[Federal Register: December 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 246)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 73091-73178] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26de07-18] [[Page 73091]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Part III Department of the Interior ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Fish and Wildlife Service ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Arenaria ursina (Bear Valley Sandwort), Castilleja cinerea (Ash-gray Indian Paintbrush), and Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum (Southern Mountain Wild-Buckwheat); Final Rule [[Page 73092]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AU80 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Arenaria ursina (Bear Valley Sandwort), Castilleja cinerea (Ash-gray Indian Paintbrush), and Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum (Southern Mountain Wild-Buckwheat) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are designating critical habitat for Arenaria ursina (Bear Valley sandwort), Castilleja cinerea (Ash-gray Indian paintbrush), and Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum (southern mountain wild- buckwheat) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 1,769 acres (ac) (722 hectares (ha)) of land fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designations for these three species. Approximately 1,412 ac (571 ha) of Federal and private land are being designated as critical habitat for Arenaria ursina; approximately 1,769 ac (722 ha) of Federal, State, and private land are being designated as critical habitat for Castilleja cinerea; and approximately 904 ac (366 ha) of Federal and private land are being designated as critical habitat for Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum. All lands included in these final designations are in San Bernardino County, California. These final designations include an addition of a total of 258 ac (111 ha) from the total area included in the 2006 proposed designations for these species. DATES: This rule becomes effective on January 25, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, at 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011 (telephone 760/431-9440). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The final rule, economic analysis, and maps are available via the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background It is our intent to reiterate and discuss only those topics directly relevant to the development and designation of critical habitat or relevant information obtained since publication of the proposed critical habitat designations (71 FR 67712; November 22, 2006). This final rule addresses critical habitat for Arenaria ursina (Bear Valley sandwort), Castilleja cinerea (Ash-gray Indian paintbrush), and Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum (southern mountain wild-buckwheat) (collectively referred to as ``pebble plains plants''), because they largely occupy the same habitat, referred to as pebble plain habitat. For additional information on the taxonomy, description, biology, and ecology of each of these species, refer to the final rule listing them as threatened published in the Federal Register on September 14, 1998 (63 FR 49006) or the proposed critical habitat rule published in the Federal Register on November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67712). Pebble Plain Habitat No new substantial information pertaining to the ``Pebble Plain Habitat'' section in the proposed designation was received following publication of the 2006 proposed critical habitat designation for each species; therefore, please refer to the ``Background'' section of the proposed critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register on November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67712) for a discussion of pebble plain habitat. Species Descriptions No new substantial information pertaining to the ``Species Descriptions'' section in the proposed designation was received following our 2006 proposed critical habitat designation for each species; therefore, please refer to the ``Background'' section of the proposed critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register on November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67712) for a discussion of the species description of these three species. Threats to Pebble Plains Habitat No new substantial information pertaining to the ``Threats to Pebble Plains Habitat'' section in the proposed designation was received following the 2006 proposed critical habitat designation for each species; therefore, please refer to the ``Background'' section of the proposed critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register on November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67712) for a discussion of the threats to pebble plains habitat. Previous Federal Actions As discussed in the November 22, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 67712), the Service agreed, as part of a settlement agreement, to submit to the Federal Register a proposed rule to designate critical habitat, if prudent, on or before November 9, 2006, and a final rule by November 9, 2007. We published a proposed critical habitat rule in the Federal Register on November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67712). We also published a notice of availability of the draft economic analysis of the November 22, 2006, proposed rule in the Federal Register on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45407). This final rule completes our obligations under the April 14, 2005, settlement agreement regarding the subject species. For a discussion of additional previous Federal actions involving these three pebble plains plants, please see the listing rule (63 FR 49006; September 14, 1998) or the proposed critical habitat rule (71 FR 67712; November 22, 2006). Summary of Comments and Recommendations We requested comments from the public on the proposed designations of critical habitat for the pebble plains plants during two comment periods. The first comment period, associated with the publication of the proposed rule (71 FR 67712), opened on November 22, 2006, and closed on January 22, 2007. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing during this comment period. We also requested comments on the proposed rule and draft economic analysis (DEA) during a comment period that opened August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45407) and closed on September 13, 2007. We contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule during these two comment periods. During the first comment period, we received five comment letters directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designations: three from peer reviewers, one from a Federal agency, and one from an organization. During the second comment period, we received no comment letters addressing the proposed critical habitat designations or the draft economic analysis. Comments received during both comment periods are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate. Peer Review In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from four knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species, the [[Page 73093]] geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation biology principles. We received responses from three of the four peer reviewers we requested comment from. