in the analysis of
the designation of critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat
is similar to that employed in previous approaches, in that the goal is
to understand the incremental effects of a designation. However, it
does provide more extensive discussion of pre-existing baseline
conditions than previous critical habitat economic analyses. Typical
economic analyses concentrate mostly on identifying and measuring, to
the extent feasible, economic effects most likely to occur because of
the action being considered. Baseline conditions, while identified and
discussed, are rarely characterized or measured in any detailed manner
because by definition, these conditions remain unaffected by the
outcome of the decision being contemplated. While the goal of this
analysis remains the same as previous critical habitat economic
analyses, that is to identify and measure the estimated incremental
effects of the proposed rulemaking, the information provided in this
analysis concerning baseline conditions is more detailed than that
presented in previous studies. The final addendum to this analysis
provided further information concerning the baseline and potential
incremental effects of the designation of critical habitat for the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
In the development of our final designation of critical habitat for
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat we made several significant changes to
our proposed designation based on a review of public comments received
on the proposed designation and the draft Economic Analysis and a re-
evaluation of lands proposed as critical habitat. As discussed in the
Methods and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections of this
final rule, we re-evaluated the lands proposed as critical habitat for
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat based on public comment, more recent
aerial photography, and additional occurrence information obtained
following the publication of the proposal. The refinements to the
amount of land determined to be essential for the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat and incorporated into this final designation resulted in a
net
[[Page 19832]]
reduction of approximately 8,938 ha (22,113 ac) lands. The primary
changes for this final designation include the following: (1) The
removal of the Jurupa Hills and Reche Canyon proposed critical habitat
units (units 5 and 6, respectively), and the removal of the San Timoteo
Canyon portion of proposed critical habitat unit 1; (2) the removal of
the majority of lands within the former Norton Air Force Base from
designated critical habitat; (3) a reduction in the lands being
designated as critical habitat on the Soboba Tribal Reservation; and
(4) a refinement in our mapping methodology.
Based on available data and evaluation of more recent aerial
photography, we determined that we did not have sufficient information
to indicate that the lands within Jurupa Hills and Reche Canyon
proposed as critical habitat units 5 and 6, respectively, and those
lands within the San Timoteo Canyon portion of proposed critical
habitat unit 1 are essential to the long-term conservation of the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat. Each of these areas contains small isolated
populations of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. We believe these areas
are not essential due to habitat disturbance and encroachment and the
degree of isolation due to urban development. Consequently, these lands
were removed from the final designation of critical habitat for the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat.
Based on our re-evaluation and refinement during the development of
this final rule, we determined that most of the land within the former
NAFB was too highly degraded to provide for the conservation of the
species and, therefore, was removed from this final designation. Those
lands south of the runway and adjacent to the Santa Ana River channel
have been determined to be essential to the long-term conservation of
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat due to the existing suitable habitat
and current populations that occupy this area.
In our proposed critical habitat rule, we indicated that
approximately 465 ha (1,150 ac) of lands within the Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians Reservation in western Riverside County were essential
for the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. In the
development of the final critical habitat designation for the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we re-evaluated these Tribal lands to
determine if they were essential to the conservation of the kangaroo
rat and whether they should be designated as critical habitat. The
result of this analysis and refinement was the reduction of critical
habitat on Tribal land to 290 ha (710 ac). Please refer to our response
to Comment 18 and the section Government-to-Government Relationship
With Tribes for further information pertaining to the inclusion of
lands within the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation in critical
habitat.
Lastly, for the proposed rule, we identified a line around those
lands we believed to be essential to the conservation of the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat. We then described these essential habitat
lines using a 100-meter UTM grid. By using this grid, lands not
essential to the conservation of the species were included in critical
habitat as a relic of the square grid cell. To better describe these
lands we determined to be essential for this final designation, we
defined our essential line using UTM coordinates instead of the 100-
meter UTM grid. We were able to use the UTM coordinates for the
critical habitat designation due to the existence of readily
identifiable urban features that defined the edge of the critical
habitat. This resulted in a better refinement of the boundaries of
critical habitat along the urban interface and a reduction and removal
of approximately 2,024 ha (5,000 ac) of lands from the final
designation that we determined not to be essential to the conservation
of San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical
habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species.
Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat
designation, a draft Economic Analysis was conducted to estimate the
potential economic effect of the proposed designation. The draft
analysis was made available for public review on September 4, 2001 (66
FR 46251). We accepted comments on the draft analysis until October 4,
2001. Additionally we held two public hearings on the proposed
designation and the draft Economic Analysis on September 20, 2001, in
San Bernardino, California.
Our draft Economic Analysis evaluated potential future effects
associated with the listing of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as an
endangered species under the Act, as well as any potential effect of
the critical habitat designation above and beyond those regulatory and
economic impacts associated with listing. To quantify the proportion of
total potential economic impacts attributable to the critical habitat
designation, the analysis evaluated a ``without critical habitat''
baseline and compared it to a ``with critical habitat'' scenario. The
``without critical habitat'' baseline represented the current and
expected economic activity under all modifications prior to the
critical habitat designation, including protections afforded the
species under Federal and State laws. The difference between the two
scenarios measured the net change in economic activity attributable to
the designation of critical habitat. The categories of potential costs
considered in the analysis included the costs associated with (1)
conducting section 7 consultations associated with the listing or with
the critical habitat, including technical assistance; (2) modifications
to projects, activities, or land uses resulting from the section 7
consultations; (3) uncertainty and public perceptions resulting from
the designation of critical habitat; and (4) potential offsetting
beneficial costs associated with critical habitat including educational
benefits.
The majority of consultations resulting from the critical habitat
designation for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat are likely to address
land development, road construction or road expansion activities, sand
and gravel mining activities, and water management activities. The
draft analysis estimated that the critical habitat designation would
not result in a significant economic impact, and estimated the
potential economic effects due to the designation over a 10-year period
ranging between $4.4 to $28.2 million.
Following the close of the comment period on the draft economic
analysis, a final addendum was completed which incorporated public
comments on the draft analysis and a re-evaluation of the analysis of
potential economic effects of the designation. Based on this new
analysis, it was determined that there would be the potential for
additional consultations and assistance over and above the estimate
projected in the draft analysis. Subsequently, the addendum concluded
that the designation may result in potential economic effects ranging
from between $15.7 to $130.7 million over a 10-year period. The
addendum concluded that economic impacts anticipated from the
designation of critical habitat for the
[[Page 19833]]
San Bernardino kangaroo rat were not significant. Additionally, these
values may be an overestimate of the potential economic effects of the
designation because the analysis was based on the proposal, and the
final critical habitat was reduced by approximately 8,900 ha (22,000
ac), including several units proposed for designation.
A more detailed discussion of our analyses are contained in the
Draft Economic Analysis of Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (September 2001) and the Addendum to
Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat (March 2002). Both documents are included in
the supporting documentation for this rule making and available for
inspection at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (refer to ADDRESSES
Section).
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
This document is a significant rule and has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with Executive
Order 12866.
a. This rule, as designated, will not have an annual economic
effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A
cost-benefit and economic analysis therefore is not required. The San
Bernardino kangaroo rat was listed as an endangered species in 1998.
Since that time, we have conducted ten formal section 7 consultations
with other Federal agencies to ensure that their actions would not
jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
The areas designated as critical habitat are within the geographic
range occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and are considered
predominately occupied, with less than 2.5 percent of the lands
designated not known to be currently occupied. Under the Act, critical
habitat may not be adversely modified by a Federal agency action; it
does not impose any restrictions on non-Federal persons unless they are
conducting activities funded or otherwise sponsored or permitted by a
Federal agency. Section 7 requires Federal agencies to ensure that they
do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Based upon
our experience with this species and its needs, we conclude that any
Federal action or authorized action that could potentially cause
adverse modification of designated critical habitat would currently be
considered as ``jeopardy'' under the Act. Accordingly, the designation
of areas within the geographic range occupied by the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat has little, if any, incremental impacts on what actions
may or may not be conducted by Federal agencies or non-Federal persons
that receive Federal authorization or funding. Non-Federal persons who
do not have a Federal ``sponsorship'' of their actions are not
restricted by the designation of critical habitat although they
continue to be bound by the provisions of the Act concerning ``take''
of the species. The designation of areas as critical habitat where
section 7 consultations would not have occurred but for the critical
habitat designation may have impacts on what actions may or may not be
conducted by Federal agencies or non-Federal persons who receive
Federal authorization or funding that are not attributable to the
species listing. These impacts were evaluated in our economic analysis
(under section 4 of the Act; see Economic Analysis section of this
rule).
b. This rule, as designated, will not create inconsistencies with
other agencies' actions. As discussed above, Federal agencies have been
required to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued
existence of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat since the listing in 1998.
