Carbonate Habitat

Management Strategy

Prepared by Todd G. Olson for

San Bernardino National Forest Association

April 29, 2003

Flowers of the plant species addressed by this strategy, from left to right: Cushenbury buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum),

Cushenbury milk-vetch (Astragalus albens), Cushenbury oxytheca (Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana), Parish’s daisy (Erigeron parishii)
Acknowledgments

Maps were prepared by the San Bernardino

National Forest.

Additional technical assistance was provided by the

USDA Forest Service, the USDI Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Plant illustrations are by Fred M. Roberts, Jr., and

plant photographs are by Scott Eliason, all used with

permission.

The following organizations and their representatives actively participated in the working group that

developed this strategy (listed alphabetically): BLM

California Desert District; Butterfield family; California Native Plant Society; County of San Bernardino;

Cushenbury Mine Trust; Gresham, Savage, Nolan &

Tilden, LLP; McKay & McKay; Mitsubishi Cement

Corporation; OMYA California Inc.; San Bernardino

National Forest; Sentinel Mining; Specialty Minerals

Inc.; United States Fish and Wildlife Service; White &

Leatherman BioServices.
Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy

Contents

Part I: Introduction

 1. Background 4

 2. Objectives 6

 3. Scope 8

 4. Strategy Overview 9

Part II: Components

 5. Land Use Categories 15

 6. Administrative Units 17

 7. Conservation Value 17

 8. Conservation Tools 20

Part III: Implementation

 9. Reserve Formation 23

10. Conservation Credits 26

11. ESA Compliance 29

12. Revegetation 31

Part IV: Administration

13. Parties and Responsibilities 33

14. Monitoring 35

15. Funding 37

16. Legislation 38

17. Amendment 39

Appendices

A. Glossary of Terms 43

B. Species Accounts 47

C. Habitat Definitions 63

D. Habitat Statistics 65

E. Guidelines and Success Criteria for

Revegetation and Carbonate Plant

Introductions 67

F. Conservation Credit Worksheets 75

G. Edge Effect Examples 79

H. Credit Registration 85

I. Maps 89

Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy

Carbonate Plants

• Cushenbury buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium

var. vineum) (federal endangered)

• Cushenbury milk-vetch (Astragalus albens) (federal endangered)

• Cushenbury oxytheca (Oxytheca parishii var.

goodmaniana) (federal endangered)

• Parish’s daisy (Erigeron parishii) (federal threatened)

I. Introduction

Eriogonum ovalifolium

Astragalus albens

On August 24, 1994, five plants that are associated with the carbonate geology of the northeastern San Bernardino Mountains and adjacent Lucerne Valley were listed as threatened or endangered under the federal

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (the “ESA”). Four of these plants occur on commercially valuable

limestone deposits. The public interest in protecting these plant species is thus in conflict with the public and private interest in mining the coincident limestone deposits.

This Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy (the “CHMS,” referring both to this document and the program

it describes) is the product of years of effort by interested mining companies, claim holders, landowners, conservation interests, and government agencies to develop a strategy to resolve this conflict in a mutually-agreeable manner

with an approach that can also be utilized by other parties in the future on a voluntary basis.

1. Background

From the 1950s, various claim holders and mining

companies have been extracting limestone from

the northeastern San Bernardino mountains. In recent

years, annual production has been running at about

three million tons of cement-grade limestone, at a

value of about $100 million, and 1.5 million tons of

high-brightness limestone, at a value of about $75 million. Much of this mining activity is occurring on mining claims established under the Mining Law of 1872,

as amended (the “Mining Law”) on federal land under

the jurisdiction of the U. S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service (the “Forest Service”) or the U. S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management (the

“BLM”). Collectively, the Forest Service and the BLM

shall be referred to as the “Resource Management Agencies,”

each with respect to land under

its jurisdiction. A portion of the

mining activity also occurs on

privately-owned land under the

jurisdiction of the County of

San Bernardino (the

“County”).

In 1994, the four plant species shown in the box on

this page (the “Carbonate Plants”) were listed under

the ESA. Each of these species occurs only in the vicinity of the northeastern San Bernardino mountains, and

each occurs almost exclusively on carbonate soils that

often coincide with economically valuable limestone

deposits. (A fifth carbonate plant species, the San Bernardino Mountains bladderpod, Lesquerella kingii var.

bernardina, was listed as

endangered at the same

time that the other four

were listed, but the

bladderpod does not coincide with economic

limestone deposits, so it

is not addressed by the

CHMS.)
6 Part I • Introduction

Figure 1: Location of CHMA

Oxytheca parishii

Erigeron parishii

Absent a regional strategy for the preservation of

the Carbonate Plants, ongoing limestone mining activities could come into direct conflict with the ESA.

Map 1 and Map 2 in Appendix I illustrate the potential

conflict by showing the locations of the carbonate

soils, the Carbonate Plants, existing mining claims,

and existing mining activity. Being aware of this situation, certain mining interests, conservation interests,

and government agencies (collectively, the “Working

Group”) began to develop the CHMS in October

1999 to resolve this potential conflict. For purposes of

planning and analysis, the Working Group identified

an area of approximately 160,000 acres in the northeast San Bernardino Mountains, which encompasses

nearly all of the habitat for the

Carbonate Plants, as the Carbonate Habitat Management

Area (the “CHMA”; see Figure

1). The CHMA is characterized

by substantial limestone deposits and encompasses nearly the

entire known geographic range

of the Carbonate Plants (except

one occurrence of Parish’s daisy

habitat near Pioneertown, approximately ten miles east

of the CHMA boundary). The majority of the CHMA

is within the San Bernardino National Forest (the

“SBNF”), but large and important portions occur on

federal lands managed by the BLM and on private

lands.

The CHMS, as set forth in this document, is the

culmination of the efforts of the Working Group. It

provides a means for forming a reserve system for the Carbonate Plants (the “Habitat

Reserve” or the “Reserve”) while allowing

mining activities to proceed under a streamlined and expedited ESA compliance process. The CHMS is voluntary as to private

mining interests; it imposes no regulatory

burden on existing claims or privately

owned property, but it provides a clear

recipe for ESA compliance for those who desire to avail

themselves of it. Mining interests remain free to seek

any required ESA compliance without utilizing or

complying with the CHMS. Governmental authorities

may also use the CHMS as a framework for establishing land use regulations or policies within the CHMA

but, except for any commitments made by the Resource Management

Agencies in consultation

with the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service

(the “USFWS”), they are

not required to do so.

The time scale over

which limestone reserves

are mined is measured in

decades. In order to be useful, the CHMS is intended

to be operational for fifty years or more, and the Habitat Reserve is intended to be in place in perpetuity. Although the CHMS is subject to amendment over time

in accordance with its terms (see Section 17(b)), it has

no established date of termination.

The following section describes the objectives of

the CHMS in some detail.

2. Objectives

The goals of the CHMS are to facilitate economic

limestone mining activity while conserving the

Carbonate Plants under a sensible and efficient regulatory regime. Each of these three goals may be regarded

as in the public interest, though different members of

the public will have different degrees of interest in each

of them. The specific objectives of the CHMS can be

categorized by the three types of goals: economic, conservation, and regulatory.
Section 2 • Objectives 7

(a) Economic objectives. The economic objectives

of the CHMS are as follows:

(i) To increase the regulatory certainty that the

most valuable mineral deposits within the CHMA may

be mined in the future.

(ii) To protect the availability of limestone resources that are vital to the construction industry in

the southwestern region of the United States.

(iii) To protect the viability of the mining-based

economy of the northeastern San Bernardino Mountains and Lucerne Valley region.

(iv) To provide a definitive, streamlined process

for future mining activities within the CHMA to comply with ESA regulation of the Carbonate Plants.

(v) To provide a framework for streamlining National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) requirements for future mining activities. Such streamlining

would not be available unless and until the CHMS is

incorporated into future land use plans for lands managed by the Resource Management Agencies within

the CHMA (“Federal Land Plans”).

(vi) To reduce the costs and time associated with

County processing of mining-related land use applications by providing a comprehensive approach to addressing impacts to the Carbonate Plants under the

California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

(vii) To help avoid the need for future ESA listings of species that occur within the CHMA and to

provide a process for addressing such listings if they are

proposed or occur.

(b) Conservation objectives. The conservation objectives of the CHMS are as follows:

(i) To maintain and manage the geomorphic

and ecological processes of the landscape in large, wellplaced blocks of habitat where the Carbonate Plants

are found within the CHMA such that the Carbonate

Plants are likely to persist indefinitely.

(ii) To avoid “jeopardy” to the continued existence of the Carbonate Plants (as defined in Section 7

of the ESA and its regulations).

(iii) To avoid “destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat for the Carbonate Plants (as defined in Section 7 of the ESA and its regulations).

(iv) To contribute to the recovery and ultimate

de-listing of the Carbonate Plants under the ESA.

(v) To help avoid the need for future ESA listings of species that occur within the CHMA.

(vi) If other species that occur within the

CHMA are listed under the ESA in the future, to

avoid jeopardy to those species (as defined in Section 7

of the ESA and its regulations).

(vii) To provide a mechanism for tracking both

the loss and conservation of habitat for the Carbonate

Plants over time.

(c) Regulatory objectives. The regulatory objectives of the CHMS are as follows:

(i) To streamline the application of the ESA to

mining activities within the CHMA.

(ii) To provide a biological basis for addressing

the Carbonate Plants in future Federal Land Plans.

(iii) To streamline the County’s CEQA review

of the biological impacts of mining projects on private

land within the CHMS.

(iv) To streamline the County’s implementation

of the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act

of 1975, as amended (“SMARA”) within the CHMA.

(v) To provide a means for the BLM to comply

with certain stipulations with respect to the CHMS in

Center for Biological Diversity vs. BLM, Case No. C-00-

0927 WHA (JCS) in the United States District Court,

Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

(vi) To provide a means for the Forest Service to

comply with certain stipulations in Southwest Center

for Biological Diversity vs. Sprague, Case No. C 98-

2434 SC in the United States District Court, Northern District of California.

The CHMS attempts to provide an integrated approach to reconciling and achieving the economic,

conservation, and regulatory objectives listed above.
8

CHMS Scope Summary

• Activities: covers mining activities

• Regulation: offers compliance with the ESA and

potential streamlining under NEPA, SMARA,

County land use regulations, and related CEQA

requirements

• Species: addresses the four Carbonate Plants

• Plan area: applies within the CHMA

Summary of CHMS Regulatory Framework

• CHMS will exist independent of any other public

or private plan

• The CHMS Biological Opinion will be issued on

the CHMS alone

• The CHMS and the CHMS Biological Opinion will

be available for incorporation into individual mining plans and Federal Land Plans

• No independent NEPA analysis will be done on

the CHMS

• Individual mining plans may use the CHMS prior

to the completion of revised Federal Land Plans,

but such federal plans may result in streamlining

of the NEPA process for subsequent mining plans

The following section develops the strategy further by

describing the scope of the CHMS.

3. Scope

The scope of the CHMS can be described in terms

of the regulated activities that it addresses, the

governmental regulations that it addresses, the biological species that it addresses, and the geographical plan

area within which it applies.

(a) Activities. The CHMS provides a procedure for

surface and subsurface mining activities (the “Covered

Activities”) to comply with certain environmental

regulations (see subsection (b) below). All activities that

are incidental to mining activities are included as Covered Activities, including, without limitation, (i) exploration, (ii) overburden removal, (iii) extraction, (iv)

keeping of waste piles, (v) reclamation, (vi) milling and

other processing of extracted material, (vii) transportation of extracted material, and (viii) construction of facilities and infrastructure related to the above activities.

(b) Regulations. The regulatory framework for the

CHMS is summarized in the box to the right. The

regulations addressed by the CHMS are as follows:

(i) ESA. The primary regulatory focus of the

CHMS is to provide mining interests with a means of

obtaining compliance with the ESA (“ESA Compliance”; see Section 11) for Covered Activities with respect to the Carbonate Plants and any other species addressed by the CHMS in the future (see subsection (c)

below). More specifically, the CHMS is intended to be

attached to a biological assessment as the basis for a

consultation between the Resource Management

Agencies and the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA

(the “CHMS Section 7 Consultation”). The biological

assessment required by Section 7 of the ESA shall be

prepared by the Forest Service in cooperation with the

BLM for submission to the USFWS. It is intended

that on the strength of the CHMS, the USFWS will

be able to issue a programmatic biological opinion (the

“CHMS Biological Opinion”) that will authorize activities on federal land that comply with the CHMS as

being in compliance with the ESA, even if such activities result in the loss of species or habitat addressed by

the CHMS. Because it will be mining interests who

provide compensation under the CHMS and who are

the ultimate beneficiaries of ESA Compliance under

the CHMS, this document refers to the mining interests as the parties who “obtain” ESA Compliance, even

though it is actually the Resource Management Agencies who are complying with the ESA by means of the

CHMS. The CHMS Biological Opinion shall specifically address any of the “Initial Furnace Transactions”

(defined in Section 9(d) below) that require ESA

Compliance and that have been well-defined by the

time that a biological assessment is submitted to the

USFWS. Activities that receive ESA Compliance

through the CHMS shall not be required to undergo a

separate consultation with the USFWS under Section

7 of the ESA.

(ii) NEPA. No NEPA analysis will be performed

on the CHMS directly because the CHMS involves no

present “federal decision,” as defined under NEPA.