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate. Peer Reviewer Comments (1) Comment: One peer reviewer agreed with the proposed designations overall and stated that proposed critical habitat Units 1, 3, 5, and 9 essentially contain all of the pebble plains habitat for the subject taxa in those areas. However, this reviewer cited other pebble plains habitat occupied by one or more of the listed species that were overlooked by the designations. Our Response: Many of the pebble plains listed by the peer reviewer as ``overlooked'' by the designations were also described (by the reviewer) as small, isolated pebble plains, within areas degraded by residential development. As discussed in the ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' section of the proposed rule, we worked closely with San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF) personnel with knowledge of pebble plains plants and habitats to identify critical habitat for each of the three listed pebble plains plants based on several criteria. Since the pebble plains identified by the reviewer and other pebble plains in these complexes were relatively small, isolated from other pebble plains, and/or degraded to some extent, they did not meet our criteria used to identify critical habitat for each species and therefore were not included in the proposed or these final designations (see ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section below for a detailed discussion). (2) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that proposed critical habitat Subunit 3A in Broom Flat [ppn. 311; ppn. = pebble plain number as identified in the USFS Pebble Plain Management Guide (USFS 2002)] is mapped such that, except for a sliver of an adjacent pebble plain (ppn. 274) supporting Arenaria ursina and Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum, only Castilleja cinerea is captured. Our Response: We appreciate the correction pertaining to pebble plain number 311 in proposed critical habitat Subunit 3A. We recognize that the great majority of Subunit 3A is occupied solely by Castilleja cinerea and have revised this final rule such that this subunit (ppn. 311) is designated as critical habitat only for C. cinerea, even though the other two listed plants occur in one small portion of this particular pebble plain (see ``Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule'' and the ``Unit Descriptions'' sections below). (3) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that pebble plains occupied by Castilleja cinerea located west of Wildhorse Meadow Road in the Sugarloaf Ridge complex should have been included in the proposed designation for C. cinerea because these areas represent a significant and distinctive population of this species, with shorter, maroon bracts, as opposed to C. cinerea in Big Bear and Holcomb Valley, which have broader, yellow-gold bracts. Another peer reviewer stated that two of the pebble plains identified in the previous peer reviewer's comment (ppn. 286 and 293) along Sugarloaf Ridge west of Wildhorse Meadow not included in the proposed designations support large and relatively undisturbed occurrences of C. cinerea at the highest known elevation and that such elevational extremes may be important for the conservation of the species where they represent genetic variation favorable to surviving long term environmental changes. Our Response: We acknowledged in the proposed rule that the Sugarloaf Ridge complex contains occurrences of Castilleja cinerea that are morphologically distinct from occurrences in other complexes, and that these occurrences represent a unique portion of the range of environmental variability for these species and may be important for maintaining genetic diversity for the species. At the time of the proposed rule we believed that our proposal adequately represented the morphologically distinct form of C. cinerea within the Sugarloaf Ridge complex. Upon receipt of these peer reviewer comments, we reviewed the available information regarding the pebble plains in this area and determined that the two largest (of three) pebble plains west of Wildhorse Meadow Road Sugarloaf Ridge complex (ppn. 286 and 293) do, in fact, meet the definition of critical habitat for C. cinerea (see ``Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule'' and the ``Unit Descriptions'' sections below). Including these two pebble plains in this designation increases the representation, resiliency, and redundancy of this morphologically distinct form of the species and the unique portion of the range of environmental variability for C. cinerea. We have, therefore designated these two pebble plains as critical habitat for C. cinerea. Furthermore, as commented on by a separate peer reviewer these two pebble plains support large and relatively undisturbed occurrences of C. cinerea, one (ppn 293) at the highest known elevation occupied by this species. (4) Comment: One peer reviewer agreed with the description and characterization of each of the three listed pebble plains plants and their associated habitats. However, they suggested including Robinson, B.C. (1894) as the original description of Arenaria ursina. This reviewer also commented that proposed critical habitat Unit 3 (Gold Mountain) is described as being 88 acres (ac) (36 hectares (ha)) on page 67722 but 105 ac (42 ha) on page 67723 of the proposed rule. Our Response: We appreciate the additional information. We have included Robinson (1894) in our administrative file for the designation of critical habitat for Arenaria ursina. Regarding the difference in area estimates given for proposed critical habitat Unit 3, the 88 acres (36 ha) discussed on page 67722 pertains to an early estimate of pebble plain habitat in the Gold Mountain complex (USFS 2002, pp. 32, 52). However, as discussed on page 67723 of the proposed rule, we used only the most recent and accurate information (SBNF 2004 Geographic Information System (GIS)) to delineate proposed critical habitat boundaries which indicates Unit 3 is 105 ac (42 ha). (5) Comment: One peer reviewer provided additional information on threats, land-use designations, and why specific occurrences are essential to the conservation of the species for several pebble plains included in the proposed designations. This reviewer also stated that a well developed communication site on private land at Onyx Peak is within proposed Subunit 3B and that as a result, this area may lack the primary constituent elements (PCEs) required by the species. Our Response: We appreciate the additional information provided on threats, land-use designations, and why specific occurrences are essential to the conservation of the species and have included this information in this final rule (please see the ``Unit Descriptions'' section). Regarding the communication site located within proposed Subunit 3B, as stated in the proposed rule, we tried to avoid including within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat developed areas such as buildings, paved areas, and other structures that lack PCEs for the three listed species. However, the scale of the maps prepared may not reflect the exclusion of such developed areas. Any such structures and the land under them inadvertently left inside critical habitat [[Page 73094]] boundaries