The prohibition against adverse modification of critical habitat is not
expected to impose any significant restrictions in addition to those
that now exist in those areas currently known to be occupied by the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, an estimated 97.5 percent of designated
critical habitat. Because of the potential for impacts on other Federal
agency activities, we will continue to review this action for any
inconsistencies with other Federal agency actions.
c. This rule, as designated, will not materially affect
entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients. Federal agencies are required to
ensure that their activities do not jeopardize the continued existence
of the species, and, as discussed above, we do not anticipate that the
adverse modification prohibition (resulting from critical habitat
designation) will have any incremental effects in areas of occupied
habitat.
d. OMB has determined that this rule may raise novel legal or
policy issues and, as a result, this rule has undergone OMB review.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act (SBREFA) of
1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking
for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
In this rule, we are certifying that the critical habitat designation
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat will not have a significant effect
on a substantial number of small entities. The following discussion
explains our rationale.
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent
non-profit organizations, small governmental jurisdictions, including
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents, as well as small businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
Current activities with Federal involvement that may require
consultation include: regulation of activities affecting waters of the
United States by the ACOE under section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and channelization by
any Federal agencies; regulation of grazing, mining, and recreation by
the BLM, Forest Service, or the Service; road construction,
maintenance, and right of way designation; regulation of agricultural
activities; regulation of airport
[[Page 19834]]
improvement activities by the Federal Aviation Administration; hazard
mitigation and post-disaster repairs funded by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency; construction of communication sites licensed by the
Federal Communications Commission; and activities funded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, or any other
Federal agency. In the Economic Analysis for the proposed rule, we
found that the proposed designation could potentially impose total
economic costs for consultations and modifications to projects to range
between $15.7 to $130.7 million dollars over a ten year period.
In determining whether this rule could ``significantly affect a
substantial number of small entities,'' the Economic Analysis first
determined whether critical habitat could potentially affect a
``substantial number'' of small entities in counties supporting
critical habitat areas. While SBREFA does not explicitly define
``substantial number,'' the Small Business Administration, as well as
other Federal agencies, have interpreted this to represent an impact on
20 percent or greater of the number of small entities in any industry.
Based on the past consultation history of the kangaroo rat, the
economic analysis anticipated that the designation of critical habitat
could affect small businesses associated with six different industries,
including residential, commercial, and industrial development; mining
for sand and gravel, airport activities, and water conservation and
supply activities.
To be conservative (i.e., more likely overstate impacts than
understate them), the economic analysis assumed that a unique company
will undertake each of the consultations forecasted in a given year,
and so the number of businesses affected is equal to the total annual
number of consultations projected in the economic analysis. The number
of small business estimated to be impacted from the proposed rule range
from less than one percent of commercial/retail development firms to
almost eight percent of water conservation and supply firms. Because
these estimates are far less than the 20 percent threshold that would
be considered ``substantial,'' the analysis concludes that this
designation will not affect a substantial number of small entities as a
result of the designation of critical habitat for the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat. The draft Economic Analysis and final Addendum contain
the factual bases for this certification and contain a complete
analysis of the potential economic affects of this designation. Copies
of these documents are in the supporting record for the rulemaking and
are available at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (refer to
ADDRESSES section).
In general, two different mechanisms in section 7 of the Act
consultations could lead to additional regulatory requirements. First,
if we conclude in a biological opinion, that a proposed action is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species or adversely
modify its critical habitat, we will make every effort to offer
``reasonable and prudent alternatives.'' Reasonable and prudent
alternatives are alternative actions that can be implemented in a
manner consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal
authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically
feasible, and that would avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of
listed species or destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. A
Federal agency and an applicant may elect to implement a reasonable and
prudent alternative associated with a biological opinion that has found
jeopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat. An agency or
applicant could alternatively choose to seek an exemption from the
requirements of the Act or proceed without implementing the reasonable
and prudent alternative. However, unless an exemption was obtained, the
Federal agency or applicant would be at risk of violating section
7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed without implementing the
reasonable and prudent alternatives. Second, if we find that a proposed
action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed
animal species, we may identify reasonable and prudent measures
designed to minimize the amount or extent of take and require the
Federal agency or applicant to implement such measures through non-
discretionary terms and conditions. We may also identify discretionary
conservation recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse
effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat,
help implement recovery plans, or to develop information that could
contribute to the recovery of the species.
Based on our experience with consultations pursuant to section 7 of
the Act for all listed species, virtually all projects--including those
that, in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or
adverse modification determinations--can be implemented successfully
with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and prudent alternatives.
These measures, by definition, must be economically feasible and within
the scope of authority of the Federal agency involved in the
consultation. Nonetheless, the economic analysis provided an estimate
of the number of small businesses that could experience significant
economic impact. The analysis conservatively assumed the unit cost to a
private party for participating in a section 7 consultation and any
associated project modification was the upper-bound estimate identified
in the analysis. Under such an assumption, the analysis concluded that
less than two percent of small business could be significantly impacted
by the proposed designation.
In summary, we have considered whether this rule could result in
significant economic effects on a substantial number of small entities.
We have determined, for the above reasons, that it will not affect a
substantial number of small entities. Furthermore, we believe that the
potential compliance costs for the number of small entities that may be
affected by this rule will not be significant. Therefore, we are
certifying that the designation of critical habitat for the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. A regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C.
804(2))
As discussed above, this rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.
804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This
final designation of critical habitat: (a) does not have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not cause a major
increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions;
and (c) does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. As
discussed in the economic analysis, the designation is anticipated to
have a total estimated economic effect ranging between $15.7 to $130.7
million over a 10-year period. Assuming that these costs are spread
evenly over the period of analysis, annual effects to the economy could
range between $1.6 and $13 million. Additionally, these values are very
likely to be an overestimate of the potential economic effects of the
designation because the economic analysis evaluated potential impacts
associated with the area proposed as critical habitat and this area has
been significantly reduced in this final rule.
[[Page 19835]]
Proposed and final rules designating critical habitat for listed
species are issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises are not affected
by this action and will not be affected by the final rule designating
critical habitat for this species. Therefore, we anticipate that this
final rule will not place significant additional burdens on any entity.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O.
13211) which applies to regulations that significantly affect energy
supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies
to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain
actions. The primary land uses within designated critical habitat
include urban and agricultural development, water management and
conservation facilities, and sand and gravel mining operations.
Significant energy production, supply, and distribution facilities are
not included within designated critical habitat. Therefore, this action
does not represent a significant action effecting energy production,
supply, and distribution facilities; and no Statement of Energy Effects
is required. Additionally, the area designated as critical habitat is
predominately considered to be occupied by the listed species, with
only an estimated 2.5 percent of the designation not known to be
currently occupied. Therefore, any consultation required pursuant to
section 7 of the Act by a Federal agency undertaking an action in this
area would likely be triggered by the presence of the listed species
and not solely by this designation of critical habitat.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.):
a. This rule, as designated, will not ``significantly or uniquely''
affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not
required. Small governments will be affected only to the extent that
any programs having Federal funds, permits, or other authorized
activities must ensure that their actions will not adversely affect the
critical habitat. However, as discussed above, these actions are
currently subject to equivalent restrictions through the listing
protections of the species, and no further restrictions are anticipated
in areas of occupied designated critical habitat.
b. This rule, will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year, that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of
critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating 13,485 ha (33,295 ac) of lands in Riverside and San
Bernardino counties, California as critical habitat for the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat. The takings implications assessment concludes
that this final designation of critical habitat does not pose
significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the
designation of critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. We will coordinate the designation of critical habitat for
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat with the appropriate State agencies.