However, the CHMS may indirectly facilitate regulatory streamlining under NEPA. By providing a strategy

for addressing impacts to the Carbonate Plants and

Part I • Introduction
9

their habitats, future Federal Land Plans may be able

to incorporate the CHMS into their NEPA compliance strategy such that project compliance with the

CHMS satisfies certain project-level requirements of

NEPA. Then, the NEPA compliance documents for

individual projects could address impacts to those species by cross-referencing the applicable Federal Land

Plan and its associated NEPA documentation. The

availability of such streamlining under NEPA is not

automatic; it will depend upon how the Resource

Management Agencies write their Federal Land Plans

and associated NEPA documentation.

(iii) County land use regulations and implementation of SMARA. The County is the land use jurisdiction for mining activities on private land within the

CHMA. It also administers SMARA within the

CHMA. The County shall adopt standardized conditions of approval that are consistent with the CHMS

to potentially streamline the processing of mining and

reclamation applications (and the associated CEQA review) that it administers. See Section 13(c) for a more

detailed description of the County’s commitments under the CHMS.

(c) Species. Initially, the CHMS directly addresses

only the Carbonate Plants and their habitats, so ESA

Compliance is only with respect to those four species.

The CHMS provides a process, however, for applying

to the USFWS to have the CHMS address additional

species that may be proposed for listing or listed under

the ESA in the future (see Section 17(c)). In the event

that such additional species

become addressed by the

CHMS, ESA Compliance will be regarded as

addressing such additional species as well.

(d) Plan area. The

CHMS applies only to

Covered Activities that occur within the CHMA. See

paragraph 3 of Section 1

for a description of the

CHMA.

A Covered Activity within the CHMA may, but is

not required to, utilize the CHMS to obtain ESA Compliance and other regulatory streamlining that may be

offered by the Resource Management Agencies or the

County through the CHMS in the future.

4. Strategy Overview

The CHMS is essentially a strategy for streamlining ESA compliance for mining activities and

building a reserve for the Carbonate Plants over time

that is designed to provide for their long-term survival

and recovery. This section summarizes this strategy,

which is described in much greater detail in the balance of this document. This section is not intended to

summarize the overall document, but rather to highlight how the CHMS is designed to meet the competing interests of the mining industry and conservation

of the Carbonate Plants. For more detailed descriptions of the concepts summarized in this section, see

the sections cross-referenced in this section. In the

event of a conflict between the summary information

provided in this section and the more detailed provisions of the following sections, the latter shall control.

(a) Meeting competing objectives. The CHMS attempts to meet its competing economic, conservation,

and regulatory objectives by improving the prospects

of achieving each of the three types of objective. The

key pieces of the strategy, as depicted in Figure 2, are

Figure 2: CHMS Strategy Overview

Section 4 • Strategy Overview
10

Land Use Categories

Mining Uses

M1: Approved under Mining Plan

M2: ESA compliant, not yet subject to a mining

plan

F: Auxiliary mining use (minor amount of land)

Conservation Uses

E: Established reserve (Habitat Reserve)

Uncommitted

D: Default (federal)

P: Private

X: Transfer (fed. land earmarked for exchange)

that (i) mining interests will make contributions to the

reserve and obtain increased regulatory certainty and

permit streamlining (see Sections 8(c), 11), (ii) the Resource Management Agencies will make contributions

to the reserve (see Sections 8(a)–(b), (e)) and obtain the

streamlining of their compliance process under Section

7 of the ESA (see Section 11), as well as the means to

resolve litigation against them, and (iii) the USFWS

will issue a favorable CHMS Biological Opinion (see

Section 3(b)(i)) and obtain increased certainty that a

Habitat Reserve will be achieved that meets the survival and recovery needs of the Carbonate Plants (see

Section 9).

Currently within the CHMA, some land is being

mined and a limited amount of land has been set aside

for permanent conservation, but most of the land is

neither being mined nor is dedicated to conservation

(see Map 1 and Map 2 in Appendix I). The CHMS will,

in an orderly fashion, allow certain lands to be added

to the mining category so long as a sufficient amount

of land is being contributed to the Habitat Reserve for

permanent conservation (see Sections 8(c), 11). To provide a means of tracking these different land uses over

time, the CHMS uses the land category designations

shown in the box below, which are grouped based

upon whether they are mining uses, conservation uses,

or not yet committed to any particular use (see Section

5).

Over time, some of the uncommitted category

lands (D, P, and X) will be systematically converted to

the mining categories (M1, M2, and F), on the one

hand, and to the Habitat Reserve (E), on the other

hand. This progression is depicted in Figure 3. The following subsections explain in more detail how this will

occur.

(b) Conservation toolbox. A number of different

tools are available to build the Habitat Reserve and

achieve the objectives of the CHMS, as listed in the

“toolbox” shown on page 12 and described in detail in

Section 8. The CHMS provides the mechanisms

needed to coordinate the use of many different conservation tools. One key mechanism provided under the

CHMS is a method of measuring Conservation Value

for the Carbonate Plants in terms of “Conservation

Units” (see Section 7(a)). The Conservation Value of

any parcel of land can be measured in terms of Conservation Units using only a geographical information

system (“GIS”) database developed by the Forest Service and without the need for new field surveys (Section 7(b)–(f)). Conservation Units provide the CHMS

with a common way to measure both conservation and

loss of habitat values, facilitating the use of various

conservation tools in many different combinations.

The CHMS takes the further step of creating a

Conservation Value commodity known as “Conservation Credits” (Section 7(a)). Any landowner or claim

holder within the CHMA may contribute land or

claims to the Habitat Reserve and receive ConservaFigure 3: Land Use Shift over Time

The data reflected here are based upon rough estimates of historical

and projected changes in land use over time assuming that the

CHMS goes into effect. To be conservative, no federal land exchanges

or acquisitions and no reintroductions of Carbonate Plants on reclaimed land are assumed, but the federal contributions comprising

the Initial Habitat Reserve are assumed.

Mining (Cats. M, F)

Habitat 

Reserve

(Cat. E)

Uncommited

(Cats. D, P, X)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Acres

Part I • Introduction
11

The Streamlined ESA Compliance Process

1 Calculate the number of Conservation Credits

required to obtain ESA Compliance for the

project (3 × the Conservation Value of the land

to be mined)

2 Obtain the required Conservation Credits by

making Reserve Contributions or by purchasing

Conservation Credits from another party

3 Submit the required Conservation Credits and

sign the CHMS Memorandum of Understanding

The Forest Service processes the paperwork and issues a concurrence letter to the applicant which serves

as evidence that the project has satisfied the requirements of the ESA for the Carbonate Plants

tion Credits (Section 10 introduction and (b)–(c)).

Those Conservation Credits may be used to obtain

ESA Compliance (see subsection (c) below and Sections 10(a) and 11) or “banked,” that is, held for future use or sale to another private party (Sections 8(d)

and 10(a)). Figure 4 on page 12 depicts the creation

and use of Conservation Credits. The Forest Service

will administer the processes of (i) giving private parties Conservation Credits for making Reserve Contributions; (ii) processing applications for ESA Compliance; and (iii) tracking the ownership and transfer of

Conservation Credits (see Section 10(f)).

(c) Permit streamlining. The primary benefit to

mining interests under the CHMS is that their ESA

Compliance requirements are easy to determine, and

the ESA Compliance process is streamlined, simple,

and quick (see Section 11). A party wishing to obtain

ESA Compliance undertakes a three-step process, as

shown in the box below.

The CHMA is divided into five “Administrative

Units” (see Section 6; also referred to as simply a

“Unit”). As soon as certain conservation objectives are

satisfied within a Unit (see subsection (d)(ii) below and

Section 9(b)(i)), mining projects within that Unit may

use the process described above to obtain ESA Compliance.

(d) Conservation measures. The permit streamlining described above is possible under the ESA because

of the CHMS’s provision of the Habitat Reserve as a

means of conserving large, well-placed blocks of highquality habitat for the Carbonate Plants in perpetuity

(see Section 9). The coordinated implementation of the

CHMS can provide a much more cohesive and significant reserve for these species than would occur in the

absence of such a coordinated conservation strategy.

The CHMS provides the following measures to ensure

that the Habitat Reserve will provide sufficient conservation of the Carbonate Plants:

(i) Initial Habitat Reserve. The “Initial Habitat

Reserve” shown on Map 3 in Appendix I (see Section

9(a)) consists of lands to be managed by the Resource

Management Agencies as part of the Habitat Reserve

from the outset of CHMS implementation. It provides

19,264 acres of permanently preserved habitat at the

very outset—about 30% of the Conservation Value

contained in the entire CHMA—before any loss of

Carbonate Plants will occur under the CHMS. AlDefinitions

“Conservation Value” means the value of land for

the conservation of the Carbonate Plants, as measured in “Conservation Units” (see Section 7 introduction and Section 7(a))

“Reserve Contribution” means a contribution to

the Habitat Reserve in the form of either (i) granting

privately owned land, (ii) relinquishing a mining

claim, (iii) restricting a mining claim or privately

owned land for conservation purposes subject to

later redemption by offering equivalent Conservation

Value in another form, or (iv) granting or relinquishing the surface rights of privately-owned land or a

mining claim while retaining the right to conduct subsurface mining (see Section 10(b))

CHMS “Toolbox”

• Federal designations—dedication of existing unclaimed federal land to the Habitat Reserve

• Federal purchases—purchase of private land

and mining claims using federal funds

• Project compliance—contributions to the Habitat

Reserve (of land or claims) by mining interests in

exchange for ESA Compliance

• Conservation banking—contributions to the

Habitat Reserve (of land or claims) by private parties in exchange for tradable Conservation Credits

• Federal land exchanges—exchanges of federal

land for private land or claims with high habitat

value for contribution to the Habitat Reserve

• Revegetation—voluntary contribution of revegetated reclaimed mining land in exchange for ESA

Compliance or Conservation Credits

Section 4 • Strategy Overview
12

Figure 5: Types of Habitat Protection by Unit (by % of Conservation Value)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

White Mtn

Furnace

Helendale

Bertha

Moonr./Onyx

OVERALL

Initial Reserve Stage 1 Priority Stage 2 Priority None initially

though initially somewhat fragmented, the Initial

Habitat Reserve provides a core conservation area

across the entire CHMA from the very outset.

(ii) Stage 1 Priority Areas. No loss of habitat for

Carbonate Plants may occur under the CHMS within

any Administrative Unit until most of the valuable

Carbonate Plant habitat in the “Stage 1 Priority Areas”

within such Unit (see Map 3 in Appendix I) has been

added to the Habitat Reserve (see Section 9(b)(i)).

Such habitat in the Stage 1 Priority Areas plus the portion of the Initial Habitat Reserve within each Unit

provide a solid base of conservation within each Administrative Unit that must be part of the Reserve before

any loss of Carbonate Plants can occur within that Unit

under the CHMS.

(iii) Furnace Unit Stage 1 Priority Areas. Much

preliminary work has been done so that the Furnace

Unit Stage 1 Priority Areas can be added to the Reserve as soon after the adoption of the CHMS as possible. Specifically, a series of transactions that utilizes

nearly the entire “toolbox” of conservation tools is being assembled (Section 9(d)). Map 6 in Appendix I

shows how the Habitat Reserve may be configured if

all such transactions were to occur. These transactions

will be prepared to close simultaneously after adoption

of the CHMS and upon the closing of any federal land

exchanges or purchases necessary to complete the

transactions. Federal legislation may be sought to give

the Resource Management Agencies authority to complete land transactions on an expedited basis (see Section 16).

(iv) Stage 2 Priority Areas. The Stage 2 Priority Areas

shown on Map 3 in Appendix I are also targeted for addition to the Habitat Reserve utilizing the “toolbox”

described above (see Section 9(b)(ii)). No loss of habitat for Carbonate Plants may occur under the CHMS

at any time within any Stage 2 Priority Area. Furthermore, the CHMS provides incentives for land within

Stage 2 Priority Areas to be added to the Reserve (see

Section 9(b)(iii)).

The Initial Habitat Reserve and the Stage 1 and

Stage 2 Priority Areas together form the basis for securing a core of Habitat Reserve within each Administrative Unit. Figure 5 shows the percentage of the Conservation Value in each of these categories by Unit, and

Table 5 on page 24 provides more detailed data on

Figure 4: Creation and Use of Conservation Credits

Part I • Introduction
13

these categories. Note, however, that the CHMS does

not prevent private parties from seeking compliance

with the ESA apart from the CHMS in any portion of

the CHMA, including within Priority Areas. Initially,

only the Initial Habitat Reserve areas are completely

protected from mining activity.

(v) Compensation Ratio. A “Compensation Ratio” of 3:1 is required for any loss of Carbonate Plant

habitat that is allowed under the CHMS (see Section

11(a)). This ratio is measured in terms of Conservation

Value. Before a mining activity can be allowed under

the CHMS, the applicant must add land worth 3 units

of Conservation Value to the Habitat Reserve for each

unit of Conservation Value to be lost to the proposed

mining activity. Adjustments are made to the Conservation Value calculations to encourage both reserve

formation and mining in compact formations with a

minimum of perimeter (see Section 7(e)). Also, compensation must be provided in advance of the loss of

habitat, so preservation of habitat will necessarily stay

ahead of loss of habitat at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio under the CHMS (as measured in Conservation Value).

Within each Unit, a substantial portion of such project

compensation may initially occur in the Priority Areas.

(vi) Federal land contributions. Federal land

contributions made to the Habitat Reserve are in addition to project compensation that occurs under the

CHMS (see Section 8(a)–(b), (e)–(f)). All federal land

exchanges and purchases that add to the Habitat Reserve therefore increase the ratio of preservation to

habitat loss to be in excess of 3:1. Major initial acquisitions of rich habitat for Carbonate Plants are targeted

under the CHMS, (primarily in the Furnace Unit Priority Areas), which would add significant value to the

Reserve.