shown on the maps of the proposed rule are excluded by text in this rule and are not considered to be critical habitat. (6) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the rule incorrectly states that Arenaria ursina and Castilleja cinerea were not known to occur at the time of listing on Sugarloaf Ridge. However, these occurrences have been known since the 1970's or earlier and fall within the following element occurrences in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (A. ursina number 7 and C. cinerea numbers 4, 12, 13, and 14). Our Response: We appreciate the correction and have revised this statement accordingly in this final rule (see the ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' and ``Unit Descriptions'' sections below). (7) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested corrections and/or clarification of the following: (1) Our characterization of pebble plains habitat as ``dry meadow-like'' habitat, (2) references to Mojavean Desert scrub should be changed to Great Basin sagebrush, and (3) primary constituent element (PCE) 2 should be revised to clarify that the frost/heave process has more to do with excluding large/woody species from colonizing pebble plains than directly providing for the physiological requirements of the species. Our Response: We responded to these comments in the following ways: (1) we characterized pebble plain habitat as ``dry meadow-like'' habitat to provide an additional description of this habitat type and to assist the public in visualizing what habitat comprised of ``treeless openings surrounded by woodland or forest'' looks like; (2) as noted by the reviewer, references to Mojavean Desert scrub in the proposed rule were based on the 2002 Pebble Plains Habitat Management Guide (Management Guide; USFS 2002). We have replaced references to this vegetation type throughout this final rule with ``Great Basin sagebrush'' as suggested; and (3) we revised the text of the PCE section and PCE 2 accordingly (see ``Primary Constituent Elements'' section below). (8) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that relative to threats to the species outlined in the proposed rule, habitat loss through private land development remains the main cause of continued decline of these species while unauthorized motorized vehicle travel off of designated system routes continues to be the primary cause of pebble plain habitat degradation on U.S. Forest Service's (USFS) lands. This reviewer further stated that forest system road use and maintenance, mining activities, and dispersed recreation continue to have adverse ongoing effects to pebble plain habitat and the species it supports. However, the magnitude and severity of effects caused by these activities are relatively small compared to the effects of unauthorized motorized vehicle use. Our Response: We appreciate the clarification and have revised the text of this final rule to emphasize that habitat loss is the primary threat to the three listed species on private land while unauthorized motorized vehicle travel off of designated system routes continues to be the primary threat to these species on Federal lands (see the ``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section below). (9) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the proposed rule did not mention vegetation and fuels management, hazard tree removal, or wildfire suppression in the list of threats to pebble plains habitat. This reviewer commented that many pebble plains on USFS lands lie within the USFS Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) defense zone and that unavoidable adverse impacts would be addressed through section 7 consultation. Our Response: We appreciate the information and have included a discussion of vegetation and fuels management, hazard tree removal, and wildfire suppression activities as potential threats to these species' habitat in the WUI zone on USFS land in this final rule (see ``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' and ``Unit Descriptions'' sections below). (10) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the ``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section fails to address the potential impacts to these three species from global climate change. Also, the ``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section does not identify whether and how critical habitat could provide for long-term conservation for these species if climate change were to occur. This reviewer further stated that one reason that critical habitat could be viewed as a benefit to species' conservation is that the 11 identified units represent a range of habitat conditions for these species which could allow them to persist at least at some of the sites should conditions change toward one end of the gradient. Our Response: We did not address the potential impacts of global climate change to these species in the proposed rule because we are not currently aware of any species-specific or geographic-specific information on this potential threat nor did the reviewer provide additional information on this threat regarding how it might impact these species or their habitat. However, as noted by the peer reviewer, we did include in the critical habitat designations pebble plain habitat representing a range of habitat conditions that could allow them to persist in the event of environmental change. For example, one of the criterions for areas proposed as critical habitat for Castilleja cinerea were areas containing unique habitat characteristics (see ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' section of the proposed rule). While not specifically identified as a criterion for inclusion in the proposed designations, areas containing Arenaria ursina or Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum occurrences at the extremes of the species' geographic range (e.g., northernmost extent) or elevation range (highest or lowest elevation) were included in the proposed designations. We have revised the text to more clearly state the importance of conserving habitat representing a range of conditions that could allow these species to persist in the event of environmental change (see ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' section below). (11) Comment: One peer reviewer and one public commenter stated that proposed Subunit 2B incorrectly describes the area proposed for designation as the former Snow Summit Ski Area, instead of the former Snow Forest Ski Area. Our Response: We appreciate the correction and have replaced ``Snow Summit Ski Area'' with ``Snow Forest Ski Area'' in this final rule (see ``Unit Descriptions'' section below). Public Comments (12) Comment: One commenter stated strong support for designation of critical habitat for these species but expressed concern that the proposed rule fails to indicate why vast areas of pebble plain habitat where the species are documented to occur were not included in the proposed designations. The commenter requested justification as to why certain occurrences or areas were not included as proposed critical habitat, including: (a) specific extant occurrences that contain the PCEs, (b) specific occupied areas where only a small portion of the occurrence was included, and (c) specific occupied areas where most but not the entire known occurrence was included. Our Response: The Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied [[Page 73095]] by the species at the time it is listed on which are found those physical and biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. We believe that our proposed and final designations accurately describe all areas meeting the definition of critical habitat for Castilleja cinerea, Arenaria ursina and Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum. As discussed in the proposed rule, we worked closely with SBNF personnel with knowledge of pebble plains plants and habitats to identify critical habitat for each of the three listed pebble plains plants based on several criteria (see ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' section of the proposed rule and this final rule). The areas delineated as critical habitat: (1) Support large or well-defined pebble plains or basins relative to other pebble plains in the complex; (2) support pebble plains least disturbed by anthropogenic threats (such as unauthorized vehicle use) relative to other pebble plains in the complex; (3) support areas containing unique habitat characteristics (e.g., soil type) or representing occurrences at the extremes of the species' geographic (e.g., northernmost extent) or elevational range (e.g., highest or lowest elevation); and (4) support morphologically unique species occurrences. Application of these criteria captures the physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species, as identified in the species' primary constituent elements (PCEs), in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential for the conservation of all three species. Thus, not all areas supporting the identified PCEs will meet the definition of critical habitat. We recognize that our designations do not encompass all known occurrences of any of the three pebble plains plants as noted by the commenter. According to 2004 GIS data provided to the Service by the SBNF, the SBNF has mapped almost 300 individual pebble plains on and adjacent to the SBNF. Many of the 300 mapped pebble plains are small, isolated pebble plains that are degraded by surrounding residential development. We have determined that these small, isolated, degraded pebble plains are not essential to the conservation of the pebble plains plants and our criteria as described above did not capture these pebble plains. Although we are not designating all known occurrences of any of the three pebble plants, we believe that our criteria, and therefore the designations, are adequate to ensure the conservation of all three species throughout their extant ranges based on the best available information at this time. Species and plant communities that are protected across their ranges are expected to have lower likelihoods of extinction (Soule and Simberloff 1986; Scott et al 2001, pp. 1297-1300); our criteria identified multiple locations across the entire range of each species as essential habitat to prevent range collapse. Genetic variation in plants can result from the effects of population isolation and adaptation to locally distinct environments (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, pp. 754-757; Fraser 2000, pp. 49-51; Hamrick and Godt, pp. 291-295); our criteria identified populations that occur in unique habitats within the species' ranges, as well as habitats that support morphologically unique occurrences, in order to capture the range of environmental gradients in which these species are found. Conserving such areas aids in preserving the genetic variation that may result from adaptation to local environmental conditions, as documented in other plant species (e.g., see Hamrick and Godt pp. 299- 301; Millar and Libby 1991 pp. 150, 152-155). Furthermore, locations that possess unique ecological characteristics represent the full range of environmental variability where the pebble plains plants have evolved, and therefore are likely to promote the adaptation of these species to different environmental conditions. The commenter is incorrect in their characterization of our proposal and designations in stating that there are cases where we did not include an entire extent of an occupied pebble plain that we determined met the definition of critical habitat. In all cases we included the entire extent of any identified pebble plain in the proposed designations as delineated in the SBNF's 2004 GIS data provided to the Service by the SBNF. (13) Comment: One commenter indicated that the proposed designations for each of the three species are flawed because they do not include unoccupied habitat essential for recovery and that without such designated critical habitat these species' chances of persisting and recovering are greatly diminished. Our Response: In our proposed rule, we did not identify any additional areas outside the geographical area occupied by Arenaria ursina, Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum, and Castilleja cinerea at the time they were listed as essential for the conservation of these species. The Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed on which are found those physical and biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. As discussed in response to comment 12, we believe that our proposed rule and these final designations of critical habitat meet the requirements of the Act and our proposed and final designations accurately describe all areas essential to the conservation of C. cinerea, A. ursina and E. kennedyi var. austromontanum. Therefore, consistent with 50 CFR 424.12(e), we are not designating any areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by these species as we believe that this designation is adequate to ensure the conservation of the species. These designations include all habitat areas currently determined to be necessary for these species' recovery. Critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the proposed designation is unimportant or may not contribute to a species' recovery. Areas outside the final critical habitat designations will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, and regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act. Critical habitat designations based on 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 information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome. We recognize that the threats faced by these species may change in the future, however we base our critical habitat designations on the information available at the time of the designation and do not speculate as to what areas may be found essential if better information became available or what areas may become essential over time. The commenter did not include any specific data supporting their statement that unoccupied areas are essential for the recovery of any of the [[Page 73096]] listed pebble plains plants and we are not aware of any studies or data that we did not consider. Should additional data become available concerning future threats to this species, we may revise this critical habitat designation if it is determined that the designation did not capture an area essential to the conservation of the species. (14) Comment: The San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF) disagreed with our rationale for designating critical habitat on their lands due to concerns over ongoing unauthorized activities. They state that while they share our concerns and will continue