The designation of critical habitat in areas currently occupied by the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat imposes no additional restrictions to those
currently in place and, therefore, has little significant incremental
impact on State and local governments and their activities. The
designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the
areas essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly
defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary
to the survival and conservation of the species are specifically
identified. While making this definition and identification does not
alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur, it may
assist these local governments in long-range planning (rather than
waiting for case-by-case consultations under section 7 of the Act to
occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We designate critical habitat in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. The rule uses standard property descriptions and
identifies the primary constituent elements within the designated units
to assist the public in understanding the habitat and conservation
needs of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not
impose new record-keeping or reporting requirements on State or local
governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
Control Number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with
regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species
Act as amended We published a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This final designation
does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we
are coordinating with federally recognized Tribes on a Government-to-
Government basis. Further, Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act'' (1997) provides that critical habitat should
not be designated in an area that may impact Tribal trust resources
unless it is determined to be essential to the conservation of a listed
species. The Secretarial Order further states that in designating
critical habitat, ``the Service shall evaluate and document the extent
to which the conservation needs of a listed species can be achieved by
limiting the designation to other lands''.
In our proposed critical habitat rule, we indicated that
approximately 465 ha (1,150 ac) of lands within the Soboba
[[Page 19836]]
Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation in western Riverside County were
essential for the conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. In
the development of the final critical habitat designation for the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, we re-evaluated these Tribal lands to
determine if they were essential to the conservation of the kangaroo
rat and whether they should be designated as critical habitat. Based on
distribution information for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat in the San
Jacinto Wash, the continuity of kangaroo rat habitat extending up the
tributaries adjacent to occupied habitat, and slope, vegetation, and
disturbance information; we have re-defined the area designated as
critical habitat on the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation.
Additionally, we refined the 100 meter grid line used in the proposal
to the essential critical habitat line along the edges of the two
washes and the main portion of the river on Tribal land and removed
from the designation a non-essential disturbed area on the western edge
of Tribal lands on the north side of the river that is proposed for
economic development. The result of this analysis and refinement was
the reduction of critical habitat on Tribal land to 290 ha (710 ac).
The remaining area on Tribal lands is essential to the conservation of
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat because it supports several populations
and provides continuity between two adjacent areas of essential
habitat.
Currently the Soboba Band of LuiseNo Indians does not have a
resource management plan which provides protection or conservation for
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and its' habitat. We are committed to
maintaining a positive working relationship with the Tribe and will
continue our attempts to work with them on developing a resource
management plan for the Reservation including conservation measures for
the kangaroo rat. However, due to time constraints for completing this
final rule, the lack of an existing resource management plan covering
the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, we were required to finalize the
designation based on our own analysis of the relative importance of the
lands within the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation for the
conservation of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this designation are Douglas Krofta and Mark
A. Elvin , Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 17.11(h) revise the entry for ``Kangaroo rat, San
Bernardino Merriam's'' under ``MAMMALS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
---------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific Name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Kangaroo rat, San Bernardino Dipodomys merriami U.S.A., CA........ Entire............ E 632E, 645 17.95(a) NA
Merriam's.. parvus.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Amend Sec. 17.95(a) by adding critical habitat for the San
Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) in the same
alphabetical order as this species occurs in Sec. 17.11 (h) to read as
follows.
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.
(a) Mammals.
* * * * *
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus)
(1) Critical Habitat Units are depicted for San Bernardino and
Riverside counties, California, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements for the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat are those habitat components that are
essential for the primary biological needs of the species. Based on our
current knowledge of this species, the primary constituent elements
include:
(i) Soil series consisting predominantly of sand, loamy sand, sandy
loam, or loam;
(ii) Alluvial sage scrub and associated vegetation, such as coastal
sage scrub and chamise chaparral, with a moderately open canopy.
(iii) River, creek, stream, and wash channels; alluvial fans;
floodplains; floodplain benches and terraces; and historic braided
channels that are subject to dynamic geomorphological and hydrological
processes typical of fluvial systems within the historical range of the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat. These areas may include a mosaic of
suitable and unsuitable soils and vegetation that either (A) occur at a
scale smaller than the home range of the animal, or (B) form a series
of core areas and linkages between them.
(iv) Upland areas proximal to floodplains with suitable habitat
(e.g., floodplains that support the soils, vegetation, or
geomorphological, hydrological and aeolian processes essential to this
species). These areas are essential due to their geographic proximity
to suitable habitat and the functions they serve during flooding
events. These areas may include marginal habitats such as agricultural
lands that are disced annually, out-of-production vineyards, margins of
orchards, areas of active or inactive industrial or resource extraction
activities, and urban/wildland interfaces.
[[Page 19837]]
(3) Existing features and structures, such as buildings, roads,
railroads, airports, other paved areas, lawns, and other urban
landscaped areas, do not contain one or more of the primary constituent
elements. Federal actions limited to those areas, therefore, would not
trigger a consultation under section 7 of the Act unless they affect
the species and/or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical
habitat.
(4) Critical Habitat Map Units-Index Map Follows.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR23AP02.001
(5) Unit 1: Santa Ana River and Wash, San Bernardino County, California
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Harrison Mountain (1980),
Yucaipa (1988), Redlands (1980), and San Bernardino South (1980),
California, lands in the Santa Ana Wash bounded by the following
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum 1927 (NAD27)
coordinates (E, N): 482376, 3776863; 482520, 3777020; 482425, 3777267;
482403, 3777426; 482590, 3777477; 482714, 3777417; 482755, 3777375;
482793, 3777315; 482847, 3777277; 482942, 3777261; 482977, 3777201;
483050, 3777175; 483142, 3777191; 483238, 3777159; 483282, 3777128;
483285, 3777023; 483257, 3777023; 483250, 3776778; 483168, 3776763;
483088, 3776797; 483003, 3776807; 482965, 3776855; 482885, 3777007;
482841, 3777032; 482603, 3777036; 482552, 3776943; 482558, 3776715;
482692, 3776286; 482708, 3776201; 482717, 3775426; 482568, 3775426;
482435, 3775170; 482428, 3774953; 482444, 3774750; 482574, 3774556;
483247, 3774550; 483244, 3773978; 484038, 3773981; 484038, 3773734;
484746, 3773730; 484752, 3774140; 485628, 3774128; 485628, 3774419;
485787, 3774423; 485787, 3774391; 486009, 3774391; 486006, 3774492;
486073, 3774489; 486298, 3774362; 486270, 3774286; 486222, 3774267;
486149, 3774267; 486108, 3774238; 486079, 3774194; 486076, 3774149;
486197, 3774162; 486463, 3774356; 486717, 3774438; 486873, 3774496;
486994, 3774578; 487038, 3774715; 487044, 3774848; 487022, 3774953;
486994, 3774988; 487159, 3774981; 487194, 3774889; 487244, 3774788;
487191, 3774543; 487111, 3774435; 486879, 3774229; 486848, 3774127;
488140, 3773892; 488251, 3773835; 488324, 3773775; 488394, 3773680;
488467, 3773622; 488546, 3773578; 488649, 3773548; 488651, 3773549;
490156, 3773511; 490219, 3773476; 490121, 3773435; 490019, 3773387;
489994, 3773356; 489896, 3773311; 489778, 3773356; 489730, 3773403;
488597, 3773435; 488378, 3773286; 488384, 3773257; 488356, 3773124;
488499, 3772708; 488645, 3772622; 489184, 3772616; 489762, 3772965;
489816, 3773035; 490029, 3773124; 490134, 3773086; 490327, 3773191;
490324, 3773372; 490296, 3773432; 490264, 3773480; 490248, 3773495;
490334, 3773572; 490429, 3773562; 490585, 3773657; 490769, 3773784;
490804, 3773934; 490826, 3774080; 490832, 3774172; 490804, 3774229;
490762, 3774267; 490734, 3774330; 490937, 3774334; 490978, 3774105;
490940, 3774038; 490943, 3773915;
[[Page 19838]]
490921, 3773870; 490921, 3773657; 490873, 3773613; 490845, 3773508;
490842, 3773426; 490819, 3773381; 490769, 3773349; 490727, 3773267;
490642, 3773241; 490569, 3773184; 490505, 3773175; 490442, 3773086;
490346, 3773057; 490359, 3772927; 490340, 3772806; 490258, 3772683;
490267, 3772549; 490458, 3772568; 490464, 3772540; 490496, 3772530;
490540, 3772530; 490616, 3772521; 490629, 3772451; 490661, 3772416;
490613, 3772368; 490581, 3772333; 490575, 3772273; 490518, 3772273;
490458, 3772152; 490340, 3772156; 490302, 3772206; 490096, 3772210;
490026, 3772159; 489896, 3772108; 489813, 3772063; 489692, 3772006;
489686, 3771879; 489564, 3771905; 489632, 3771749; 489686, 3771495;
489819, 3771419; 489857, 3771340; 490219, 3771117; 490331, 3771079;
490442, 3770990; 490648, 3770905; 490661, 3770847; 490908, 3770813;
491010, 3770670; 491029, 3770546; 491112, 3770517; 491162, 3770578;
491334, 3770581; 491341, 3770971; 494610, 3770971; 494613, 3770968;
494972, 3770971; 494972, 3770352; 494814, 3770279; 494690, 3770346;
494509, 3770320; 494404, 3770295; 494261, 3770336; 494137, 3770295;
494048, 3770279; 493950, 3770289; 493886, 3770266; 493712, 3770244;
493591, 3770178; 493458, 3770152; 493375, 3770117; 493302, 3770162;
493172, 3770162; 493128, 3770181; 493036, 3770105; 492909, 3770120;
492883, 3770197; 492813, 3770197; 492709, 3770155; 492134, 3770149;
492134, 3770091; 490908, 3770079; 490905, 3769879; 490851, 3769847;
490762, 3769835; 490750, 3769676; 490334, 3769679; 490334, 3769768;
490242, 3769812; 489473, 3769825; 489476, 3769895; 489381, 3769917;
489384, 3770105; 489305, 3770105; 489308, 3770308; 489130, 3770482;
488901, 3770496; 488892, 3771333; 488086, 3771340; 488079, 3770917;
488010, 3770917; 488006, 3771006; 487810, 3771013; 487810, 3771359;
487705, 3771384; 487689, 3771314; 487268, 3771322; 487289, 3771375;
487260, 3771394; 487260, 3771428; 485895, 3771419; 485898, 3771359;
485965, 3771355; 485965, 3771241; 486556, 3771254; 486555, 3770949;
485673, 3770955; 485670, 3771346; 485568, 3771349; 485492, 3771305;
485362, 3771216; 485327, 3771254; 485241, 3771209; 485212, 3771219;
484946, 3771219; 484822, 3771289; 484705, 3771317; 484492, 3771314;
484432, 3771277; 484311, 3771273; 484149, 3771336; 484101, 3771336;
483952, 3771292; 483790, 3771289; 483663, 3771314; 483460, 3771384;
483428, 3771359; 482958, 3771352; 482958, 3771590; 483060, 3771565;
483079, 3771676; 482736, 3771752; 482723, 3771717; 482555, 3771806;
482434, 3771863; 482384, 3771863; 482374, 3771914; 482234, 3771921;
482207, 3771948; 482206, 3772010; 482142, 3772010; 482050, 3772111;
481555, 3772114; 481549, 3772016; 481399, 3772010; 481263, 3771981;
481104, 3771908; 480841, 3771816; 480834, 3772000; 480780, 3771952;
480720, 3771930; 480710, 3771886; 480609, 3771911; 480517, 3772168;
480250, 3772165; 479914, 3772133; 479637, 3772089; 479282, 3772025;
479231, 3771987; 479221, 3771808; 479056, 3771752; 478859, 3771749;
478793, 3771708; 478602, 3771616; 478367, 3771619; 478285, 3771568;
477843, 3771295; 477777, 3771241; 477688, 3771216; 477605, 3771187;
477389, 3771124; 477250, 3771070; 477250, 3771016; 477189, 3771016;
477094, 3770968; 476993, 3770914; 476869, 3770886; 476735, 3770847;
476583, 3770933; 476488, 3770955; 476459, 3770892; 476354, 3770876;
476192, 3770714; 476103, 3770607; 476097, 3770613; 475954, 3770609;
475856, 3770625; 475802, 3770584; 475732, 3770539; 475618, 3770498;
475551, 3770466; 475345, 3770441; 475288, 3770406; 475183, 3770298;
475094, 3770206; 475069, 3770130; 474992, 3770108; 474983, 3770054;
474954, 3770031; 474910, 3769895; 474910, 3769714; 474837, 3769676;
474789, 3769714; 474770, 3769695; 474773, 3769673; 474726, 3769628;
474691, 3769631; 474707, 3769679; 474630, 3769679; 474618, 3769641;
474376, 3769638; 474380, 3769755; 474107, 3769714; 474043, 3769720;
473703, 3769673; 473640, 3769673; 473468, 3769619; 473462, 3769514;
473351, 3769476; 473354, 3769390; 472983, 3769374; 472970, 3769438;
472960, 3769784; 473268, 3769777; 473313, 3769793; 473322, 3769825;
473395, 3769889; 473706, 3769885; 474348, 3769962; 474392, 3770019;
474938, 3770327; 475043, 3770498; 475132, 3770590; 475367, 3770765;
475497, 3770873; 475789, 3771032; 475980, 3771136; 476123, 3771187;
476147, 3771188; 476151, 3771273; 476132, 3771397; 476151, 3772200;
476373, 3772200; 476373, 3771873; 476608, 3771752; 476621, 3771686;
476615, 3771622; 476631, 3771502; 476866, 3771508; 476869, 3771692;
477113, 3771692; 477062, 3771508; 477602, 3771505; 477609, 3771667;
477742, 3771759; 477777, 3771797; 478307, 3772086; 478291, 3772156;
478320, 3772203; 477942, 3772197; 477732, 3772137; 477310, 3771968;
477224, 3771902; 476910, 3771787; 476786, 3771768; 476697, 3771787;
476561, 3772054; 476520, 3772130; 476475, 3772162; 476415, 3772197;
476427, 3772210; 476805, 3772219; 476805, 3772140; 476831, 3772105;
476958, 3772079; 476983, 3772019; 478345, 3772489; 478421, 3772356;
478466, 3772375; 478399, 3772508; 479386, 3772864; 479386, 3772865;
479860, 3773022; 479841, 3773105; 479901, 3773184; 479872, 3773264;
479866, 3773391; 480034, 3773384; 480028, 3773784; 480809, 3773743;
480809, 3773391; 481009, 3773572; 481628, 3774302; 481626, 3774304;
481726, 3774429; 481707, 3774543; 481803, 3774556; 482047, 3774997;
482076, 3775099; 482079, 3775324; 482168, 3775331; 482228, 3775531;
482438, 3776058; 482447, 3776499; 482422, 3776705; returning to 482376,
3776863.
(ii) Map Unit 1 follows.