(vii) Private land contributions. There is currently no federal protection of plant species listed under the ESA that occur on privately-owned lands. The

CHMS provides incentives for the contribution of private land with high Conservation Value to the Habitat

Reserve, thus providing permanent protection of habitat for Carbonate Plants on lands that are not currently

subject to the ESA.

The following parts provide a complete description

of all of the matters introduced in this overview section. ❀

Section 4 • Strategy Overview

Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy

(a) Mining Category lands. The following three

land use categories are mining-related categories; lands

in these categories may be referred to as “Mining Category” lands.

(i) Category M1: Fully Permitted. This category

represents land that either (a) has been mined in the

past and has not yet been reclaimed (including receiving approval and release for completed reclamation); or

(b) has been approved under a

Mining Plan (as defined in this

subsection). Once a Category

M1 parcel has been successfully

reclaimed in accordance with its

Mining Plan, the parcel reverts

to Category D or Category P

(see subsection (c) below) and

can be re-categorized again in

the future. The Conservation

Value associated with such a reclaimed parcel is not changed

automatically, but may be

changed by changing the “Habitat Inventory” in accordance

with Section 14(d). A “Mining

Plan” is defined as a mining plan

of operations (in the case of a

claim on federal land) or a mining and reclamation plan (in the

case of mining on private land)

II. Components

The CHMS is built on a framework of four key components: Land use categories are established for purposes

of tracking the status of land within the CHMA as committed for mining activities, committed for conservation, or uncommitted. Administrative Units have been identified as logical administrative subareas within the

CHMA. A method is established for measuring Conservation Value for the Carbonate Plants. Finally, conservation tools are set forth as the various means by which the Reserve Criteria can be satisfied. The four sections of this

Part II provide a detailed description of each of these four components.

5. Land Use Categories

All land within the CHMA is classified into seven

land use categories, which are described in this

section and summarized in the box on page 16. The

CHMS is fundamentally a matter of shifting lands of

relatively high mineral value into categories that permit mining activities and shifting other lands of relatively high Conservation Value into the Habitat Reserve. The land use categories are established to provide a means of describing and tracking the shifting of

land uses over time.

Two key points are critical to understanding the

land use categories. First, because the CHMS is a voluntary program, the land use categories do not affect

the rights of landowners or claims holders on land that

has not been voluntarily subjected to the CHMS. Second, the categorization of land is dynamic; it will

change over time. Only lands in “Category E,” the

conservation category (see subsection (b) below), cannot change once they are in that category, as Category

E represents land permanently set aside as part of the

Habitat Reserve.

Map 3 in Appendix I shows the expected status of

land categories within the CHMA at the commencement of CHMS implementation. The progression of

lands through the mining cycle is depicted in Figure 6;

and the various categories are described in detail in the

following paragraphs.

Figure 6: Mining Cycle
16

Land Use Categories Summary

Mining Categories:

M1: Fully Permitted

Land that either (i) has been approved under a Mining Plan or (ii) is

currently impacted by mining activity.

M2: CHMS Compliant

Land with ESA Compliance under the CHMS, but no Mining Plan.

F: Auxiliary Use

Federal lands made available to private mining operations for uses that are

auxiliary to mining activities, such as haul roads, utility corridors, and water

wells; little land will be in this category.

Conservation Category:

E: Established Reserve

Land permanently committed to the Habitat Reserve.

Uncommitted Categories:

D: Default

All federal land not otherwise designated; includes any claimed federal land

contributed as a “Relocatable Contribution.”

P: Private

Privately-owned land that has not been categorized as M1, M2, or E;

includes any private land contributed as a “Relocatable Contribution.”

X: Transfer

Federal lands having little or no habitat value for the Carbonate Plants that

have been designated for transfer out of federal ownership.

that has been approved by the requisite federal or

County authorities.

(ii) Category M2: CHMS Compliant. This category represents land that has obtained ESA Compliance under the CHMS, but is not yet subject to a

Mining Plan. Once Category M2 land comes under a

Mining Plan, it will be automatically redesignated as

M1.

Categories M1 and M2 may be referred to collectively as “Category M.”

(iii) Category F: Auxiliary Use. This category includes small acreages of federal land needed for a mining operation, such as haul roads, utility corridors, and

well sites, that are not under private ownership or

claim by the mining operator. Under Section 11(b) below, the Resource Management Agencies may create

such Category F lands as an inducement for a landowner or claim holder to place lands in Category E.

(b) Conservation Category lands.

The following land use category is for

land committed to conservation;

lands in this category may be referred

to as “Conservation Category” lands:

Category E: Established Reserve.

This category includes all land that

has been permanently committed to

the Habitat Reserve. Land in this category cannot be changed to any other

category. Category E includes some

private land within the CHMA that

was under permanent conservation

easement at the commencement of

the CHMS. The methods of protecting additions to Category E lands are

described in Section 9(f).

(c) Uncommitted Category lands.

The following three land use categories are not committed to either mining activities or the Habitat Reserve;

lands in these categories may be referred to as “Uncommitted Category”

lands.

(i) Category D: Federal Default.

This category is the default category and includes all

federal lands within the CHMA that are not otherwise

designated. Category D land can become Category

M2 by obtaining ESA Compliance. It can become

Category E land if it is made part of the Habitat Reserve as described in Section 10 below. It can also be

shifted into Category F, P, or X if it later meets the

qualifications for inclusion in one of those categories.

Category D will also include federal land contributed

as a “Relocatable Contribution” under Section

10(b)(ii). The Resource Management Agencies shall

manage Category D lands in accordance with the applicable Federal Land Plans, which may, but are not required by the CHMS, to provide protections for Carbonate Plants.

(ii) Category P: Private Default. This category

includes all privately-owned land within the CHMA

that has not been designated in Categories M or E.

Part II • Components
17

Category P will also include private land contributed

as a Relocatable Contribution under Section 10(b)(ii).

(iii) Category X: Transfer. This category includes

federal lands that have been designated for transfer out

of federal ownership. It is intended that the Resource

Management Agencies will select parcels for Category

X because they have commercial value but no significant habitat value for the Carbonate Plants or other

public use value (the commercial value may be for uses

other than mining). Once Category X parcels are

transferred to private ownership, they become Category P. If such parcels subsequently obtain ESA Compliance, they convert to Category M2.

6. Administrative Units

For purposes of administering the CHMS across

the 160,000-acre CHMA, the CHMA has been

divided into five subareas (“Administrative Units” or

“Units”): White Mountain, Furnace, Helendale, Bertha, and Moonridge/Onyx. The general location of

these Administrative Units is shown on Figure 7.

Of the five Units, only White Mountain, Furnace,

and Helendale have any expected potential for conflict

between mining activity and the Carbonate Plants.

The other two Units, Bertha and Moonridge/Onyx,

encompass 61,751 acres of land, but contain only

about 88 acres of known habitat for Carbonate Plants

Source: San Bernardino National Forest

(exclusively Cushenbury buckwheat), all of which is

part of the Initial Habitat Reserve. The Bertha and

Moonridge/Onyx Units are included in the CHMA in

order to strengthen the basis of analysis for the CHMS

Biological Opinion by including most of the range of

the Carbonate Plants in the area analyzed.

In order to assure that the conservation of habitat

under the CHMS is broadly distributed across the

CHMA, Reserve “Priority Areas,” as defined in Section

9(b), have been identified for each of the three Units

with existing or expected mining activity. The Priority

Areas include a good representation of important habitat for Carbonate Plants that exist in each Unit, and

both rules and incentives have been established for the

addition of the Priority Areas to the Habitat Reserve

(see Section 9(b)).

7. Conservation Value

Mining interests obtain ESA Compliance under

the CHMS by contributing a certain amount

of land to the Habitat Reserve to offset impacts to

habitat on land to be mined. But because the Conservation Value (or “CV”) of various parcels of land varies

dramatically within the CHMA, the trade-off cannot

be measured in raw acres of land, lest land of low Conservation Value be used to compensate for the mining

of land of high Conservation Value. The CHMS addresses this problem by providing a means for evaluating land within the CHMA in terms of its Conservation Value per acre for the Carbonate Plants. This section describes how the Conservation Value of any parcel of land within the CHMA may be evaluated using

a common method of measurement.

(a) Conservation Units and Conservation Credits.

The unit of measurement of Conservation Value is referred to as a “Conservation Unit,” and may be abbreviated, “CU.” The “currency” of the CHMS is “Conservation Credits”; a Conservation Credit represents one

Conservation Unit of value. Measuring Conservation

Value in terms of Conservation Units is used in a variety of ways under the CHMS, including:

Figure 7: Administrative Units of the CHMA

Section 6 • Administrative Units
18

Definitions

“Occupied Habitat” means land designated on the

Habitat Inventory as occupied habitat for one or

more of the Carbonate Plants; excludes Revegetated Habitat

“Suitable Habitat” means land designated on the

Habitat Inventory as suitable habitat for one or more

of the Carbonate Plants, but not occupied; excludes

Revegetated Habitat

“Revegetated Habitat” means mining land that has

been revegetated and meets all of the requirements

for obtaining conservation credit set forth in Exhibit

E; different amounts of conservation credit are available depending upon what revegetation success criteria are met

“Other Beneficial Habitat” means land that is designated on the Habitat Inventory as undisturbed

natural land that provides some geomorphological,

hydrological, or habitat configuration benefit to the

Carbonate Plants; excludes land in any of the other

habitat categories listed above

• As a basis for determining the number of Conservation Credits that will be given to a party who

makes a Reserve Contribution of a particular parcel of land (see Section 10(c));

• As a basis for determining the Reserve Contribution or the number of Conservation Credits that

will be required in order to obtain ESA Compliance for a particular parcel of land under the

CHMS (see Section 11(a)); and

• As a basis for monitoring the growth of the Habitat Reserve (see Section 14(b)–(c) below).

The balance of this section describes how a parcel

of land is evaluated in terms of Conservation Units.

(b) Application of multipliers. The Conservation

Value, in terms of Conservation Units, of any parcel of

land within the CHMA can be determined by dividing

the parcel into parts based upon the type of habitat on

each part (see box above for definitions of habitat

types), and multiplying the acreage of each part by the

applicable multiplier from Table 1. In addition, the Resource Management Agencies shall apply a minimum

1.0 CV/acre to any land required for the “Priority Areas” in accordance with Section 9(b)(iii).

 (c) Source of data. The data to be used to evaluate

the Conservation Value of land for purposes of the

CHMS is the Forest Service’s official GIS database for

the CHMS that identifies all land within the CHMA

by the habitat categories shown in the definitions box

in the left column (the “Habitat Inventory”). Accordingly, no new field surveys shall be required to evaluate

the Conservation Unit value of a parcel, although a

party may seek to have the Habitat Inventory revised

under Section 14(d)(iv). The initial Habitat Inventory

is depicted on Map 4 in Appendix I, and statistics from

the Habitat Inventory are presented in Appendix D.

The Habitat Inventory will be updated periodically in

accordance with Section 14(d). The basis for the development of the initial Habitat Inventory and the criteria for modifying the Habitat Inventory are described

in Appendix C. The Forest Service shall make the initial

Habitat Inventory and each update available to the

public by such digital and/or hard copy methods as it

deems appropriate from time to time.

A conservation multiplier of between 0.25 and 1.00 per

acre will apply to Revegetated Habitat as follows (see

Section (a) of the Revegetation Guidelines for a more

complete description):

0.25 per acre of Revegetated Habitat without Carbonate Plants

0.50 per acre of Revegetated Habitat with at least

one Carbonate Plant

An additional 0.20 per acre of Revegetated Habitat

that meet enhanced success criteria

An additional 0.10 per acre for each additional Carbonate Plant species occurring (for an addition to

the multiplier of up to 0.30 per acre)

Table 2: Conservation Value Multipliers for Revegetated

Habitat

1.75 × acres containing Occupied Habitat for all

four Carbonate Plants

1.50 × acres containing Occupied Habitat for

any three of the Carbonate Plants

1.25 × acres containing Occupied Habitat for

any two of the Carbonate Plants

1.00 × acres containing Occupied Habitat for

any one of the Carbonate Plants

0.50 × acres containing Suitable Habitat for any

one or more of the Carbonate Plants

0.25–1.00 × acres containing Revegetated Habitat

(depending on the success criteria met;

see Table 2)

0.25 × acres containing Other Beneficial

Habitat

0.00 × all other acres (acres containing no

habitat benefiting the Carbonate Plants)

Table 1: Conservation Value Multipliers

Part II • Components
19

Definition

“edge” means the line where land of one of the

three types of land use categories (Mining Category,

Reserve Category, or Uncommitted Category) meets

another of the three types; for purposes of determining whether Mining Category land shares an edge

with Reserve Category land, any Reserve Category

land that is within one-fifth (1/5) mile of Mining Category land shall be deemed to share an edge with

the Mining Category land

(d) Initial Conservation Values within the CHMA.

The Conservation Values of land within the CHMA as

of the commencement of the CHMS are depicted on

Map 5 in Appendix I. Table 3 provides a statistical

breakdown of the total Conservation Value existing

within each Administrative Unit within the CHMA.

(e) Adjusted Conservation Value. Conservation

Value takes into account the inherent habitat characteristics of any given parcel within the CHMA, but it

does not take into account the configuration in which

the habitat lies. Generally speaking, when habitat is

more connected and has fewer edges where human activities could disrupt reserve function, it is of greater

value to the species that it supports. To take this into

account, the CHMS uses the concept of “Adjusted

Conservation Value” or “ACV.”

Adjusted Conservation Value takes into account

the net increase or net decrease in edge (see the definition of “edge” in the box below) resulting from both

new Reserve Contributions and new mining activities.