to work to improve compliance with existing management direction within their budget capabilities, unauthorized activities are an enforcement issue that will not be improved by the designations of critical habitat. Our Response: While we agree that the issue of unauthorized activities on USFS lands is an enforcement issue, we believe that the designations of critical habitat will benefit the three listed species in that it identifies those lands which are essential for the conservation of the species and can, if managed, provide for the conservation of each of the species. (15) Comment: The SBNF commented that they have been proactive in contributing to both survival and recovery of these three listed species and have developed and implemented a Pebble Plain Habitat Management Guide (USFS 2002), which includes these three species, and are working closely with the Service on the development of a recovery plan. They further stated that they recently revised their Land Management Plan (LMP) to incorporate management direction that they believe provides sufficient protection and management for the pebble plain species and their habitat. They further stated that designations of critical habitat on SBNF lands would not provide any additional benefit to the conservation of the three listed species or their habitat since all site-specific projects proposed by the SBNF are subject to section 7(a)(2) consultation with the Service and that designation would unnecessarily add to their analysis burden by requiring SBNF to make a determination of effect regarding critical habitat when consulting under section 7 of the Act. Our Response: As stated in the proposed rule, we acknowledge that the 2002 Management Guide (incorporated by reference into their revised LMP) was designed to provide management direction for the conservation of pebble plain habitat in the SBNF, to aid in recovery of the three federally-listed plants, and to improve conditions for Forest Sensitive species occurring in this habitat; the plan identifies the following management goals and actions necessary to reduce impacts to pebble plain habitat: protecting pebble plain habitat throughout its geographic range, reducing habitat loss and fragmentation, maintaining site viability, and encouraging compatible uses (USFS 2002, p. i). We appreciate and commend the efforts of the USFS to conserve federally listed species on their lands and recognize that the SBNF has completed many of the actions outlined in their 2002 Management Guide (USFS 2002) (incorporated by reference into their revised LMP) to avoid and minimize impacts to the three listed pebble plain species. We have determined that Forest Service lands meet the definitions of critical habitat and are essential to the conservation of the three listed pebble plain species (see ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' and ``Unit Descriptions'' sections below). We acknowledge that the LMP will benefit the three listed pebble plain species and their habitat. The LMP contains general provisions for species conservation and suggests specific management and conservation actions that will benefit these species and their PCEs. Implementation of the LMP should address known threats to these species on Forest Service lands. As stated above, we appreciate and commend the efforts of USFS to conserve federally listed species on their lands. However, Federal agencies have an independent responsibility under section 7(a)(1) of the Act to use their programs in furtherance of the Act and to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. USFS' development and implementation of the LMP, and specifically the Pebble Plain Habitat Management Guide, is consistent with the agency's statutory obligation under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, and is not an appropriate basis for excluding essential habitat for the three listed pebble plain species on Forest Service lands from critical habitat designation. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security and any other relevant impact if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area, unless he determines that the exclusion would result in the extinction of the species concerned. We have considered the request from USFS that we exclude their lands based on the burden that the critical habitat designation would add to their section 7(a)(2) consultation requirement for actions on their lands and the fact that they completed consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act on their LMP. The primary benefit of including an area within a critical habitat designation is the protection provided by section 7(a)(2) of the Act that directs Federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This benefit of designating an area as critical habitat is limited if the areas under consideration for designation occur on private lands for which there may not be a Federal nexus to invoke the protections of section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Federal lands by default have a Federal nexus and the intent of section 7 of the Act is to require Federal Agencies to consult on any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency to insure that the action will not jeopardize a listed species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. Therefore, the benefits of inclusion of these areas are greater because they are Federal lands. We do not agree that any additional analysis required under section 7(a)(2) due to this critical habitat designation on Federal lands constitutes an undue burden for USFS such that the benefits of exclusion would outweigh the benefits of inclusion in this circumstance. Under the Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Regulations published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2003 (68 FR 68254), projects that support the National Fire Plan that the Forest Service determines are ``not likely to adversely affect'' any listed species or designated critical habitat do not require any additional consultation under the Act with the Service. Projects within the scope of the National Fire Plan include projects such as, prescribed fire, mechanical fuels treatments (thinning and removal of fuels to prescribed objectives), emergency stabilization, burned area rehabilitation, road maintenance and operation activities, ecosystem restoration, and culvert replacement actions. Therefore, projects such as restoration, revegetation, and removal of nonnative species conducted in support of the National Fire Plan that are not likely to adversely affect federally-listed species should not add to USFS' workload or cost burden by requiring them to conduct a separate analysis and make a determination of effect on critical habitat when consulting under section 7 of the Act. [[Page 73097]] Also, as part of our Section 7 consultation with the USFS on the LMP, the USFS has already consulted on various activities carried out on national forest lands including: roads and trail management; recreation management; special use permit administration; administrative infrastructure; fire and fuels management; livestock grazing and range management; minerals management; and law enforcement. In our 2005 biological opinion on the LMP, we determined that implementation of the plan was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the three listed pebble plain