[[Page 19839]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR23AP02.002
(6) Unit 2: Lytle and Cajon Creeks, San Bernardino County, California
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps San Bernardino South (1980),
San Bernardino North (1988), Devore (1988), and Cajon (1988),
California. Subunit 2a: Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27
coordinates (E,N): 459113, 3789417; 459304, 3789431; 459431, 3789507;
459586, 3789387; 459850, 3789253; 459989, 3788993; 460389, 3788590;
460586, 3788491; 460786, 3788294; 460888, 3788218; 461088, 3788082;
461196, 3787990; 461826, 3787406; 461831, 3787409; 461999, 3787259;
462221, 3787075; 462412, 3786923; 462533, 3786856; 462701, 3786742;
463028, 3786459; 463101, 3786027; 463079, 3785989; 463291, 3785821;
463555, 3785580; 463799, 3785084; 463907, 3784954; 464007, 3784892;
464444, 3784653; 464577, 3784557; 464717, 3784399; 464780, 3784281;
464898, 3783910; 464974, 3783770; 465104, 3783608; 465231, 3783510;
465565, 3783252; 465473, 3782871; 465504, 3782792; 465806, 3782557;
465850, 3782579; 466040, 3782336; 466174, 3782446; 465946, 3781582;
466523, 3781300; 466555, 3781373; 467520, 3781351; 467581, 3781265;
466800, 3780408; 466500, 3780067; 466581, 3779690; 466679, 3779392;
466733, 3779382; 466790, 3779293; 466882, 3779236; 466882, 3779125;
466917, 3779115; 466914, 3779058; 466978, 3779039; 466987, 3778992;
467139, 3778992; 467149, 3778738; 467387, 3778725; 467597, 3778496;
467752, 3778493; 467759, 3778339; 468060, 3778026; 468174, 3777982;
468181, 3777512; 468387, 3776995; 468476, 3776804; 469061, 3775917;
469184, 3775791; 469235, 3775769; 469775, 3775232; 469756, 3775201;
469660, 3775245; 469705, 3775074; 469752, 3775026; 469752, 3774632;
469781, 3774505; 469787, 3774296; 469822, 3774175; 469857, 3774172;
469857, 3774035; 469787, 3774020; 469711, 3773972; 469619, 3773883;
469492, 3773835; 469371, 3773845; 469206, 3773858; 469051, 3773861;
468676, 3773864; 468721, 3773959; 468778, 3774035; 468876, 3774175;
468924, 3774286; 468806, 3774512; 468736, 3774620; 468711, 3774712;
468609, 3774909; 468524, 3775067; 468524, 3775107; 468432, 3775140;
468244, 3775290; 468111, 3775410; 468086, 3775483; 467927, 3775480;
467822, 3775620; 467822, 3775759; 467511, 3776109; 467409, 3776210;
467298, 3776293; 467279, 3776468; 467219, 3776566; 467139, 3776652;
467130, 3776922; 467060, 3777055; 467076, 3777088; 467720, 3777090;
466571, 3777823; 466444, 3777664; 466492, 3777566; 466324, 3777539;
466333, 3777480; 466165, 3777626; 466019, 3777741; 465958, 3777861;
465860, 3777918; 465774, 3777982; 465730, 3778071; 465777, 3778103;
465920, 3777985; 465955, 3777979; 465971, 3777963; 466012, 3777938;
466035, 3777950; 466038, 3777985; 466006, 3778058; 465755, 3778449;
465727, 3778442; 465688, 3778465; 465669, 3778519; 465685, 3778550;
465787, 3778512; 465930, 3778449; 466041, 3778382; 466139, 3778315;
466254, 3778246; 466311, 3778223; 466349, 3778312; 466416, 3778239;
466447, 3778220; 466374, 3778315; 466295, 3778407; 466190, 3778487;
465888, 3778630; 465644, 3778734; 465406, 3778830; 465269, 3778858;
465158, 3778852; 464914, 3778785; 464831, 3778938; 464723,
[[Page 19840]]
3778950; 464733, 3779049; 464542, 3779074; 464526, 3778944; 464336,
3779004; 464164, 3779077; 463841, 3779195; 463717, 3779033; 463391,
3779251; 463390, 3779249; 461605, 3780611; 461205, 3780906; 460802,
3781211; 460285, 3781589; 460291, 3779531; 461520, 3779519; 461513,
3778728; 458277, 3778734; 458265, 3777938; 457072, 3777928; 457078,
3778754; 456268, 3778757; 456268, 3779023; 456916, 3779662; 457415,
3780160; 457805, 3780547; 458294, 3780982; 458196, 3781046; 458459,
3781446; 458537, 3781640; 458554, 3781636; 458672, 3781776; 458789,
3781894; 458872, 3781913; 458929, 3781967; 459154, 3782059; 459192,
3782141; 459240, 3782205; 459240, 3782236; 459281, 3782316; 459361,
3782319; 459491, 3782383; 459631, 3782671; 459033, 3784051; 458605,
3784586; 458377, 3784681; 458300, 3784792; 458246, 3784830; 458132,
3784929; 458094, 3785030; 457964, 3785189; 457884, 3785411; 457898,
3785557; 457875, 3785586; 457786, 3785678; 457754, 3785739; 457710,
3785761; 457621, 3785780; 457532, 3785821; 457475, 3785894; 457519,
3786046; 457459, 3786085; 457440, 3786227; 457392, 3786227; 457319,
3786313; 457297, 3786367; 457173, 3786424; 457110, 3786510; 456999,
3786574; 456995, 3786669; 456980, 3786786; 456891, 3786888; 456865,
3787028; 456786, 3787082; 456675, 3787170; 456633, 3787256; 456525,
3787339; 456478, 3787399; 456392, 3787370; 456208, 3787466; 455938,
3787488; 455865, 3787456; 455738, 3787612; 455671, 3787634; 455525,
3787713; 455640, 3787815; 455754, 3787847; 456059, 3787764; 456157,
3787704; 456332, 3787653; 456472, 3787567; 456570, 3787590; 456754,
3787586; 456935, 3787523; 457014, 3787466; 457065, 3787351; 457129,
3787158; 457167, 3787018; 457164, 3786910; 457136, 3786794; 457237,
3786701; 457192, 3786647; 457205, 3786564; 457411, 3786459; 457576,
3786269; 457586, 3786132; 457640, 3786034; 457767, 3785929; 457926,
3785843; 458059, 3785678; 458091, 3785596; 458043, 3785485; 458097,
3785377; 458100, 3785243; 458208, 3785065; 458294, 3784980; 458361,
3784916; 458450, 3784888; 458523, 3784846; 458596, 3784783; 458681,
3784745; 458705, 3784707; 458707, 3784710; 458888, 3784659; 458999,
3784589; 459027, 3784500; 459065, 3784478; 459126, 3784510; 459199,
3784494; 459256, 3784424; 459265, 3784342; 459342, 3784265; 459367,
3784192; 459440, 3784148; 459548, 3784021; 459653, 3783967; 459742,
3783884; 459831, 3783751; 459891, 3783707; 459958, 3783592; 459932,
3783529; 459945, 3783440; 460012, 3783405; 460072, 3783357; 460174,
3783449; 460358, 3783424; 460526, 3783405; 460685, 3783389; 460704,
3783313; 461224, 3783532; 461437, 3783640; 461539, 3783824; 461437,
3784119; 461342, 3784119; 461342, 3784335; 461256, 3784408; 461126,
3784415; 461123, 3784453; 461158, 3784449; 461183, 3784503; 460894,
3784649; 460818, 3784710; 460707, 3784738; 460561, 3784872; 460459,
3784903; 460437, 3784983; 460380, 3784999; 460297, 3785059; 460231,
3785065; 460237, 3785164; 460370, 3785164; 460370, 3785218; 460408,
3785224; 460497, 3785157; 460599, 3785091; 460739, 3785018; 460904,
3784938; 460915, 3784876; 461053, 3784796; 461158, 3784792; 461256,
3784710; 461377, 3784691; 461482, 3784688; 461580, 3784732; 461707,
3784691; 461783, 3784630; 461736, 3784516; 462031, 3784421; 462117,
3784338; 462079, 3784278; 462040, 3784021; 462085, 3783922; 462063,
3783824; 462190, 3783691; 462244, 3783624; 462231, 3783560; 462225,
3783491; 462120, 3783478; 462021, 3783418; 462025, 3783386; 462050,
3783332; 462059, 3783256; 462088, 3783227; 462171, 3783249; 462253,
3783195; 462259, 3783157; 462345, 3783125; 462406, 3783106; 462488,
3783078; 462520, 3783030; 462504, 3782973; 462567, 3782948; 462640,
3782998; 462688, 3782967; 462720, 3782913; 462752, 3782805; 462834,
3782798; 462891, 3782751; 462971, 3782633; 463136, 3782550; 463190,
3782405; 463231, 3782271; 463361, 3782179; 463399, 3782065; 463498,
3781973; 463698, 3781884; 463749, 3781897; 463834, 3781830; 463888,
3781668; 464022, 3781560; 464037, 3781481; 464028, 3781392; 464123,
3781303; 464161, 3781306; 464184, 3781338; 464145, 3781392; 464193,
3781401; 464241, 3781440; 464307, 3781379; 464323, 3781341; 464253,
3781278; 464339, 3781160; 464393, 3781208; 464457, 3781157; 464520,
3781274; 464603, 3781395; 464574, 3781763; 465028, 3781932; 464907,
3782252; 464269, 3782910; 464190, 3783084; 464193, 3783145; 464101,
3783376; 464111, 3783440; 464171, 3783532; 464225, 3783529; 464241,
3783500; 464326, 3783487; 464266, 3783649; 464238, 3783776; 464247,
3783868; 464215, 3783967; 464174, 3784068; 464066, 3784218; 464003,
3784364; 463863, 3784526; 463803, 3784675; 463717, 3784773; 463599,
3784846; 463305, 3784949; 463329, 3785011; 463006, 3785227; 462847,
3785361; 462691, 3785459; 462602, 3785446; 462412, 3785259; 462228,
3785504; 462085, 3785592; 461939, 3785993; 461186, 3786878; 461063,
3787052; 460069, 3787796; 459742, 3788031; 459446, 3788285; 459278,
3788456; 459183, 3788777; 459124, 3788860; 458713, 3789091; 458329,
3789295; 457795, 3789745; 457700, 3789815; 457484, 3789895; 457268,
3789996; 457059, 3790177; 456986, 3790282; 456900, 3790431; 456837,
3790555; 456786, 3790634; 456748, 3790828; 456719, 3791025; 456719,
3791139; 456767, 3791254; 456849, 3791320; 456979, 3791307; 457103,
3791234; 457103, 3791079; 457145, 3790911; 457233, 3790736; 457389,
3790561; 457576, 3790368; 457878, 3790180; 458180, 3790069; 458456,
3790037; 458548, 3789955; 458846, 3789790; returning to 459113,
3789417.