When a Reserve Contribution is made, net increases in

reserve edge will result in a discount in Conservation

Value, and net decreases in Reserve edge will result in a

bonus in Conservation Value. Conversely, when a new

mining activity receives ESA Compliance under the

CHMS, net increases in mining edge will result in an

increase in required habitat compensation, and net decreases in mining edge will result in a decrease in required habitat compensation. In making these edge adjustments, edges creating an interface between Conservation Category lands and Mining Category lands are

deemed to have a greater negative impact than edges

that create an interface either between Conservation

Category lands and Uncommitted Category lands or

between Mining Category lands and Uncommitted

Category lands.

Specifically, Adjusted Conservation Value is calculated as follows:

(i) For the newly proposed Conservation Category or Mining Category lands, multiply the lineal

mileage of new edge (that is, excluding the edge where

the new Conservation Category land meets existing

Conservation Category land or where the new Mining

Category land meets existing Mining Category land)

of the proposed land area by the corresponding CU/

mile factors in Table 4.

(ii) For any existing edge eliminated by the new

proposed Conservation Category or Mining Category

lands (that is, the edge where the new Conservation

Category land meets existing Conservation Category

land or where the new Mining Category land meets

existing Mining Category land), multiply the lineal

mileage of such edge as it existed before the proposed

change by the corresponding CU/mile factors in Table

4.

Note that for purposes of determining whether

Mining Category land shares an edge with Conservation Category land, a shared edge will be attributed in

cases where a Conservation Category boundary is

within one-fifth (1/5) mile of Mining Category land,

though the two boundaries do not physically touch.

Table 4: Edge Adjustments by Land Use Category

Edge Interface Adjustment

by Land Use Category per Lin. Mile

New Cat. Exist. Adj. Cat.

E vs. M or F 24 CU

E vs. D, P, or X 12 CU

M or F vs. D, P, or X 12 CU

M or F vs. E 24 CU

Total

Unit Total Acres Cons. Value*

White Mountain 10,573 922 CU

Furnace 47,578 10,544 CU

Helendale 40,560 8,865 CU

Bertha 17,474 827 CU

Moonridge/Onyx 44,277 1,072 CU

 TOTAL 160,462 22,230 CU

*Excludes the 1.0 CU/acre minimum CV potential in

the final configuration of the Priority Areas

Table 3: Conservation Value Totals

Section 7 • Conservation Value
20

The length of the attributed edge shall be the length of

an imaginary line that is half way between the two parcels for the distance that such line is in the 1/5-mile

zone between the two parcels. Such 1/5-mile

proximities that are formed by parcel lines that meet at

angles of ninety (90) degrees or more shall be exempt

from this attributed edge treatment. The attributed

edge concept is illustrated in Figure 8.

(iii) Subtract the result in (ii) above from the result in (i) above to arrive at the “Net Edge Adjustment.”

(iv) In the case of a Reserve Contribution, subtract the Net Edge Adjustment from the Conservation

Value of the parcel to obtain the Adjusted Conservation Value; in the case of an area of proposed mining

activity, add the Net Edge Adjustment to the Conservation Value of the parcel to obtain the Adjusted Conservation Value (note that the Net Edge Adjustment

can be a positive or a negative number and can therefore result in an ACV that is either greater or less than

the unadjusted Conservation Value).

The following formulae summarize the calculation of Adjusted Conservation Value:

ACVReserve Contribution = CV – (Net Edge Adjustment)

ACVMining Proposal = CV + (Net Edge Adjustment)

A positive Net Edge Adjustment value is always regarded as a detriment to the habitat for Carbonate

Plants. As reflected in the formulas above, that detriment is translated into a decrease in the Conservation

Value recognized for Reserve Contributions and as an

increase in the Conservation Value for which compensation would be required for a mining proposal.

The examples shown in Appendix G demonstrate

how this calculation is made and how it operates as an

incentive to configure both Reserve Contributions and

mining activities so as to keep habitat connected and

minimize edge effects. Appendix F includes worksheets

for valuing Reserve Contributions and ESA Compliance requirements; these worksheets incorporate the

procedure for calculating Adjusted Conservation Value

and Net Edge Adjustment.

(f) Application of Adjusted Conservation Value.

Adjusted Conservation Value, measured in Conservation Units, is a concept of measurement. When determining the number of Conservation Credits to be

given for a particular Reserve Contribution, the permanence of the contribution must also be taken into

account (see Section 10(c)(iii)). To determine the number of Conservation Credits that will be required to

obtain ESA Compliance for a particular mining activity, the “Compensation Ratio” must be applied (see

Section 11(a)).

The following section concludes this part on “components” by describing the key tools that are available

to form the Habitat Reserve.

8. Conservation Tools

Several different tools can be used to assemble a

Habitat Reserve that meets the CHMS objectives.

This section describes some of the key tools, roughly

in order of their expected importance. These tools are

catalogued in this section without suggesting how they

might work together to implement the CHMS. The

purpose of having a variety of tools available is to make

it possible to choose the best tool or tools for a given

situation; not all of the tools are appropriate for all circumstances. Part III: Implementation, which follows

this section, shows how the various tools are put to use

to form the Habitat Reserve.

Figure 8: Illustrations of Attributed Edges

Part II • Components
21

(a) Federal designations. Most of the habitat for the

Carbonate Plants is located on federal lands managed

by the Resource Management Agencies. Much of that

habitat is under mining claim and is therefore not

within the control of the federal agencies to provide

full protection from future mining. The Initial Habitat

Reserve land shown on Map 3 in Appendix I is not,

however, under existing claim and shall be designated

by the Resource Management Agencies as Habitat Reserve. The means by which federal land is designated

Habitat Reserve is by protecting it in the manner described in Section 9(f), which may allow for public use

that is compatible with the intended purpose of the

Habitat Reserve.

(b) Federal purchase. Since much of the habitat for

the Carbonate Plants is on privately-owned land or

federal land that is subject to mining claims, tools are

needed to induce private parties to sell (or exchange;

see subsections (e) and (f) below) their privately-owned

land or mining claims for the Habitat Reserve, as follows:

(i) Types of purchase. The federal government

may purchase two types of interest under the CHMS.

Such purchases must be made in accordance with all

applicable federal laws and regulations. Also, protections against third-party claims, as provided in Section

9(f), must be in place prior to or concurrent with such

acquisitions. The two types of interest that the federal

government may purchase are :

(A) Private property in fee, including patented mining claims.

(B) Mining claims on federal lands (by paying for the relinquishment of such claims); purchases

of unpatented claims may require special federal legislation.

(ii) Willing sellers. Because the CHMS is a voluntary program, any purchases pursuant to the CHMS

will be between the federal agencies and willing private

sellers. The use of eminent domain is not a tool for

implementing the CHMS.

(iii) Prioritization. When funds are available,

purchases will be prioritized under the CHMS so as to

obtain the greatest contribution to the Habitat Reserve

for the dollar spent. The definition of Conservation

Unit can be valuable for this purpose, because it allows

potential purchases to be ranked based upon Conservation Units/dollar (or, “CU/$”)—a direct measure of

conservation value preserved for each dollar spent. A

direct purchase component of the CHMS also provides the opportunity to obtain some parcels whose

value to the Habitat Reserve is not fully reflected by

the CU /$ measure. Such parcels may include, for example, ones that provide key linkages between other

conserved parcels or important habitat that is particularly susceptible to loss to mining activities.

(c) Project compliance. A core feature of the

CHMS is that it provides a procedure for obtaining

ESA Compliance for new mining activities, as detailed

in Section 11. The compensation required for obtaining ESA Compliance is the offering of Conservation

Credits that represent Reserve Contributions. The effect is that land is added to the Habitat Reserve, and

private parties obtain ESA Compliance. Project compliance represents the mining industry’s primary contribution to the CHMS and is a primary means of

building the Habitat Reserve by adding to the Initial

Habitat Reserve.

(d) Conservation banking. Private parties who hold

claims or land within the CHMA with Conservation

Value may obtain Conservation Credits—either by

making Reserve Contributions or by purchasing them

from other private parties—and hold them for future

use or sale rather than immediately use them to obtain

ESA Compliance. This practice may be referred to as

“conservation banking” because it results in a “bank”

of credits for the party who makes the Reserve Contribution, which may be held, sold, or used in the future,

as detailed in Section 10(a). Regardless of how the

Conservation Credits are used, when a party makes a

Reserve Contribution and obtains credits, the size of

the Habitat Reserve is immediately increased.

(e) Exchanges for federal lands. The Resource Management Agencies may hold certain lands that have

commercial value, but little or no Conservation Value

or other public use value. An additional way to increase the Habitat Reserve is for the federal government to exchange such lands for privately owned land

that has substantial Conservation Value and set aside

the land received for the Habitat Reserve, as discussed

Section 8 • Conservation Tools
22

in subsection (a) above. The federal land being traded

to a private party need not be located within the

CHMA. Such exchanges must be made in accordance

with all applicable federal laws and regulations. Also,

protections against third-party claims, as provided in

Section 9(f), must be in place prior to or concurrent

with such acquisitions.

(f) Fee-for-claims swaps. The Forest Service and the

BLM could also exchange surplus lands for mining

claims that have substantial Conservation Value and

designate the land received as Habitat Reserve, as discussed in subsection (a) above. As with exchanges for

fee-owned land, federal land being traded to a private

party need not be located within the CHMA. Such exchanges must be made in accordance with all applicable federal laws and regulations. Protections against

third-party claims, as provided in Section 9(f), must be

in place prior to or concurrent with such acquisitions.

Such exchanges may also require special federal legislation.

 (g) Revegetation. Land that has been mined need

not result in a permanent biological loss. Once a mining operation is complete in a particular location,

SMARA and federal regulations require that the land

be reclaimed, including that it be revegetated. Furthermore, the CHMS provides incentives to meet revegetation success criteria included in the “Guidelines and

Success Criteria for Revegetation and Carbonate Plant

Introductions” set forth in Appendix E (the “Revegetation Guidelines”). When land has been successfully

revegetated, the landowner or claim holder may, but is

not required to, make a Reserve Contribution of such

land and receive either ESA Compliance or Conservation Credits (see Section 12(b) and Table 2 on p. 18).

Such contributions are yet another way that the Habitat Reserve can be increased over time.

(h) Other contributions. Land may also be added to

the Habitat Reserve by means of contributions for

regulatory compliance other than ESA Compliance

under the CHMS, such as for CEQA compliance or

NEPA compliance that is not related to the Carbonate

Plants.

Special legislation may be sought to appropriate

funds for the types of transactions described in subsections (b), (e), and (f) above and possibly to assist in the

implementation of various transactions. Special legislation is discussed in more detail in Section 16.

The following part describes how the conservation

tool kit described in this section, as well as each of the

other elements or components described in this

Part II, are to be used to implement the CHMS. ❀

Part II • Components
Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy

III. Implementation

This part describes the implementation of the CHMS—the nuts and bolts of how it will operate to meet the

objectives set forth in Section 2. It begins with an overview of how the Habitat Reserve will be formed over

time. It then details both how private parties will make Reserve Contributions toward the formation of the Habitat Reserve and how mining interests may obtain ESA Compliance under the CHMS. It concludes by describing

the role that revegetating reclaimed mining areas can play in building the Habitat Reserve and helping mining interests obtain ESA Compliance.

9. Reserve Formation

Forming the Habitat Reserve over time is how the

CHMS meets its conservation objectives. This section describes how the Habitat Reserve is formed under the CHMS and how the CHMS becomes fully operational within each Administrative Unit as specified

reserve formation objectives are met. Table 5 on page

24 summarizes the acreage and Conservation Value of

the various components of the Reserve.

(a) Initial Habitat Reserve. The Habitat Reserve is

seeded by the Initial Habitat Reserve (see Section

4(d)(i)) prior to any private Reserve Contributions under the CHMS. The Resource Management Agencies

have agreed to designate these lands as Habitat Reserve

in accordance with Section 8(a) because they are able

to do so without interfering with the interests of private parties.

(b) Priority Areas. The CHMS gives high priority

to the acquisition of land for the Habitat Reserve

within the areas designated on Map 3 of Appendix I as

“Stage 1 Priority Areas” and “Stage 2 Priority Areas”

(collectively, the “Priority Areas”). These areas include

important habitat for the Carbonate Plants as well as

the potential for preserving large contiguous blocks of

habitat and connecting land. The following tools,

which include both incentives and rules, shall be in effect under the CHMS to facilitate the addition of land

within the Priority Areas to the Reserve:

 (i) Stage 1 Priority Area requirement. Within

any Administrative Unit, the following must be added

to the Habitat Reserve before any loss of habitat may

be authorized under the CHMS within that Unit: (A)

100% of the Occupied Habitat that occurs in the

Stage 1 Priority Areas; (B) 85% of the Suitable Habitat

that occurs within the Stage 1 Priority Areas; and (C)

sufficient additional land to preserve such Occupied

and Suitable Habitat in one contiguous patch (“Connective Land”). The determination of the sufficiency

of the Connective Land shall be in the discretion of

the applicable Resource Management Agency. Upon

the addition of all such lands to the Habitat Reserve,

ESA Compliance may be obtained in the Unit, and the

Unit is deemed to be “Activated.” This provision assures a substantial amount of important habitat will be

included in the Habitat Reserve within a Unit in advance of any habitat loss within that Unit under the

CHMS. No Stage 1 Priority Areas are designated for

the Bertha or Moonridge Onyx Units because mining

activity is not expected to occur there.