species. Since critical habitat has not been previously proposed or designated for any of these three species, it is anticipated that the consultation with the USFS regarding their current LMP will be reinitiated. However, because the USFS has already consulted with us on potential impacts to these species related to the activities outlined in the LMP, the USFS can supplement its analysis for those activities already analyzed in the LMP with the additional analysis required due to the designation of critical habitat. We do not believe that this additional analysis would place an undue burden on the USFS. In conclusion, we are designating Forest Service lands that meet the definition of critical habitat for the three pebble plains plant species because we have determined that the exclusion of Forest Service lands is not appropriate in light of the USFS' independent obligation under section 7(a)(1) of the Act to utilize the agency's authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of the three pebble plains plants. Also, because of the agency's statutory obligations, the additional analysis under section 7(a)(2) of the Act as a result of designation of critical habitat on National Forest lands should not be considered a relevant impact under Section 4(b)(2) or constitute an undue burden for USFS. Comments Related to the Draft Economic Analysis (DEA) (16) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service should include all occupied habitat in the economic analysis and the final designations and that we should not rely on the flawed proposed designations as the bases for the economic analysis. Our Response: As discussed in the ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' section below, we worked closely with SBNF personnel with knowledge of pebble plains plants and habitats to identify critical habitat for each of the three listed pebble plains plants based on several criteria. We do not agree that the proposed designations are flawed, and it was appropriate to base the draft economic analysis on the areas included in the proposed rule. Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule The following changes to the proposed designations of critical habitat for these three species were made in this final designation: We revised the final designations to include information (e.g., occurrence data, threats, site-specific land use designations) received during the public comment periods (see ``Summary of Comments and Recommendations'' section above). We revised the final designations to further clarify the PCEs for each species (see ``Primary Constituent Elements'' section below). We renumbered the units/subunits defined in the proposed critical habitat designation to clarify the areas being designated for each species. To accomplish this, we assigned each species a unique identifier consisting of the first two letters of the genus and species names (i.e., ARUR, CACI, and ERKA). Each pebble plain that is being designated as critical habitat for an individual species was assigned a number that was then paired with the unique identifier for that species. The pebble plains being designated as critical habitat for an individual species are numbered consecutively (ARUR1, ARUR2, ARUR3, etc). Table 1 below outlines how the proposed critical habitat units/ subunits have been revised in this final rule. As part of this revision, we also provide maps identifying critical habitat and boundary descriptions for each species separately in this final rule (see ``Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants'' section below). The renumbering of the critical habitat units for each species did not result in any changes to the unit boundaries as identified in the proposed designation. We revised the designation of proposed critical habitat Subunit 3A such that this pebble plain (ppn. 311) is now being designated as critical habitat for Castilleja cinerea (CACI 5) only (see ``Table 1'' and the ``Unit Descriptions'' sections below). A small sliver of this unit supports Arenaria ursina and Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum. This sliver represents a small area of overlap between pebble plains 311 and 274. Although pebble plain 274 supports populations of A. ursina and E. kennedyi var. austromontanum, we previously determined that pebble plain 274 is not essential to the conservation of these two species. Because of this, and the fact that the vast majority of proposed Subunit 3A is occupied only by C. cinerea, no part of this unit (now referred to as CACI 5) is designated as critical habitat for Arenaria ursina or Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum. This represents a reduction from the proposed rule in the overall area designated as critical habitat for each of these two species by 58 ac (23 ha). We re-evaluated lands in proposed critical habitat Subunit 8A in the Sawmill pebble plain complex (ppn. 236) (now referred to as ARUA 13, CACI 17, and ERKA 11 in this final rule) based on recent aerial imagery and determined that we inadvertently included in the proposed designations an area that is currently developed for residential use. We subsequently removed an approximately 8 ac (3 ha) area of private land from proposed critical habitat Subunit 8A (ppn. 236) from these final designations because this area does not contain the PCEs required by these species. Therefore, critical habitat for all three species was reduced by approximately 8 ac (3 ha) in this subunit. Other than the removal of these lands and the removal of proposed Subunit 3A for Arenaria ursina and Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum mentioned above, no other significant changes were made to the areas proposed as critical habitat for these two species (see Table 1 below). In response to peer reviewer comments, we have clarified that identifying areas supporting morphologically unique species occurrences is a relevant factor in applying our criteria for determining critical habitat. A re-evaluation of habitat supporting pebble plains species based on information received from peer reviewers and in consideration of this factor identified two pebble plains not proposed as critical habitat (ppn. 286 and 293) (now referred to as CACI 23 and CACI 24 respectively) within the Sugarloaf Ridge complex west of Wildhorse Meadow Road. These two areas further represent pebble plains with a significant and distinctive population of C. cinerea, with shorter, maroon bracts, as opposed to C. cinerea in the rest of its range in Big Bear and Holcomb Valley, which have broader, yellow- gold bracts. Furthermore, the pebble plain 293 represent a unique and higher elevational range than those in other complexes. These occurrences represent a unique portion of the range of environmental variability for this species and may be important for maintaining genetic diversity for the species. Therefore, we are including [[Page 73098]] CACI 23 (76 ac (31 ha)) and CACI 24 (190 ac (77 ha)) as critical habitat for C. cinerea only. This represents an increase from the proposed rule in the total amount of critical habitat designated from 1,511 ac (611 ha) to 1,769 ac (722 ha) (see Table 1 below). We are finalizing the taxonomic revision of the family for Castilleja cinerea from the Scrophulariaceae to Orobanchaceae (broomrape) family discussed in the proposed critical habitat rule. This final rule includes a change to the list of Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12(h) to reflect this taxonomic change. This taxonomic change was explained by Olmstead (2002, pp. 13-22) and is formally accepted here. Table 1.