(ii) Subunit 2b: Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27
coordinates (E, N): 465795, 3784148; 464554, 3785327; 463276, 3786555;
463400, 3786918; 463325, 3786939; 463416, 3787252; 463416, 3787310;
463445, 3787388; 463849, 3787384; 463804, 3787314; 463869, 3787268;
463948, 3787260; 464187, 3787194; 464389, 3786988; 464385, 3786901;
464389, 3786815; 464286, 3786695; 464298, 3786638; 464381, 3786605;
464488, 3786695; 464541, 3786811; 464438, 3786856; 464541, 3786984;
464673, 3786984; 464682, 3786889; 465081, 3786885; 465090, 3786786;
465288, 3786691; 465490, 3786592; 465461, 3786559; 465283, 3786242;
465292, 3786102; 465263, 3785962; 465366, 3785891; 465292, 3785702;
465527, 3785558; 465572, 3785652; 465704, 3785586; 465626, 3785166;
465799, 3784939; 465997, 3784778; 466128, 3784700; 465906, 3784280;
465881, 3784300; returning to 465795, 3784148.
(iii) Subunit 2c: Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27
coordinates (E, N): 469615, 3782014; 469536, 3782017; 469485, 3782090;
469415, 3782141; 469345, 3782214; 469298, 3782239; 469263, 3782293;
469193, 3782309; 469117, 3782335; 469025, 3782325; 468942, 3782370;
468844, 3782401; 468812, 3782417; 468777, 3782376; 468625, 3782490;
468564, 3782643; 468548, 3783024; 468558, 3783141; 468609, 3783195;
468609, 3783281; 468723, 3783446; 468859, 3783671; 468910, 3783700;
468913, 3783789; 468936, 3783881; 469012, 3783894; 469021, 3784090;
469107, 3784087; 469209, 3784198; 469231, 3784284; 469599, 3784284;
469625, 3784173; 469901, 3783989; 469980, 3783881; 469898, 3783811;
469968, 3783735; 470009, 3783773; 470187, 3783732; 470209, 3783662;
470295, 3783646;
[[Page 19841]]
470295, 3783547; 470402, 3783528; 470498, 3783484; 470580, 3783436;
470669, 3783427; 470761, 3783354; 470783, 3783325; 470933, 3783252;
470980, 3783236; 471003, 3783192; 471164, 3783093; 471244, 3783068;
471330, 3783036; 471333, 3783001; 471218, 3782941; 471111, 3782966;
470907, 3782951; 470841, 3782925; 470803, 3782931; 470749, 3782855;
470720, 3782843; 470742, 3782763; 470701, 3782773; 470688, 3782709;
470730, 3782643; 470730, 3782624; 470695, 3782535; 470822, 3782439;
470749, 3782312; 470710, 3782325; 470669, 3782363; 470564, 3782414;
470469, 3782411; 470406, 3782439; 470352, 3782471; 470314, 3782500;
470263, 3782538; 470250, 3782652; 470196, 3782671; 470123, 3782649;
470056, 3782611; 469996, 3782614; 469907, 3782703; 469882, 3782744;
469872, 3782824; 469828, 3782833; 469694, 3782808; 469618, 3782776;
469653, 3782646; 469688, 3782420; 469685, 3782214; 469704, 3782144;
returning to 469615, 3782014.
(iv) Map Unit 2 follows.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR23AP02.003
(7) Unit 3: San Jacinto River and Bautista Creek, Riverside County,
California.
(i) From USGS quadrangle maps Blackburn Canyon (1988), Hemet
(1979), Lake Fulmor (1988), San Jacinto (1979), and Lakeview (1979),
California, land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N):
493757, 3745718; 494287, 3745394; 494490, 3745290; 494890, 3745061;
495084, 3744988; 495258, 3744978; 495389, 3744997; 495671, 3745096;
495938, 3745159; 496074, 3745175; 496284, 3745159; 496494, 3745077;
496601, 3744994; 496605, 3744994; 496884, 3744791; 497078, 3744689;
497287, 3744588; 497468, 3744524; 498024, 3744420; 498386, 3744293;
498541, 3744264; 499291, 3743826; 499484, 3743673; 499767, 3743564;
499780, 3744556; 499840, 3744728; 499846, 3744832; 499980, 3744820;
500081, 3744769; 500189, 3744693; 500278, 3744610; 500389, 3744572;
500564, 3744359; 500722, 3744178; 500872, 3743931; 500811, 3743943;
500745, 3743924; 500716, 3743762; 500751, 3743600; 500840, 3743489;
500789, 3743419; 500735, 3743213; 501688, 3742689; 502148, 3742442;
502262, 3742356; 502402, 3742293; 502415, 3742359; 502551, 3742273;
502650, 3742257; 502824, 3742232; 502932, 3742194; 503088, 3742086;
503164, 3742197; 503285, 3742095; 503358, 3742061; 503443, 3742073;
503548, 3741994; 503650, 3741956; 503758, 3741788; 503875, 3741689;
503964, 3741651; 503967, 3741594; 504028, 3741553; 504155, 3741530;
504171, 3741489; 504218, 3741467; 504275, 3741407; 504282, 3741302;
504666, 3741140; 504742, 3741076; 504872, 3740959; 505126, 3740886;
505282, 3740778; 505475, 3740676; 505522, 3740595; 505529, 3740594;
505612, 3740521; 505701, 3740400; 505853, 3740261; 505888, 3740191;
505920, 3740064; 505710, 3739854; 505787, 3739594; 505891, 3739286;
505971, 3739076; 506107, 3739054; 506145, 3738987; 506250, 3738876;
506247, 3738686;
[[Page 19842]]
506285, 3738495; 506282, 3738310; 506514, 3737927; 506580, 3737886;
506695, 3737835; 506822, 3737844; 506911, 3737879; 506799, 3737711;
506841, 3737495; 508047, 3736292; 508323, 3736200; 508514, 3736285;
508812, 3736886; 508812, 3736889; 508911, 3737082; 509012, 3737187;
509114, 3737387; 509212, 3737489; 509311, 3737587; 509412, 3737692;
509635, 3737848; 509714, 3737889; 509835, 3737997; 509857, 3737968;
509927, 3737956; 510241, 3738168; 510194, 3738248; 510311, 3738292;
510416, 3738387; 510517, 3738686; 510613, 3738886; 510727, 3738991;
510724, 3739178; 510740, 3739264; 510886, 3739194; 510990, 3738991;
511175, 3738956; 511181, 3738873; 511155, 3738784; 511048, 3738768;
510917, 3738819; 510813, 3738829; 510749, 3738781; 510746, 3738552;
510695, 3738432; 510690, 3738316; 510295, 3737921; 510155, 3737632;
510098, 3737613; 510041, 3737603; 509978, 3737622; 509800, 3737629;
509755, 3737600; 509692, 3737540; 509673, 3737428; 509508, 3737394;
509479, 3737336; 509406, 3737301; 509339, 3737238; 509260, 3737152;
509266, 3737092; 509206, 3737003; 509193, 3736917; 509171, 3736870;
509104, 3736822; 509012, 3736806; 509009, 3736765; 508990, 3736717;
508895, 3736644; 508838, 3736549; 508793, 3736517; 508708, 3736314;
509292, 3736095; 509581, 3735990; 510067, 3735958; 510089, 3736000;
510038, 3736057; 510238, 3736000; 510333, 3735987; 510419, 3736063;
510492, 3736028; 510492, 3735971; 510584, 3735952; 510733, 3735863;
510743, 3735803; 511019, 3735758; 511140, 3735755; 511381, 3735479;
511629, 3735457; 511803, 3735485; 511898, 3735523; 512064, 3735543;