(ii) Stage 2 Priority Area loss prohibition. Even after a Unit has been Activated, no loss of habitat may

be authorized under the CHMS within any Stage 2

Priority Area until the following are added to the

Habitat Reserve within that Stage 2 Priority Area: (A)

100% of the Occupied Habitat; (B) 85% of the Suitable Habitat; and (C) sufficient Connective Land to

preserve such Occupied and Suitable Habitat in one

contiguous patch. The determination of the sufficiency
24

of the Connective Land shall be in

the discretion of the applicable Resource Management Agency.

(iii) Conservation Value enhancement. Ordinarily, only Occupied Habitat has a Conservation

Value of 1.0 CV/acre or more. In

order to assist the meeting of the

Stage 1 and Stage 2 Priority Area

requirements described in subsections (i) and (ii) above, the applicable Resource Management

Agency may, in negotiations with a

prospective contributor of land to

the Reserve, assign a minimum

Conservation Value of 1.00 CU/acre

to any portion of land within the

Priority Area that is contributed to

the Reserve. Although such minimum value assignments shall be in

the discretion of the Resource

Management Agency, the agency

must make such minimum value

assignments as to any land that it

determines is necessary to meet the

requirements of subsection (i) or

(ii) above. This provision is intended to provide significant incentive for private parties to make Reserve Contributions in the Priority

Areas in configurations that will

help meet CHMS objectives.

(c) Means of Adding Priority

Areas to the Reserve. It is left to the

various interested parties to engage

in activities that will help add the

Priority Areas to the Habitat Reserve. Drawing from the conservation tools described

in Section 8, the three primary activities that are likely

to be used to add Priority Areas to the Reserve are as

follows:

(i) Federal acquisitions. The Resource Management Agencies may enter into purchase and sale agreements and exchanges to acquire land and claims from

private parties for addition to the Habitat Reserve (see

Sections 8(b), (e), and (f)). Some such purchases may

require a congressional appropriation (see Section

16(a)), and both purchases and exchanges may be benefited by special streamlining legislation (see Section

16(b)).

(ii) Contingent Contributions. Private parties

may make “Contingent Contributions” (see Section

10(d))—contingent offers of Reserve Contributions

Table 5: Reserve Formation Statistics

Occ. Hab.

(acres)

Cons. Val.

(CU)

Occ. Hab.

(% of Unit)

Cons. Val.

(% of Unit)

White Mountain 922 99 

Initial Reserve 109 10 10% 12%

Stage 1 Prior. 326 57 58% 35%

Stage 2 Prior. 0% 0% -

Total IR + S1 + S2 435 67 68% 47%

Furnace 10,544 1,545 

Initial Reserve 2,094 202 13% 20%

Stage 1 Prior. 1,234 452 29% 12%

Stage 2 Prior. 1,125 418 27% 11%

Total IR + S1 + S2 4,453 1,072 69% 42%

Helendale 8,865 1,460 

Initial Reserve 2,934 218 15% 33%

Stage 1 Prior. 1,513 633 43% 17%

Stage 2 Prior. 842 335 23% 9%

Total IR + S1 + S2 5,289 1,186 81% 60%

Bertha 827 73 

Initial Reserve 663 73 100% 80%

Stage 1 Prior. - - 0% 0%

Stage 2 Prior. - - 0% 0%

Total IR + S1 + S2 663 73 100% 80%

Moonridge/Onyx 1,072 15 

Initial Reserve 824 15 100% 77%

Stage 1 Prior. - - 0% 0%

Stage 2 Prior. - - 0% 0%

Total IR + S1 + S2 824 15 100% 77%

Total 22,230 3,192 

Initial Reserve 6,624 518 16% 30%

Stage 1 Prior. 3,073 1,142 36% 14%

Stage 2 Prior. 1,967 753 24% 9%

Total IR + S1 + S2 11,664 2,413 76% 52%

Part III • Implementation
25

that are not effective until the completion of the contribution of a Stage 1 Priority Area to the Habitat Reserve. Several parties could make such Contingent

Contributions, and each of their Reserve Contributions would become effective simultaneously when

transactions that would complete the addition of the

Stage 1 Priority Area are all prepared to close. This tool

can help resolve the “chicken and egg” problem that

would otherwise exist before a Unit is Activated by the

addition of its Stage 1 Priority Areas to the Habitat Reserve.

(iii) Ordinary Reserve Contributions. Priority Areas may also be added to the Habitat Reserve by means

of direct Reserve Contributions for Conservation

Credits.

(d) Furnace Unit Stage 1 Priority Areas. A series of

transactions for the addition of the Furnace Unit Stage

1 Priority Areas to the Reserve (the “Initial Furnace

Transactions”) is well along in development. It is anticipated that some or all of these transactions shall be

described in the biological assessment that is submitted

to the USFWS to initiate the CHMS Section 7 Consultation. Map 6 in Appendix I shows how the Habitat

Reserve may be configured if all such transactions were

to occur.

(e) Incremental Reserve growth. After the Initial

Habitat Reserve is established, the Habitat Reserve will

continue to grow as parties voluntarily make Reserve

Contributions to obtain ESA Compliance or to bank

Conservation Credits. Because of the requirements of

subsection (b) above, much of this incremental growth

is likely to occur in the Priority Areas initially. Because

the “Compensation Requirement” (see Section 11(a))

for obtaining ESA Compliance is based on a 3:1

“Compensation Ratio,” the overall pace of growth of

the Habitat Reserve beyond the Initial Habitat Reserve

will be at least three times the pace of loss of habitat

caused by mining activity (in terms of Conservation

Value).

(f) Means of protecting Habitat Reserve lands. It is

the intention of the CHMS that all Habitat Reserve

lands be protected from mining activity in perpetuity

and be subjected only to public uses that are compatible with management of the Reserve for its intended

purpose. The Resource Management Agencies shall

manage the Habitat Reserve lands consistent with this

intent within the bounds of their existing regulatory

authority. The Forest Service shall also manage Category D lands containing habitat for Carbonate Plants

in the same manner as for Habitat Reserve lands until

such time, if any, that a Mining Plan is approved over

such habitat.

When an interest in land is contributed to the Reserve, it shall be relinquished to the Resource Management Agency in the manner required by Section 10(b),

which varies depending on the type of Reserve Contribution made. Regardless of the type of Reserve Contribution, however, the land interest must also be immediately protected from new mining claims in a manner

that is satisfactory to the Resource Management

Agency. The following are examples of alternative

means by which land may be protected from new mining claims, some of which require an intermediate step

before the interest is finally conveyed to the Resource

Management Agency:

(i) If the land had been previously or concurrently “withdrawn from mineral location,” then new

claims would be precluded by federal law once the

contributor relinquished a claim on the land.

(ii) The land or claim could be transferred to an

intermediary in trust for the Resource Management

Agency until the land is made subject to a mineral

withdrawal.

(iii) The party making the Reserve Contribution could retain title to the land or mining claim and

attach a surface use restriction to the land. This would

protect the land from surface use and occupancy by

the owner and also avoid exposing the land to new

third-party claims. Once the underlying area has been

subjected to a mineral withdrawal, the contributor

would relinquish the interest to the Resource Management Agency. Note that this kind of temporary surface

use restriction should not be confused with the “Surface Entry Restriction” mentioned under Section

10(b)(iii).

(iv) Special legislation could be sought to provide an efficient and permanent means of protecting

Section 9 • Reserve Formation
26

lands contributed to the Habitat Reserve (see Section

16(c)).

The mechanisms described in subsections (ii) and (iii)

above could be used to batch lands for mineral withdrawal so that withdrawals can be processed in bulk

rather than in a piecemeal fashion. Note that a small

portion of the Habitat Reserve consists of privatelyowned land subject to permanent conservation easement.

(g) Adaptivity of reserve design. The CHMS has

mechanisms that allow the design of the Habitat Reserve to adapt to new information over time, as follows:

(i) First, the Habitat Inventory is subject to regular

revision based upon the best available biological information at a given time (see Section 14(d)). As the

Habitat Inventory will drive both incentives to preserve appropriate areas and the required portions of the

Priority Areas to be preserved, revision of the Habitat

Inventory is an important tool of adaptive reserve design.

(ii) Second, because of the revegetation requirements of the “Reclamation Regulations” (see Section

11(c)), combined with the incentives of the CHMS to

introduce or reintroduce Carbonate Plants when revegetating (see Section 12 and the Revegetation Guidelines), most land within the CHMA that is currently

habitat for the Carbonate Plants will be available to be

managed for the Carbonate Plants in the long run, including land that is mined in the shorter run. So eventually all current habitat for the Carbonate Plants effectively becomes available for the Reserve, providing

ultimate flexibility to manage for the benefit of the

Carbonate Plants.

(iii) Third, if changed conditions or unforeseen circumstances could mean that continued operation of

mining activities pursuant to the CHMS would result

in jeopardy to the Carbonate Plants, then the Resource

Management Agencies must re-initiate the CHMS

Section 7 Consultation and limit or suspend operations under the CHMS until a solution is adopted that

meets the needs of the Carbonate Plants (see Section

14(e)). Although the CHMS contains many provisions

to avoid re-initiation, this tool is available if necessary

to protect the Carbonate Plants. This is a last-resort

adaptive management and reserve design tool.

10. Conservation

Credits

Private parties may make Reserve Contributions by

relinquishing mining claims or transferring ownership to the Resource Management Agency for inclusion in the Habitat Reserve. Such parties will receive

Conservation Credits for making such Reserve Contributions. The number of Conservation Credits that a

party receives for making a reserve contribution is

based upon the Conservation Value, measured in Conservation Units, of the land contributed, subject to certain adjustments that are described in this section. The

reason a private party would want to make a Reserve

Contribution is that the Conservation Credits can be

used to obtain ESA Compliance and therefore have

economic value.

(a) Use of Conservation Credits. A party may make

a Reserve Contribution and immediately use the resulting Conservation Credits to obtain ESA Compliance. Alternatively, a party may hold the resulting

credits, thereby “banking” them for future use. A party

holding Conservation Credits (a “Credit Holder”)

may do any of the following with them:

• Use them (“spend” them) to obtain ESA Compliance;

• Sell them to another party for whatever price the

market will bear; or

• Hold them for future ESA Compliance or sale.

One advantage of receiving Conservation Credits

to use for ESA Compliance rather than making a direct contribution of land is that the payments in Conservation Credits can precisely match the compliance

requirement, avoiding overcompensating to obtain

ESA Compliance. For example, if ESA Compliance on

a particular parcel requires 500 Conservation Credits,

but the parcel that the landowner has to offer would

yield 700 Conservation Credits, the landowner or

claim holder could make a Reserve Contribution of

the whole parcel and receive ESA Compliance plus

Part III • Implementation
27

“change” in the amount of 200 Conservation Credits,

which may be used later or sold to another party. Conversely, if the party seeking ESA Compliance needed

500 Conservation Credits, but had a parcel that would

yield only 400 Conservation Credits, that party could

make up the difference by purchasing 100 Conservation Credits from another private party that was banking some credits. The use of Conservation Credits

thereby makes the compliance process more efficient.

(b) Types of Reserve Contribution. There are two

basic types of Reserve Contribution: a “Permanent

Contribution” and a “Relocatable Contribution.” Either of these basic types could also be a “surface rights

contribution.”

(i) Permanent Contributions. A Permanent Contribution is an absolute, permanent grant of private

land or relinquishment of a mining claim. To make a

Permanent Contribution is to relinquish a parcel or a

claim and receive Conservation Credits in exchange.

Permanent Contributions receive the full number of

Conservation Credits with no deduction for lack of

permanence.

(ii) Relocatable Contributions. Relocatable Contributions leave some flexibility with the contributor.

Rather than making a grant of land or relinquishment

of a claim, a Relocatable Contribution is made by entering into an agreement whereby the contributor

agrees not to disturb the land during the term of the

agreement (a “Use Restriction Agreement”). Use Restriction Agreements are for a term of twenty (20)

years each. The form of and procedure for engaging in

Use Restriction Agreements shall be at the discretion

of the respective Resource Management Agencies. Use

Restriction Agreements must be recorded against the

subject land or mining claim.

At any time during the term, the contributor

may replace the land covered by the Use Restriction

Agreement with a different Reserve Contribution of

equal value. Because a Relocatable Contribution necessarily limits what can be done on the parcel from a

conservation management perspective, the Conservation Credits given for a Relocatable Contribution will

be reduced by 50% of what would have been received

for a Permanent Contribution of the same land. Only

Permanent Contributions shall be regarded as adding

land to the Habitat Reserve, so only Permanent Contributions will be counted in determining whether a

Priority Area has been added to the Reserve. Land under a Relocatable Contribution shall be regarded as

Category D if on public land and Category P if on private land.

A replacement contribution during the term of the

Use Restriction Agreement may be either a Permanent

Contribution or a different parcel of land as a

Relocatable Contribution, but the replacement contribution must yield at least the same number of Conservation Credits as the original contribution (the contributor would receive “change” in the form of additional Conservation Credits if the replacement contribution yields a greater number of Conservation Credits than the original Relocatable Contribution). Making a replacement contribution does not reset the 20-

year term of the Use Restriction Agreement. One option the contributor would always have would be to

make a Permanent Contribution of the same land included in the Relocatable Contribution and receive additional Conservation Credits (the number of Conservation Credits that the land would yield as a Permanent Contribution at the time the contribution is converted less the number of Conservation Credits previously received for the Relocatable Contribution). The

Use Restriction Agreement shall provide that, if by the

end of the term of such agreement the contributor has

not converted to a Permanent Contribution of land,

then the land then under the Use Restriction Agreement shall automatically be converted to a Permanent

Contribution, and the contributor will receive the excess Conservation Credits for doing so.