--Changes in Unit/Subunit Numbers and Area (Acres (ac), Hectares (ha)) Between 2006 Proposed Critical Habitat and 2007 Final Critical Habitat for Arenaria ursina, Castilleja cinerea, and Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum. The Abbreviation ``PCH'' Refers to the 2006 Proposed Critical Habitat Rule (71 FR 67712) and ``FCH'' Refers to This Final Critical Habitat Rule [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PCH Units or FCH Units for A. FCH Units for C. FCH Units for E. k. USFS Pebble plain No. (ppn)* subunits ursina cinerea var. austromontanum PCH ac (ha) FCH ac (ha) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100.............................. 1A.................. ARUR 1.............. CACI 1.............. ERKA 1............. 69 (28) 69 (28) 87............................... 1B.................. ARUR 2.............. CACI 2.............. ERKA 2............. 229 (93) 229 (93) 248.............................. 2A.................. ARUR 3.............. CACI 3.............. ................... 21 (9) 21 (9) 254.............................. 2B.................. ARUR 4.............. CACI 4.............. ERKA 3............. 6 (2) 6 (2) 311.............................. 3A.................. .................... CACI 5.............. ................... 58 (23) 58 (23) 285, 309......................... 3B.................. ARUR 5.............. CACI 6.............. ................... 326 (132) 326 (132) 301.............................. 4A.................. ARUR 6.............. CACI 7.............. ERKA 4............. 15 (6) 15 (6) 302.............................. 4B.................. ARUR 7.............. CACI 8.............. ERKA 5............. 24 (10) 24 (10) Juniper Point.................... 4C.................. .................... CACI 9.............. ................... 2 (1) 2 (1) 188.............................. 5A.................. ARUR 8.............. CACI 10............. ERKA 6............. 62 (25) 62 (25) 192.............................. 5B.................. ARUR 9.............. CACI 11............. ERKA 7............. 43 (17) 43 (17) South Baldwin Meadow............. 5C.................. .................... CACI 12............. ................... 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 98, 109.......................... 6A.................. ARUR 10............. CACI 13............. ERKA 8............. 28 (11) 28 (11) 153.............................. 6B.................. ARUR 11............. CACI 14............. ERKA 9............. 44 (18) 44 (18) 128.............................. 7A.................. ARUR 12............. CACI 15............. ERKA 10............ 320 (129) 320 (129) 168.............................. 7B.................. .................... CACI 16............. ................... 4 (2) 4 (2) 236.............................. 8A.................. ARUR 13............. CACI 17............. ERKA 11............ 44 (18) 36 (14) 224.............................. 8B.................. ARUR 14............. CACI 18............. ERKA 12............ 5 (2) 5 (2) 270.............................. 9................... .................... CACI 19............. ................... 26 (10) 26 (10) 212.............................. 10.................. ARUR 15............. CACI 20............. ERKA 13............ 23 (9) 23 (9) 294.............................. 11A................. ARUR 16............. CACI 21............. ................... 127 (51) 127 (51) 289.............................. 11B................. ARUR 17............. CACI 22............. ................... 34 (14) 34 (14) 286.............................. .................... .................... CACI 23............. ................... 0 (0) 76 (31) 293.............................. .................... .................... CACI 24............. ................... 0 (0) 190 (77) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals....................... 22.................. 17.................. 22.................. 13................. 1,511 (611) 1,769 (722) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * USFS Pebble Plain Management Guide (2002). Critical Habitat Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) Essential to the conservation of the species and (II) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) Specific areas outside the geographical 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, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking. Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires consultation on Federal actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by private landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the landowner's obligation is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within the [[Page 73099]] geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing must contain features that are essential to the conservation of the species, and be included only if those features may require special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific 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)). Under the Act, we can designate areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed as critical habitat only when we determine that those areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When we are determining which areas should be proposed as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge. Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not promote the recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, but are outside the critical habitat designations, will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented by Federal agencies under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas that support populations are also subject to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the best available scientific information at the time of the agency action. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome. Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing to propose as critical habitat, we identify the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species based on its biological needs. We consider the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species to be the primary constituent elements laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for the conservation of the species (PCEs). These include, but are not limited to: (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) Cover or shelter; (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species. We derive the specific primary constituent elements required for Arenaria ursina, Castilleja cinerea, and Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum from the biological needs described in the Background section of the proposed rule (71 FR 67712; November 22, 2006). They include those habitat components essential for the biological needs of each species, including seed germination and seedling growth, flower production, pollination, fruit production and seed set, and genetic exchange. Space for Individual and Population Growth and Normal Behavior; Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or other Nutritional or Physiological