512238, 3735549; 512448, 3735520; 512616, 3735520; 512702, 3735504;
512832, 3735517; 512908, 3735584; 513013, 3735638; 513305, 3735685;
513410, 3735784; 513508, 3735892; 513613, 3735990; 513673, 3736133;
513692, 3736276; 513711, 3736384; 513813, 3736489; 513851, 3736568;
514004, 3736574; 514137, 3736520; 514188, 3736393; 514175, 3736305;
514118, 3736193; 514140, 3736101; 514115, 3736016; 513794, 3736016;
513689, 3735917; 513667, 3735828; 513616, 3735733; 513569, 3735673;
513505, 3735530; 513454, 3735485; 513369, 3735444; 513235, 3735406;
513162, 3735352; 513108, 3735273; 512978, 3735212; 512851, 3735231;
512626, 3735216; 512467, 3735231; 512410, 3735311; 512197, 3735327;
512095, 3735289; 511975, 3735219; 511822, 3735235; 511733, 3735266;
511600, 3735279; 511419, 3735343; 511359, 3735343; 511308, 3735320;
511311, 3735282; 511343, 3735216; 511435, 3735139; 511546, 3735076;
511638, 3735009; 511648, 3735009; 511800, 3734866; 511899, 3734806;
511933, 3734739; 512051, 3734692; 512184, 3734581; 512387, 3734390;
512578, 3734346; 512683, 3734285; 513191, 3734155; 513292, 3734082;
513448, 3734028; 513581, 3734028; 513664, 3733980; 513800, 3733888;
513905, 3733860; 514054, 3733844; 514188, 3733765; 514283, 3733688;
514362, 3733663; 514381, 3733580; 514483, 3733479; 514740, 3733476;
514800, 3733447; 515013, 3733431; 515067, 3733469; 515156, 3733460;
515181, 3733358; 515489, 3733288; 515769, 3733272; 515855, 3733263;
516004, 3733155; 516086, 3733088; 516290, 3732980; 516566, 3732964;
516680, 3732866; 517020, 3732860; 517087, 3732774; 517194, 3732685;
517277, 3732583; 517385, 3732491; 517458, 3732396; 517636, 3732228;
517868, 3732193; 517931, 3732266; 518134, 3732174; 518058, 3732069;
517979, 3732037; 517956, 3731993; 517899, 3731974; 517880, 3731879;
517909, 3731796; 517972, 3731733; 518160, 3731720; 518220, 3731745;
518347, 3731748; 518439, 3731704; 518557, 3731602; 518576, 3731494;
518664, 3731440; 518703, 3731364; 518833, 3731348; 518839, 3731307;
518776, 3731278; 518718, 3731218; 518718, 3731174; 518798, 3731110;
518899, 3731066; 519007, 3731047; 519087, 3730993; 519150, 3730961;
519188, 3730894; 519280, 3730790; 519334, 3730751; 519468, 3730688;
519547, 3730669; 519719, 3730675; 519763, 3730624; 519782, 3730494;
519820, 3730421; 519900, 3730377; 519988, 3730393; 520062, 3730342;
520087, 3729986; 520112, 3729955; 520071, 3729920; 520004, 3729939;
519814, 3730120; 519652, 3730135; 519614, 3730209; 519515, 3730316;
519417, 3730415; 519052, 3730434; 519014, 3730513; 518915, 3730612;
518817, 3730710; 518718, 3730758; 518391, 3730853; 518315, 3730910;
518249, 3730999; 518017, 3731228; 517988, 3731345; 517810, 3731520;
517585, 3732015; 517469, 3732053; 517287, 3732275; 517198, 3732333;
517121, 3732412; 516766, 3732447; 516706, 3732517; 516607, 3732517;
516528, 3732495; 516410, 3732523; 516315, 3732571; 516261, 3732641;
516172, 3732714; 516016, 3732812; 515623, 3732812; 515432, 3732831;
515216, 3732923; 515007, 3733012; 514610, 3733114; 514315, 3733209;
514312, 3733206; 514312, 3733209; 513911, 3733314; 513553, 3733387;
513546, 3733555; 513521, 3733653; 513473, 3733663; 513403, 3733638;
513213, 3733634; 513203, 3733787; 512762, 3733790; 512759, 3733647;
512407, 3733825; 512394, 3733869; 512143, 3734063; 512041, 3734114;
511689, 3734133; 511686, 3734238; 511591, 3734276; 511410, 3734414;
511219, 3734419; 511219, 3734511; 511111, 3734609; 511013, 3734708;
510940, 3734815; 510822, 3735015; 510781, 3735015; 510743, 3735250;
510717, 3735409; 510679, 3735489; 510559, 3735619; 509971, 3735641;
509971, 3735523; 509419, 3735520; 509333, 3735571; 509324, 3735641;
509035, 3735758; 508825, 3735758; 508825, 3735708; 508657, 3735708;
508650, 3735257; 508692, 3735114; 508768, 3734993; 508835, 3734758;
508885, 3734657; 509041, 3734438; 509146, 3734393; 509165, 3734311;
509238, 3734250; 509279, 3734241; 509362, 3734155; 509371, 3734120;
509714, 3733777; 509716, 3733777; 509800, 3733561; 509790, 3733003;
509841, 3732783; 509965, 3732568; 510248, 3732228; 510429, 3731977;
511070, 3731974; 511076, 3731901; 511187, 3731647; 511279, 3731494;
511486, 3731291; 511689, 3731183; 512076, 3731145; 512391, 3730986;
512603, 3730942; 512683, 3730885; 512835, 3730840; 512867, 3730767;
512845, 3730663; 512791, 3730599; 512718, 3730574; 512572, 3730551;
512419, 3730593; 512286, 3730643; 512051, 3730640; 511984, 3730612;
511949, 3730510; 512029, 3730472; 512035, 3730409; 511959, 3730345;
512010, 3730297; 512168, 3730224; 512267, 3730142; 512410, 3730091;
512591, 3729993; 512788, 3729885; 512978, 3729767; 513280, 3729497;
513714, 3729078; 513781, 3729056; 513858, 3728977; 513962, 3728935;
513972, 3728802; 514159, 3728535; 514175, 3728297; 514331, 3727986;
514296, 3727897; 514305, 3727764; 514350, 3727627; 514350, 3727576;
514391, 3727507; 514632, 3727494; 514683, 3727392; 514696, 3727297;
514845, 3727275; 514870, 3727100; 514845, 3727084; 514797, 3727145;
514740, 3727145; 514740, 3727034; 514769, 3726945; 514835, 3726907;
514937, 3726780; 514950, 3726662; 515012, 3726596; 515029, 3726497;
515083, 3726395; 515210, 3726335; 515251, 3726300; 515331, 3726329;
515429, 3726291; 515477, 3726205; 515391, 3726151; 515394, 3726056;
515423, 3725979; 515429, 3725903; 515502, 3725770; 515563, 3725713;
515617, 3725694; 515766, 3725681; 515782, 3725656; 515829, 3725643;
515845, 3725598; 515744, 3725598; 515661, 3725608; 515661, 3725567;
[[Page 19843]]
515696, 3725490; 515750, 3725475; 515782, 3725433; 515763, 3725376;
515766, 3725313; 515804, 3725233; 515867, 3725233; 515855, 3725176;
515794, 3725119; 515817, 3725055; 515896, 3724960; 515988, 3724887;
516058, 3724906; 516096, 3724884; 516147, 3724836; 516204, 3724681;
516315, 3724617; 516388, 3724589; 516487, 3724481; 516566, 3724440;
516566, 3724386; 516490, 3724316; 516464, 3724252; 516407, 3724233;
516226, 3724319; 516147, 3724300; 516039, 3724351; 516042, 3724389;
515829, 3724617; 515626, 3724805; 515528, 3724894; 515540, 3724979;
515566, 3725014; 515563, 3725176; 515585, 3725259; 515569, 3725376;
515512, 3725522; 515423, 3725563; 515445, 3725659; 515359, 3725770;