For purposes of calculating the Conservation Value

of land contributed under a Use Restriction Agreement, the Habitat Inventory at the time of the contribution shall control for the life of the Use Restriction

Agreement, but the Conservation Value of any replacement contribution shall be measured based upon the

Habitat Inventory as of the time of the replacement

contribution. When a permanent contribution is made

of land already under a Use Restriction Agreement, the

Habitat Inventory at the time of the permanent contribution shall control.

Section 10 • Conservation Credits
28

The availability of the Relocatable Contribution

option gives mining interests some flexibility in the

management of their holdings. Even though fewer

Conservation Credits would be received by the contributor, the party may choose to make a Relocatable

Contribution, for example, because:

• The mineral value of the land is not certain at the

time of the contribution, so the contributor wants

to reserve the right to replace the contribution

with other land if the mineral value is determined

to be high; or

• The contributor believes that the Conservation

Value of the land may increase in the future—either because of discovery of additional Occupied

Habitat on the land, because revegetation activities

(see Section 12) may increase the Conservation

Value, or because the contribution of adjacent

lands may improve the Adjusted Conservation

Value (see Section 7(e)) in the future—and the

contributor therefore wants to wait until the Conservation Value is increased before making a Permanent Contribution of the land.

Providing such flexibility is a benefit to the contributor, but it is also of value from a conservation

standpoint. The relocation feature temporarily limits

conservation management options, but it effectively

provides double the amount of land as long as the relocation option remains open (because only 50% of the

normal number of Conservation Credits is given for

Relocatable Contributions). In any event, no later than

the end of the term of the agreement, the Relocatable

Contribution must be replaced by a Permanent Contribution, which could be a portion of the original

Relocatable Contribution.

(iii) Surface rights contributions. The surface

rights to land, whether in the form of a claim or fee

title, may be offered as either a Permanent or

Relocatable Contribution, even if the subsurface is

subject to mining. In such cases, the right of surface

entry would be restricted on the portion of land comprising the Reserve Contribution. Such restriction shall

be documented using an instrument that is recorded

against the subject land or mining claim (a “Surface

Entry Restriction”). The form of Surface Entry Restrictions shall be at the discretion of the respective Resource Management Agencies. The Conservation

Credits available for such surface rights shall be calculated in the same manner as for other Reserve

Contributinos. See Section 11(d) below regarding obtaining ESA Compliance for subsurface mining.

(c) Receiving Conservation Credits for Reserve Contributions. Parties making Reserve Contributions receive “payment” in the form of Conservation Credits.

The number of Conservation Credits that will be given

for a specified contribution shall be calculated as follows:

(i) Start with the Conservation Value of the land

contributed, measured in Conservation Units in accordance with Section 7(b)–(c);

(ii) Subtract the Net Edge Adjustment to arrive

at the Adjusted Conservation Value in accordance with

Section 7(e); and

(iii) Multiply the result in (ii) by a permanence

factor, which is 1.00 for Permanent Contributions and

0.50 for Relocatable Contributions.

The formula for determining the number of Conservation Credits that will be given for a Reserve Contribution can be summarized as:

Conservation Credits = (CV – Net Edge Adjustment)

× permanence factor

Appendix G provides several examples of Conservation

Credit calculations; Appendix F includes a worksheet

for valuing the Reserve Contribution of a given parcel.

(d) Contingent Contributions. Private parties may

make a Reserve Contribution contingent on either (i)

Activation of a particular Administrative Unit (based

upon the completion of the addition of the entire

Stage 1 Priority Area to the Habitat Reserve) or (ii) approval of a Mining Plan for a particular project (a

“Contingent Contribution”). Contingent Contributions shall be documented by an escrowed contribution agreement between the contributor and the applicable Resource Management Agency. Once the specified contingency(ies) are satisfied, the Reserve Contribution escrow shall close, the subject land shall be

transferred to the Resource Management Agency, and

the contributor shall receive Conservation Credits.

Conservation Credits obtained in this way may be

freely used for any purpose listed in Section 10(a). Applicants may, but are not required to, specify in the

Part III • Implementation
29

contribution agreement particular mining lands that

may be covered using the Conservation Credits obtained by means of a particular Contingent Contribution. The Compensation Requirement for lands so

specified are locked in so long as the Conservation

Credits that are obtained from the Contingent Contribution are applied to obtain ESA Compliance for the

specified lands.

(e) Land and claims qualifying for contribution.

Generally, any land or mining claim within the

CHMA may be contributed to the Habitat Reserve for

the requisite number of Conservation Credits calculated in accordance with subsection (c) above; provided,

however, that (i) the land or claim must meet any land

acceptance criteria established by the applicable Resource Management Agency with respect to the physical condition or title to the land or claim and (ii) any

claim made after October 1, 1999 must be a valid

claim under the Mining Law before it may be contributed (there is no validation requirement for earlier

claims). October 1, 1999 coincides with the time

when the Working Group began to develop the notion

of accepting relinquishment of claims for conservation

credit; the purpose of accepting only validated claims

made after that date is to avoid any possibility or appearance of parties making claims of questionable mineral value just to obtain conservation credit.

(f) Credit Registration. The Forest Service shall

record the creation, use, and transfer of Conservation

Credits (see box below) in a database to be referred to

as the “Credit Registry.” The Forest Service shall maintain the Credit Registry either through a person or office within the Forest Service or by contracting with

and overseeing an outside party to fulfill all or part of

that function. The Forest Service may delegate some or

all of its administrative functions, including any collection of credit registration fees, to another agency or to

a private party. Each creation of Conservation Credits

shall be evidenced by a concurrence letter issued by the

Forest Service that establishes the number of Conservation Credits created and identifies the party who

holds them (a “Credit Verification Letter”). The Conservation Credits evidenced by a Credit Verification

Letter may be sold or traded until used to obtain ESA

Compliance. Any such transfer shall be evidenced by a

new Credit Verification Letter issued in the name of

the transferee. The Forest Service may adopt more detailed procedures for credit registration and may revise

them from time to time as it deems appropriate. An

example of such procedures is set forth in Appendix H,

but the Forest Service may choose, for example, to

adopt simplified procedures for situations in which a

mining interest does not wish to hold Conservation

Credits, but rather desires to apply them immediately

to obtain ESA Compliance (combining the creation

and use of credits into one step).

11. ESA Compliance

Mining activities within the CHMA may, but are

not required to, obtain ESA Compliance under

the CHMS Biological Opinion by complying with the

terms of the CHMS. As explained in Section 9(b)(i),

ESA Compliance through the CHMS is available

within an Administrative Unit only after the Unit has

been Activated. This section describes the requirements for obtaining ESA Compliance for a proposed

mining activity under the CHMS.

(a) Compensation Requirement. The basic requirement for obtaining ESA Compliance is that Conservation Credits must be given to compensate for the habitat loss that would occur as a result of the proposed

mining activity (the “Compensation Requirement”).

The amount of the Compensation Requirement for a

given parcel is 3 × the Adjusted Conservation Value of

the land whose surface is to be disturbed as a result of

the proposed mining activity. Compensation is not required for portions of a claim whose surface is not to

be disturbed. The ratio of Reserve Contribution requirement to the amount of habitat loss shall be reTypes of Conservation Credit Transactions

• Creation: When a private party makes a Reserve

Contribution, Conservation Credits are created

and given to that party

• Use: Parties seeking ESA Compliance must use

or “spend” Conservation Credits as compensation

for the habitat loss to be caused by the complying

project

• Transfer: Conservation Credits may be freely

bought, sold, and traded at whatever price the

market will bear

Section 11 • ESA Compliance
30

ferred to as the “Compensation Ratio.” The Compensation Ratio of 3:1 was selected as a ratio that would

result in a sufficient contribution from project compliance to meet the biological objectives of the CHMS

when combined with Reserve contributions from other

sources (see Section 8). Appendix F includes a

worksheet for calculating the Compensation Requirement for a given parcel.

(b) Auxiliary use areas (Category F lands). In order

to make it feasible for a landowner or claim holder to

make a Reserve Contribution of certain lands and proceed with a mining activity, the Resource Management

Agency may offer right-of-way, well access, or other

special use of land not under the ownership or claim of

the private party. Such areas are designated as Category

F lands under the CHMS. The creation of Category F

lands is in the discretion of the Resource Management

Agencies with jurisdiction over the underlying land

and may traverse Category D or Category E lands, so

long as the allowed use is determined by the Resource

Management Agency to be compatible with the Habitat Reserve. There shall be no Compensation Requirement for the use of any Category F lands over which

the applicant is given access or use rights.

As an example, a mining operator may control land

that has substantial conservation value, but which

must be traversed to obtain access to an operational

area. The Resource Management Agency may be able

to induce such operator to make a Reserve Contribution of the parcel if the landowner can retain a rightof-way across the contributed land. Such right-of-way

would be managed by the Resource Management

Agency as part of the Reserve, subject to the right-ofway retained by the operator. The bulk of the contributed parcel would be designated as Category E, and

the right-of-way portion would be designated as Category F.

(c) Mining Plan and reclamation compliance. Most

mining activities will be subject to a Mining Plan issued by the applicable Resource Management Agency.

In addition, mining operations within the CHMA are

subject to certain preexisting reclamation requirements, which may include, depending on location and

other factors, reclamation standards under SMARA; a

Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest

Service, BLM, and the State of California signed October 1992 regarding the application of SMARA on federal lands in California; the Forest Service regulations

under 36 CFR 228; and the 1991 Big Bear District

Mining Reclamation Standards (all such reclamation

regulations that exist from time to time shall be referred to collectively as the “Reclamation Regulations”). A party which has obtained ESA Compliance

under the CHMS must remain in substantial compliance with all applicable Reclamation Regulations in all

respects in order to maintain ESA Compliance under

the CHMS.

(d) Compliance for subsurface mining. Covered Activities that involve subsurface mining may obtain ESA

Compliance through the CHMS. In such cases, the

Compensation Requirement will be measured according the area of surface disturbance, calculated in the

manner set forth in subsection (a) above. No compensation will be required for subsurface activities that do

not have direct surface impacts. The ESA Compliance

obtained for the surface impacts of subsurface mining

activities does not cover impacts from surficial failure

or other unexpected surface disturbances. Such types

of disturbance will not be addressed by the CHMS

Biological Opinion and must therefore be separately

addressed outside of the CHMS if they occur. See Section 10(b)(iii) above regarding the ability to offer the

surface as a Reserve Contribution.

(e) Compliance Verification Letter. Upon meeting

all of the requirements for obtaining ESA Compliance

under the CHMS with respect to a parcel, the Forest

Service shall issue to the applicant a concurrence letter

acknowledging the satisfaction of the requirements for

obtaining ESA Compliance with respect to such parcel

(a “Compliance Verification Letter.”) Note that the

project may also require a concurrence letter from the

USFWS as part of the NEPA compliance process for

the project for the USFWS to verify that the project is

in compliance with the ESA in accordance with the

CHMS.

(f) Credit for avoidance of areas approved for mining. If at any time after obtaining ESA Compliance for

an area, the landowner or claim holder determines that

certain portions of that area need not be disturbed,

then the landowner or claim holder may, in its discrePart III • Implementation
31

tion, have the area removed from the ESA Compliance

area. Upon application for such removal, the Forest

Service shall issue a revised Compliance Verification

Letter removing such area from ESA Compliance and

a Credit Verification Letter to return to the applicant

the number of Conservation Credits previously given

by the applicant as compensation for prospective habitat loss on the subject land area. If a Mining Plan had

already been issued covering such area, then the applicant must present to the Resource Management

Agency a revised Mining Plan or an amendment to the

Mining Plan showing the subject area removed from

mining. Upon issuance of the revised Compliance

Verification Letter, the Forest Service shall automatically update the Habitat Inventory to show the type of

habitat existing on the removed area. The applicant

may also, in its discretion, take the further step of

making a Reserve Contribution of the subject area in

exchange for additional Conservation Credits, using

the normal contribution procedure set forth in Section

10. The process set forth in this subsection may be employed at any time in the mining and reclamation process so long as the area to be removed from ESA Compliance has not been disturbed.

(g) Effect of ESA Compliance. Once a mining activity has obtained ESA Compliance:

• Covered Activities on the subject land are deemed

to be in compliance with the CHMS Biological

Opinion, and thus with the ESA, with respect to

the species addressed by the CHMS;

• The subject land is moved to Category M2 (and

from there to Category M1 once a Mining Plan is

in place for the land);

• The Habitat Inventory is updated to show the subject land as nonhabitat (see Section 14(d)(i));

• Covered Activities on the subject property cannot

be affected by subsequent changes in the Habitat

Inventory on the subject land; and

• Covered Activities on the subject property will

benefit from any subsequent modifications to the

CHMS that add to the species addressed by the

CHMS.

ESA Compliance under the CHMS is subject to

any re-initiation of the CHMS Section 7 Consultation, as described in Section 14(e).

As described in Section 3(b)(iii), the County shall

adopt standardized conditions of approval consistent

with the CHMS that may apply on a project-byproject basis to applications for mining and reclamation activities that are regulated by the County.

12. Revegetation

One characteristic of mining activities is that they

have a conclusion, and after their conclusion the

underlying land has an opportunity to regenerate habitat. The CHMS incorporates this opportunity to “recycle” the land as an important component of the

strategy.

(a) Reclamation Regulations. As stated in Section

11(c) above, for a mining activity to maintain ESA

Compliance under the CHMS, the activity must

maintain substantial compliance with applicable Reclamation Regulations. Such regulations may include

mandatory revegetation standards.