Requirements Arenaria ursina, Castilleja cinerea, and Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum require pebble plains habitat in dry meadow-like openings within upper montane coniferous forest, pinyon-juniper woodlands, or Great Basin sagebrush at elevations between 5,900 to 9,800 feet (ft) (1,830 to 2,990 meters (m)) for individual and population growth (PCE 1). These typically treeless openings are the result of a combination of soil and climatic factors that support an assemblage of plant species found only in the San Bernardino Mountains, California (USFS 2002, p. 12). Frost heaving and alternating wet and dry cycles force associated quartzite pebbles to the soil surface in areas of shallow clay deposits (PCE 2) to create the characteristic appearance of the pebble plains (Derby 1979, p. 61; Krantz 1983, p. 10; USFS 2002, p. 22). These soils have an extremely slow infiltration rate and, thus, have a high runoff potential (Neel and Barrows 1990, p. 8). The establishment of tree species on pebble plains appears to be limited primarily by high clay content in the soil (Derby 1979, p. 74). However, the frost heave process that forces quartzite pebbles to the soil surface, creating the characteristic appearance of the pebble plains, also excludes large woody species from colonizing (Eliason 2006). Trees that become established alter the surrounding microhabitat by increasing leaf litter and shading and probably reducing temperature extremes (USFS 2002, p. 15). The increase in leaf litter under trees appears to reduce the densities of all three of the listed pebble plains plants and increase tree and shrub seedlings under the tree canopy (Derby 1979, p. 72). Pebble plain species flourish in their specific environment, but they cannot compete with other plant species adapted to shaded areas, or areas where heavy litter layers accumulate (USFS 2002, p. 15). Pebble plains are typified by the presence of one or more of the following associated species: Ivesia argyrocoma, Eriogonum kennedyi var. kennedyi, Allium parryi, Antennaria dimorpha, Arabis parishii, Astragalus purshii var. lectulus, Dudleya abramsii var. affinis, Echinocereus engelmannii, Erigeron aphanactis var. congestus, Eriogonum [[Page 73100]] wrightii var. subscaposum, Lewisia rediviva var. minor, and Mimulus purpureus. In addition to pebble plain habitat, Castilleja cinerea is also found in dry meadow margin areas that lack either Arenaria ursina and or Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum and quartzite pebbles or cobbles. However, as a semi-parasitic perennial plant, this root- parasite requires host plant species found in pebble plain habitat (E. kennedyi var. austromontanum, E. kennedyi. var. kennedyi, and E. wrightii var. subscaposumon) and host plant species found in both pebble plain and non-pebble plain habitat (Artemisia tridentata, A. nova, and E. wrightii var. subscaposumon) for individual and population growth and for its nutritional and physiological requirements (PCE 3) (USFS 2002, p. 92). Sites for Reproduction, Germination, Seed Dispersal, or Pollination While pollination (via selfing, wind, or insect) is important for maintaining genetic diversity within a pebble plain (Duffield 1972, pp. 110-114; O'Brien 1979, pp. 67, 82, 97, 99; Freas and Murphy 1990, p. 6), limited research indicates that little genetic material is exchanged among pebble plains (Freas and Murphy 1990, pp. 6-8). According to Freas and Murphy (1990, p. 6), observed pollen transfer distances were less than 13 ft (4 m). Primary Constituent Elements for Arenaria ursina, Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum and Castilleja cinerea Within the geographical area occupied by Arenaria ursina, Castilleja cinerea, and Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum at the time of listing, we must identify the PCEs that may require special management considerations or protection. All areas designated as critical habitat for each taxon are currently occupied, within the taxon's historical geographic range, and contain sufficient PCEs to support at least one life history function. Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of each of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain their essential life history functions, we have determined that the PCEs for Arenaria ursina and Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum are: (1) Pebble plains in dry meadow-like openings within upper montane coniferous forest, pinyon-juniper woodlands, or Great Basin sagebrush in the San Bernardino Mountains of San Bernardino County, California; at elevations between 5,900 to 9,800 ft (1,830 to 2,990 m) that provide space for individual and population growth, reproduction and dispersal; and (2) Seasonally wet clay, or sandy clay soils, generally containing quartzite pebbles, subject to natural hydrological processes that include water hydrating the soil and freezing in winter and drying in summer causing lifting and churning of included pebbles, that provide space for individual and population growth, reproduction and dispersal, adequate water, air, minerals, and other nutritional or physiological requirements to the species. Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain its essential life history functions, we have determined that the PCEs for Castelleja cinerea are: (1) Pebble plains in dry meadow-like openings, or non-pebble plain dry meadow margin areas, within upper montane coniferous forest, pinyon-juniper woodlands, or Great Basin sagebrush in the San Bernardino Mountains of San Bernardino County, California; at elevations between 5,900 to 9,800 ft (1,830 to 2,990 m) that provide space for individual and population growth, reproduction and dispersal; (2) Seasonally wet clay, or sandy clay soils, generally containing quartzite pebbles, subject to natural hydrological processes that include water hydrating the soil and freezing in winter and drying in summer causing lifting and churning of included pebbles, or seasonally wet silt or saline clay soils in non-pebble plain dry meadow margin areas that provide space for individual and population growth, reproduction and dispersal, adequate water, air, minerals, and other nutritional or physiological requirements to the species; and (3) The presence of one or more of its known host species, such as Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum, E. kennedyi. var. kennedyi, and E. wrightii var. subscaposumon in pebble plain habitat and species such as Artemisia tridentata, A. nova, and E. wrightii var. subscaposumon in pebble plain and non-pebble plain meadow margin habitat that provide some of the physiological requirements for this species. Special Management Considerations or Protection When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. As stated in the final listing rule, threats to all three listed pebble plains plants throughout their range include land development, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use off of designated routes, road maintenance activities, ground disturbance that affects surface hydrology, mining activities, recreational activities, and nonnative plant species (63 FR 49006; September 14, 1998). Pebble plain habitat is also threatened by vegetation and fuels management, hazard tree removal, and wildfire suppression activities (Eliason 2006). However, of the above threats, land development