515318, 3725843; 515255, 3725935; 515251, 3726068; 515242, 3726129;
515191, 3726198; 515102, 3726243; 515020, 3726303; 514956, 3726383;
514880, 3726510; 514832, 3726606; 514835, 3726738; 514651, 3726853;
514616, 3727011; 514559, 3727173; 514486, 3727338; 514397, 3727338;
514286, 3727361; 514220, 3727453; 514210, 3727522; 514169, 3727576;
514134, 3727576; 514102, 3727519; 514051, 3727526; 514010, 3727608;
513943, 3727621; 513921, 3727691; 513940, 3727894; 513915, 3728015;
513848, 3728129; 513785, 3728278; 513686, 3728342; 513626, 3728421;
513610, 3728507; 513416, 3728735; 513321, 3728770; 513302, 3728815;
513213, 3728856; 513156, 3728907; 513016, 3728992; 512940, 3729056;
512908, 3729119; 512793, 3729145; 512749, 3729186; 512638, 3729234;
512603, 3729313; 512502, 3729323; 512378, 3729485; 512238, 3729558;
512207, 3729605; 512172, 3729643; 512184, 3729974; 511597, 3730437;
511051, 3731015; 510727, 3731390; 510724, 3731390; 510724, 3731393;
510254, 3732104; 509952, 3732472; 509813, 3732685; 509755, 3732869;
509730, 3733041; 509733, 3733476; 509720, 3733618; 509689, 3733676;
509505, 3733822; 509247, 3733824; 509247, 3734057; 509095, 3734190;
508854, 3734200; 508825, 3734463; 508743, 3734584; 508670, 3734733;
508590, 3734939; 508498, 3735177; 508419, 3735352; 508333, 3735450;
508374, 3735530; 508431, 3735584; 508422, 3735733; 508288, 3735855;
508000, 3735892; 507828, 3735958; 507180, 3735955; 506825, 3736327;
506952, 3736460; 506911, 3736495; 506876, 3736470; 506850, 3736492;
506822, 3736470; 506752, 3736543; 506682, 3736470; 506358, 3736768;
506288, 3736863; 506250, 3736940; 506225, 3737311; 505895, 3737632;
505714, 3737629; 505714, 3738003; 505806, 3738010; 505893, 3738055;
505850, 3738416; 505787, 3738559; 505320, 3739638; 505212, 3739835;
505079, 3740063; 504901, 3740276; 504688, 3740486; 504501, 3740664;
504498, 3740663; 504498, 3740667; 504097, 3741019; 503964, 3740889;
503650, 3741092; 503653, 3741445; 503482, 3741613; 503320, 3741708;
502783, 3741978; 502538, 3741916; 502535, 3741918; 502056, 3741911;
502037, 3742391; 501951, 3742432; 501713, 3742429; 501700, 3742569;
500545, 3743165; 500503, 3743213; 499532, 3743550; 499529, 3743553;
499408, 3743616; 499214, 3743715; 498910, 3743908; 498802, 3743975;
498643, 3744042; 497684, 3744045; 497678, 3744334; 497341, 3744413;
496992, 3744578; 496644, 3744813; 496643, 3744816; 496538, 3744880;
496214, 3745013; 496084, 3745032; 495890, 3745007; 495589, 3744909;
495414, 3744851; 495331, 3744820; 495093, 3744836; 494935, 3744893;
494909, 3744909; 494792, 3744950; 494608, 3745109; 494303, 3745315;
494008, 3745509; 493661, 3745699; 493661, 3745702; 493509, 3745801;
493309, 3745912; 493014, 3746109; 492712, 3746309; 492509, 3746413;
492236, 3746452; 491322, 3746452; 491318, 3747677; 491449, 3747680;
491483, 3747817; 491642, 3747826; 491760, 3747849; 491795, 3747880;
492014, 3747874; 492090, 3747690; 492280, 3747452; 492499, 3747274;
493198, 3746585; 493354, 3746560; 493550, 3746433; 493661, 3746274;
493646, 3746163; 493779, 3745959; 493757, 3745899; returning to 493757,
3745718.
(ii) Map Unit 3 follows.
[[Page 19844]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR23AP02.004
(8) Unit 4: Etiwanda Alluvial Fan and Wash, San Bernardino County,
California
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Devore (1988) and Cucamonga
Peak (1988), California, land bounded by the following UTM NAD27
coordinates (E, N): 449195, 3781261; 449359, 3781273; 449455, 3781238;
449550, 3781270; 449715, 3781238; 449785, 3781184; 450509, 3781194;
450909, 3781295; 451007, 3781362; 451963, 3781353; 452099, 3781270;
452376, 3781251; 452490, 3781191; 452788, 3781092; 452884, 3781003;
452896, 3780864; 453004, 3780860; 453881, 3780857; 453877, 3780816;
453988, 3780791; 454706, 3780785; 454757, 3780876; 455017, 3780886;
455217, 3781099; 455224, 3781251; 455150, 3781432; 455166, 3781559;
455081, 3781657; 455090, 3781683; 455281, 3781676; 455281, 3781483;
455344, 3781368; 455360, 3781273; 455376, 3781222; 455366, 3781022;
455347, 3781003; 455312, 3780905; 455290, 3780800; 455281, 3780689;
455189, 3780502; 455116, 3780140; 455087, 3780101; 455081, 3779987;
455052, 3779813; 455024, 3779419; 455008, 3778819; 454931, 3778809;
454865, 3778781; 454801, 3778797; 454757, 3778778; 454719, 3778797;
454671, 3778787; 454608, 3779009; 454516, 3779203; 454487, 3779282;
454509, 3779403; 454516, 3779600; 454652, 3780171; 454614, 3780232;
454446, 3780263; 454271, 3780270; 454271, 3780432; 453852, 3780435;
453861, 3780060; 453782, 3780003; 453855, 3779898; 453858, 3778752;
454255, 3778743; 454243, 3777913; 453611, 3777517; 453601, 3777263;
453046, 3777273; 453033, 3778181; 452957, 3778181; 452953, 3778244;
452242, 3778266; 452242, 3778746; 451860, 3778746; 451852, 3779565;
451509, 3779568; 450763, 3778822; 450763, 3778781; 451033, 3778755;
451029, 3778295; 450934, 3778171; 450807, 3778168; 450791, 3777962;
450734, 3777958; 450718, 3777362; 450629, 3777396; 450553, 3777396;
450229, 3777273; 450010, 3777273; 450017, 3777819; 449804, 3777987;
449244, 3778007; 449242, 3778120; 449194, 3778305; 449089, 3778466;
448581, 3778463; 448578, 3778016; 448334, 3778009; 448331, 3778174;
448299, 3778197; 448432, 3778555; 448445, 3778701; 448435, 3779371;
448385, 3779476; 448327, 3779549; 448210, 3779613; 448207, 3780168;
448397, 3780102; 448356, 3780232; 448283, 3780368; 448242, 3780419;
447032, 3780410; 447035, 3781480; 447305, 3781483; 447477, 3781394;
447562, 3781340; 447613, 3781340; 447737, 3781422; 447743, 3781467;
448007, 3781473; 448096, 3781384; 448489, 3781181; 448705, 3781156;
448731, 3780994; 448893, 3781003; 449074, 3781102; returning to 449195,
3781261; excluding land bounded by 452900, 3779300; 453300, 3779300;
453300, 3779000; 453200, 3779000; 453200, 3778900; 453000, 3778900;
453000, 3779200; 452900, 3779200; 452900, 3779300.
(ii) Map Unit 4 follows.
[[Page 19845]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR23AP02.005
Dated: April 12, 2002.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-9596 Filed 4-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}