(b) Optional Reserve Contributions. As an incentive for mining interests to meet and exceed the revegetation requirements of the Reclamation Regulations, a

landowner or claim holder who reclaims and revegetates mining land to meet the criteria for Revegetated

Habitat (see box on page 18 and the Revegetation

Guidelines) may make a Reserve Contribution of such

land and receive Conservation Credits. Since the Habitat Inventory will show areas that have been granted

ESA Compliance to have no habitat, the landowner or

claim holder will want to first have the land resurveyed

and request that the Habitat Inventory be updated to

reflect the existence of Revegetated Habitat on the

land. Section 14(d) describes the procedure for updating the Habitat Inventory. As shown in Section 7(b)

and Section (a) of the Revegetation Guidelines, the

Conservation Value of Revegetated Habitat varies

based upon the success criteria that are met on each

revegetated parcel.

(c) ESA coverage for revegetated areas. Conservation of the Carbonate Plants will benefit if mining interests make attempts to revegetate with Carbonate

Plants beyond what is required under the Reclamation

Regulations. Mining interests may desire to make such

Section 12 • Revegetation
32

attempts both to find the most effective techniques for

successfully revegetating with Carbonate Plants and to

apply those techniques to successfully revegetate areas

for Conservation Credits. Such effort are potentially

discouraged, however, by the fact that the species are

protected by the ESA and that success in revegetating

areas could become a hindrance to future mine planning. This situation may occur, for example, if (i) the

revegetation effort was only partially successful, so the

landowner or claim holder would get too few Conservation Credits to make a Reserve Contribution worthwhile or (ii) it is later discovered that mineral deposits

on the land are of greater value than the potential to

receive Conservation Credits. To avoid such potential

disincentives for revegetation efforts, losses of Carbonate Plants on land within the CHMA that becomes occupied by Carbonate Plants due to private revegetation

activities shall be authorized under the terms and conditions described in Section (d) of the Revegetation

Guidelines.

The following part, on CHMS administration,

details the various parties and procedures that will be

involved in administering the CHMS. ❀

Part III • Implementation
Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy

IV. Administration

All of the concepts important to the CHMS have been described in the preceding parts. This part provides

details regarding how the CHMS is to be administered, monitored, and funded. It also includes a section on

federal legislation that may be sought to assist in implementing the CHMS and a section on how the CHMS may

be amended.

13. Parties and

Responsibilities

The CHMS contemplates the coordination of efforts by a number of parties to implement its

provisions. The roles of the various parties are described throughout this document, but they are summarized and sometimes elaborated upon in this section. This section concludes with a description of a

“Memorandum of Understanding” (subsection (g) below), which will set forth the understanding of the Resource Management Agencies, the County, the California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”), the private parties

who intend to enter into the Initial Furnace Transactions, and each other party who receives either a Credit

Verification Letter or a Compliance Verification Letter

in the future (collectively, the “MOU Parties”) regarding their respective roles in the CHMS.

(a) Resource Management Agencies. As the Resource Management Agencies, the Forest Service and

the BLM have land use jurisdiction over land within

the CHMA. The responsibilities of the Resource Management Agencies under the CHMS are summarized

as follows:

(i) Coordinate the mining and land use regulations administered by the Resource Management

Agencies with the provisions of the CHMS to facilitate

the use of the CHMS by applicants to obtain ESA

Compliance, such as by coordinating the administration of the Federal Land Plans with the CHMS.

(ii) In processing applications for mining activities, accept compliance with the CHMS as compliance

with the Federal Land Plans, the ESA, and other federal laws and regulations with respect to impacts on

the Carbonate Plants (subject, however, to review under NEPA).

(iii) Manage those portions of the Habitat Reserve that fall under their respective jurisdictions in a

manner that is consistent with the CHMS (see Section

9(f)).

(iv) Facilitate federal land designations as contemplated by the CHMS to help form the Habitat Reserve (see Section 8(a)).

(v) Facilitate federal land purchases and exchanges as contemplated by the CHMS to help form

the Habitat Reserve (see Section 8(b), (e), and (f)).

(vi) Facilitate acceptance by the federal government of title to privately owned land contributed to

the Habitat Reserve under the CHMS.

(vii) Notify the MOU Parties if at any time

Congress or the Secretary of the Interior determines

that all or any part of the Habitat Reserve is no longer

necessary to provide for the conservation of the Carbonate Plants and, as a consequence, an existing mineral withdrawal or other use restriction has been removed as to such land.

(viii) Work with the USFWS to develop and

implement a plan for monitoring the effectiveness of,

compliance with, and biological conditions under the

CHMS.
34

 (ix) Monitor the implementation of the

CHMS for consistency with the CHMS Biological

Opinion and immediately report to the MOU Parties

any potential or realized inconsistencies.

(x) Monitor the CHMA for conditions that

could require re-initiation of the CHMS Section 7

Consultation and immediately report any such conditions to the MOU Parties.

 (xi) In the event of a re-initiation of the CHMS

Section 7 Consultation, suspend or partially suspend

operation of the CHMS, if required by Section 7(d) of

the ESA, and report the suspension to the MOU Parties (see Section 14(e)).

 (b) Forest Service. The Forest Service has the following responsibilities in addition to those under subsection (a) above:

(i) Maintain and update the Habitat Inventory

in accordance with Section 14(d).

(ii) Administer the Credit Registry and related

functions in accordance with Section 10(f).

(iii) Carry out the regular reporting functions

for the CHMS described in Section 14(b).

(iv) Receive, maintain, and make publicly available records and reports it receives pursuant to the

CHMS, such as revegetation reports (see the Revegetation Guidelines) and various monitoring reports (see

Section 14).

(v) Manage those Category D lands that fall under its jurisdiction in a manner that is consistent with

the CHMS (see Section 9(f)).

(c) County. The County has jurisdiction over mining reclamation under SMARA, and it has land use jurisdiction over the private lands located within the

CHMA. The County shall adopt standardized conditions of approval for addressing impacts to Carbonate

Plants by proposed mining and reclamation projects in

a manner that is consistent with the CHMS. Such

conditions of approval shall apply under SMARA, the

County land use ordinances, and CEQA, subject to

the approval of the Board of Supervisors on a projectby-project basis. Specifically, such conditions of approval shall provide for (i) habitat compensation requirements consistent with the Compensation Requirements set forth in the CHMS (see Section 11)

and (ii) revegetation standards and incentives consistent with the Revegetation Guidelines and the revegetation incentives set forth in the CHMS (see Section

12 and the Revegetation Guidelines).

(d) USFWS. The responsibilities of the USFWS

under the CHMS derive from the ESA and are as follows:

(i) Issue the CHMS Biological Opinion in response to the CHMS Section 7 Consultation.

(ii) Work with the Resource Management

Agencies to develop and implement a plan for monitoring the effectiveness of, compliance with, and biological conditions under the CHMS.

 (iii) Respond to any re-initiation of the CHMS

Section 7 Consultation in a manner that is consistent

with the ESA and the CHMS Biological Opinion (see

Section 14(e)).

(iv) In the event of a re-initiation of the CHMS

Section 7 Consultation, advise the Resource Management Agencies of any obligations with respect to Section 7(d) of the ESA that require any suspension of

operations.

(e) CNPS. CNPS has been an active participant in

the Working Group, representing the conservation interests of the Carbonate Plants and assuring that from

their perspective, the CHMS provides a good and

practical solution to the conflicts between the public

economic interest in ongoing carbonate mining and

the public interest in conserving the Carbonate Plants

within the CHMA.

 (f) Applicants. The private applicants that receive

ESA Compliance under the CHMS must do as follows

in order to maintain ESA Compliance:

(i) Remain in compliance with the ESA with respect to the covered mining project, taking into account that Covered Activities on the subject land are

deemed to be in compliance with the ESA.

(ii) Remain in substantial compliance with all

Reclamation Regulations that apply to the covered

mining project.

Part IV • Administration
35

(iii) Conduct any future mining operations occurring within the area covered by the CHMS prior to

the consummation of the Initial Furnace Transactions

in a manner which is consistent with the terms of the

CHMS.

 (iv) Comply with the terms of any Use Restriction Agreements entered into by the applicant under

the CHMS in connection with making Relocatable

Contributions (see Section 10(b)(ii)).

(v) Comply with the terms of any Surface Entry

Restrictions entered into by applicant under the

CHMS in connection with making surface right Reserve Contributions (see Section 10(b)(iii)).

 (g) Memorandum of Understanding. The MOU

Parties shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) to set forth the understanding of the

MOU Parties regarding their respective responsibilities

and activities under the CHMS. In the event of any

conflict between the provisions of this document and

the provisions of the MOU, the MOU shall control.

The MOU will be signed by the MOU Parties as follows:

(i) Prior to initiation of the CHMS Section 7

Consultation, the Resource Management Agencies, the

County, CNPS, and the private parties who intend to

enter into the Initial Furnace Transactions will sign the

MOU.

(ii) Effective upon the Activation of the Furnace

Unit, the private parties who are part of the Initial Furnace Transactions as applicants for ESA Compliance

will sign the MOU again, this time in their status as

parties obtaining ESA Compliance. Such parties shall

sign a separate amendment for each Compliance Verification Letter they are to obtain.

(iii) Subsequent applicants for ESA Compliance

(after the applicants who are part of the Initial Furnace

Transactions) will sign the MOU by means of an

amendment prior to obtaining ESA Compliance. Such

parties shall sign a separate amendment for each Compliance Verification Letter they are to obtain.

(iv) Parties making Reserve Contributions will

sign an amendment to the MOU prior to obtaining

Conservation Credits with respect to such contributions. Such parties shall sign a separate amendment for

each Credit Verification Letter they are to obtain.

14. Monitoring

Several monitoring mechanisms are built into the

CHMS to assure that it achieves its economic,

conservation, and regulatory objectives.

(a) Monitoring under Section 7. Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, the Resource Management Agencies

and the USFWS shall work together to develop and

implement a plan for monitoring the effectiveness of,

compliance with, and biological conditions under the

CHMS. Such monitoring may overlap with the monitoring provisions described in the following subsections.

 (b) Regular reporting. The following regular review and reporting activities shall be conducted under

the CHMS:

(i) The Forest Service shall make Credit Registry information available to the public (see Section

10(f)).

(ii) The Forest Service shall conduct an annual

review of the progress of the CHMS over the prior fiscal year (October 1 to September 30), report the following information to the MOU Parties and the

USFWS, and make such information available to the

public upon request, by each January 31 following the

fiscal year under review:

(A) Changes in land categories over the calendar year (e.g., “D-to-E,” “D-to-M2,” “M2-to-M1,”

etc.);

(B) For each Administrative Unit, the Conservation Value contained within each land category;

(C) A summary of Conservation Credit

transactions over the year;

(D) A summary of federal land designations,

purchases, and exchanges over the year; and

(E) Any amendments to the CHMS (see Section 17(b)) that have been made during the year.

Section 14 • Monitoring
36

(c) Reserve formation. The Forest Service shall

monitor the contribution of land within Priority Areas.

Once all Stage 1 Priority Area lands within an Administrative Unit have been added to the Reserve, the Forest Service shall report to the MOU Parties and the

USFWS that such Unit has been Activated (see Section

9(b)(i)).

(d) Habitat Inventory. The Habitat Inventory is intended to reflect the existence of Occupied Habitat,

Suitable Habitat, Revegetated Habitat (including the

level of success criteria met), and Other Beneficial

Habitat, as those terms are more particularly defined

in Appendix C, the box on page 18, and in Section (a)

of the Revegetation Standards. The issuance of Conservation Credits (see Section 10(f)) and the measurement

of Compensation Requirements (see Section 11(a)) are

based upon the Habitat Inventory, and such actions

are not reviewable based upon subsequent changes in

the Habitat Inventory. However, the Habitat Inventory

shall be updated from time-to-time by the Forest Service based upon new information, and changes in the

Habitat Inventory will affect subsequent issuances of

Conservation Credits and ESA Compliance. The circumstances under which the Forest Service shall make

changes to the Habitat Inventory are as follows:

(i) Automatically upon issuance of a Compliance

Verification Letter. The Forest Service shall automatically change the Habitat Inventory on land covered by a

Compliance Verification Letter upon issuance of such

letter to show the subject land as nonhabitat (in anticipation of disturbance of any existing habitat).

 (ii) On initiative of the applicable Resource Management Agency. The Forest Service shall change the

Habitat Inventory on federal lands (including lands

subject to unpatented claims) whenever the applicable

Resource Management Agency develops or otherwise

obtains new biological information that it deems reliable that indicates a change is warranted based upon

the habitat definitions. In any event, the Habitat Inventory shall be updated based upon the best available

biological information no less than every 5 years.

(iii) On initiative of the County. The Forest Service shall change the Habitat Inventory on private lands

under the jurisdiction of the County whenever the

County develops or otherwise obtains new biological

information that it deems reliable that indicates a

change is warranted based upon the habitat definitions

set forth in Appendix C.

 (iv) On initiative of a private party. The Forest

Service shall change the Habitat Inventory on lands

owned or claimed by a private party when such party

offers new biological information that the County (in

the case of privately-owned land) or the applicable Resource Management Agency (in the case of an unpatented claim) deems reliable indicating that a change is

warranted based upon the habitat definitions set forth

in Appendix C.

Some examples of reasons that the Habitat Inventory may be inaccurate and require adjustment are:

• Inaccuracy of prior survey information.

• Naturally-occurring changes in environmental

conditions and/or species dispersal patterns.

• Occurrence of undisturbed habitat on lands

mapped as M1 or M2 when the underlying landowner or claim holder takes the necessary steps to

obtain credit for them in accordance with Section

11(f).

• Meeting of revegetation success criteria (resulting

in new Revegetated Habitat; see box on p. 18 and

Section (a) of the Revegetation Guidelines).

• Habitat disturbance, whether authorized or unauthorized.

(e) Section 7 re-initiation. Under certain circumstances, the ESA and its regulations may require that

the CHMS Section 7 Consultation be re-initiated and

the CHMS Biological Opinion be reassessed. The conditions for re-initiating consultation set forth in the

Section 7 regulations are:

• The amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded [not applicable to plants];

• New information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat

in a manner or to an extent not considered in [the

biological] opinion;

• The agency action is subsequently modified in a

manner that causes an effect to the listed species or

critical habitat not considered in [the biological]

opinion; or

• A new species is listed or critical habitat designated

that may be affected by the action.

Part IV • Administration
37

Such re-initiation should be avoided, if at all possible, in order to maintain the regulatory certainty and

streamlining provided by the CHMS. In the event that

any Resource Management Agency determines that a

condition exists or may be developing that could trigger re-initiation, such party shall report the condition

to the MOU Parties. The MOU Parties may then consider whether to take any action to avoid or eliminate

the condition that could lead to re-initiation. In the

event that the triggering condition is the proposed or

new listing of a species that may be affected by mining

projects in the CHMA, then the MOU Parties may include in its consideration the possibility of amending

the CHMS in accordance with Section 17(c) to address such species.

In the event re-initiation occurs in spite of any efforts of the MOU Parties, the USFWS has the authority under Section 7(d) of the ESA to issue a letter to

the Resource Management Agencies stating that they

have an obligation to suspend operations covered by

the CHMS Biological Opinion. In such event, the Resource Management Agencies shall suspend operation

of the CHMS only to the extent that it determines

that Section 7(d) of the ESA requires such suspension.

The Resource Management Agencies shall limit any

such suspensions to the greatest extent possible (such

as to only certain geographical areas, species, and/or

types of activities) while still achieving compliance

with the ESA.

The USFWS shall work closely with the MOU

Parties during any re-initiation of the CHMS Section

7 Consultation in an effort keep the CHMS intact

with as little disruption as possible to the expectations

of the various MOU Parties.

15. Funding

Two types of costs require funding under the

CHMS. The primary cost is that of acquiring

land for the Habitat Reserve. The secondary type of

cost is for administration of the CHMS, specifically

for carrying out the various monitoring and reporting

functions, maintaining the Habitat Inventory, maintaining the Credit Registry, and managing the Habitat

Reserve. The balance of this section describes how

these various costs will be funded.

(a) Reserve formation. All contributions of land to

the Habitat Reserve involve a societal cost—the cost of

foregoing uses of the land other than conservation in

perpetuity. It is the intent of the CHMS that this cost

be shared by the public sector and the private sector.

The following are the various ways, direct and indirect, that the cost of acquiring land for the Habitat Reserve shall be borne, with the first four constituting the

public sector’s share, and the last one constituting the

private sector’s share:

(i) Federal designations of unclaimed land;

(ii) Federal lands offered in exchange for claims

or private land;

(iii) Federal Land & Water Conservation Fund

(the “LWCF”) (the Resource Management Agencies

have made application for funding from this source);

(iv) Special congressional appropriations (see

Section 16(a)); and

(v) Reserve Contributions made for Conservation Credits (which indirectly constitutes compensation to obtain ESA Compliance).

(b) Administrative costs. The administrative costs

of the CHMS are likely to be small in comparison to

the land acquisition costs, but provision must be made

to cover these costs if the CHMS is to succeed. Administrative costs will be covered as follows:

(i) The Resource Management Agencies shall

commit the federal budgetary resources necessary to

manage the Habitat Reserve as part of their ordinary

responsibilities for the lands under their jurisdiction;

(ii) The Forest Service shall commit the additional budgetary resources necessary to carry out the

various monitoring and reporting functions required

of it by the CHMS, maintain the Habitat Inventory,

and maintain the Credit Registry; and

(iii) If the Forest Service deems it necessary, it

may obtain supplemental funding for its administrative functions by charging credit registration fees in accordance with Section 10(f) for the handling of variSection 15 • Funding
38

ous types of Conservation Credit transactions; the Forest Service shall set any such fees from time-to-time to

cover actual uncovered costs and shall report to the

MOU Parties the calculations used to size any such

fees; the Forest Service may delegate some or all of its

administrative functions, including any collection of

credit registration fees, to another agency or to a private party.

16. Legislation

Federal legislation would be helpful in three primary ways for implementing the CHMS: to fund

federal land purchases, to streamline the federal land

exchange process, and to give the Resource Management Agencies the authority to permanently dedicate

federal land to the Habitat Reserve. This section further describes the legislation that may be sought.

(a) Funding for land purchases. Although a significant amount of unclaimed federal land is available to

set aside for the Habitat Reserve, much of the best

habitat for the Carbonate Plants corresponds with

claimed or privately owned land containing mineral

deposits. Demand for ESA Compliance will result in

some level of Reserve Contributions that will help in

the addition of land from the Priority Areas to the Reserve, but such demand is insufficient to meet the objective of adding to the Reserve, in contiguous blocks,

100% of the Occupied Habitat and 85% of the Suitable Habitat contained within each Priority Area (see

Section 9(b)), even in the very long term. Adding such

Priority Area lands to the Reserve will require the federal government to purchase a significant amount of

land (see Section 8(b)).

Since most current mining activity is within the

Furnace Unit, and the Furnace Unit contains some of

the best habitat for the Carbonate Plants, it is the intent of the MOU Parties to facilitate the addition of

Furnace Unit Priority Areas to the Habitat Reserve as

soon as possible after adoption of the CHMS and the

issuance of the CHMS Biological Opinion. Fortunately, some of the best habitat for Carbonate Plants in

the Furnace Unit is owned or claimed by parties who

are willing, at least in concept, to sell their land or

claims as part of the Initial Furnace Transactions (see

Sections 4(d)(iii), 9(d)).

Some federal funding may be available administratively through the LWCF, and the Resource Management Agencies have applied for such funds. If such

funds become available, they could play an important

role in land purchases. The key to adding Priority Area

lands to the Reserve (see Section 9(b)) is to be able to

“escrow” several transactions that can all close at once.

Federal legislation may be introduced to specifically

appropriate LWCF monies and to streamline the process for applying such monies to complete the purchase of Priority Area lands. Some appropriated funds

may be earmarked for one or more particular purchases, whiles others may be part of an “opportunity

fund” available for miscellaneous purchases as the opportunities arise to purchase important habitat land at

a good price.

(b) Assistance with implementing purchases and

land exchanges. The administrative process required to

consummate the purchase of land with federal funds or

federal land exchanges involves land appraisals, mineral

valuations, and claims validations that can require a

significant amount of time to complete. The CHMS

could benefit from legislation that streamlines both (i)

the process of using any specially-appropriated funds

obtained from the legislation described in subsection

(a) above and (ii) the land exchange process for transfers of federal land to the private sector in exchange for

the transfer of private habitat lands to the Resource

Management Agencies for the Habitat Reserve. Such

legislation could also direct specific transactions to occur at specified prices or exchange values. Such legislation can increase the contribution that federal land

purchases and exchanges can make to the CHMS.

(c) Permanent reserve dedication. Finally, it would

be desirable to increase the certainty of permanent protection of the Habitat Reserve by providing a means

for permanent dedication of federal lands under the jurisdictions of the Forest Service and the BLM to the

Habitat Reserve. Such dedication would presumably

consist of a combination of a permanent mineral withdrawal and a permanent land allocation to management consistent with the intended purposes for the

Habitat Reserve under the CHMS. Ideally, under such

Part IV • Administration
39

legislation, the processes established in the CHMS

would serve as the processes for determining what land

is appropriate a legislative Habitat Reserve designation.

All of the MOU Parties have a strong interest in

supporting federal legislation as outlined above. The

CHMS provides no formal process for pursuing such

legislation, but leaves it to the MOU Parties to do so.

17. Amendment

I

t is important that certain kinds of changes can be

made to the CHMS that will give it the ability to

adapt to new information and circumstances without

an unduly burdensome process. It is equally important

that the CHMS be fundamentally stable, reliable, and

predictable in order to maximize its integrity and usefulness to all of the MOU Parties. To strike a balance

between flexibility and stability, the balance of this section describes a two-tier CHMS modification process,

followed by a description of how new ESA listings can

be addressed under the CHMS.

(a) Administrative changes. Throughout the

CHMS are references to adjustments and modifications that may be made by the Resource Management

Agencies in their discretion. Such actions are to be regarded as part of the normal operation of the CHMS

and not as amendments so long as they are consistent

with the other provisions of the CHMS. Examples of

such actions include, without limitation, modification

of the Habitat Inventory, changes in the Credit Registry procedures, and determination of the means of

making CHMS data available to the public.

(b) Amendments. Any modification to the CHMS

that does not qualify as an administrative change under subsection (a) above shall be regarded as an

“Amendment.” Amendments shall require (i) the approval of all MOU Parties that could be adversely affected by the proposed Amendment and (ii) the concurrence of the USFWS. Certain Amendments may result in a condition that triggers re-initiation of the

CHMS Section 7 Consultation, in which case the

Amendment would not become effective unless it is

also incorporated into a revised, favorable CHMS Biological Opinion as a result of the re-initiation process.

(c) Addressing new ESA listings. If additional species (other than the Carbonate Plants) that occupy

portions of the CHMA are proposed for listing or are

listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and

mining activities addressed by the CHMS may affect

such species, then the MOU Parties may elect to initiate an Amendment process to attempt to address

such additional species under the CHMS. The following provisions would apply to such a process:

(i) Upon proposal of such a species for listing,

the MOU Parties may work with the Resource Management Agencies to conference with the USFWS and

to obtain a conference opinion that upon the listing of

such species, any take of the species pursuant to the

CHMS shall not jeopardize the continued existence of

such species. The MOU Parties may choose, by unanimous agreement among the affected parties, to modify

the CHMS by an Amendment in order to help achieve

such a conference opinion. In accordance with the

ESA and its regulations, upon the listing of the species,

such a favorable conference opinion would automatically be deemed to be a new biological opinion resulting from a re-initiation of the CHMS Section 7 Consultation, and suspension of the operation of the

CHMS would be avoided.

 (ii) Any Amendment that is made outside of

the process described in subsection (i) above would require re-initiation of the CHMS Section 7 Consultation, but the availability of ESA Compliance for the

Carbonate Plants under the CHMS would not be suspended, except potentially where the newly-listed species may be affected (see subsection (iii) below).

(iii) The availability of ESA Compliance under

the CHMS may, if required under Section 7(d) of the

ESA, be suspended in areas in which the newly-listed

species may be affected.

(iv) Any proposed Amendment shall attempt to

integrate any land under Habitat Reserve designations

and management for the newly-listed species into the

existing CHMS framework to the greatest extent possible.

(v) In deliberating on the revised CHMS Biological Opinion, the USFWS shall take into account

and give credit for habitat of the newly-listed species

Section 17 • Amendment
40

that is or will be included in either (A) the Habitat Reserve or (B) other permanent reserve or conservation

areas within the CHMA that are protected by conservation easements or pursuant to other conservation

planning efforts (such as the “West Mojave Plan,” a

multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plan under

preparation, with the BLM as the federal lead agency).

❀

Part IV • Administration
Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy

Appendices

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms

All of the terms in this glossary are also defined in the section of the CHMS indicated in parenthesis. In some

cases, the definitions in the body of the CHMS are more detailed and are only summarized here. In the event

of any conflict between a definition in the body of the CHMS and a definition in this glossary, the definition in

the body of the CHMS shall control.

Activated—the status of an Administrative Unit

within which the required portions of the Stage 1 Priority Areas have been added to the Habitat Reserve,

thereby allowing ESA Compliance to be obtained for

mining projects within such Unit under the CHMS

(Section 9(b)(i))

ACV—abbreviation for Adjusted Conservation Value

(Section 7(e))

Adjusted Conservation Value—the Conservation

Value of an area adjusted by the Net Edge Adjustment

for that area (Section 7(e); see also “ACV”)

Administrative Unit—a subarea of the CHMA established for purposes of administering the CHMS; there

are five Administrative Units: White Mountain, Furnace, Helendale, Bertha, and Moonridge/Onyx (Section 6; see also “Unit”)

Amendment—a modification to the CHMS that

does not qualify as an administrative change (Section

17(b))

BLM—the U. S. Department of Interior Bureau of

Land Management (Section 1)

Carbonate Plants—the four species listed under the

ESA that occur within the CHMA and are addressed

by the CHMS (Section 1)

Category M1, Category M2, etc.—see the definitions in Section 5 and the box on page 14

CEQA—California Environmental Quality Act (Section 2(a)(vi))

CHMA—Carbonate Habitat Management Area (Section 1 & Figure 1)

CHMS—Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy, referring both to this document and the program it describes (Section 1 introduction)

CHMS Biological Opinion—the programmatic biological opinion rendered by the USFWS under Section

7 of the ESA for the CHMS (Section 3(b)(i))

CHMS Section 7 Consultation—the Section 7 Consultation between the Resource Management Agencies

and the USFWS, which will result in the CHMS Biological Opinion (Section 3(b)(i))

CNPS—the California Native Plant Society (Section

13 introduction)

Compensation Ratio—the required ratio of Reserve

Contribution requirement to the amount of habitat

loss to be caused by a project, both measured in Conservation Units; the Compensation Ratio is 3:1 (Section 11(a))

Compensation Requirement—the number of Conservation Credits that must be given to obtain ESA

Compliance for mining activities on a given parcel

(Section 11(a))

Compliance Verification Letter—a concurrence letter acknowledging the satisfaction of the requirements

for obtaining ESA Compliance with respect to a particular parcel of land (Section 11(e))

Connective Land—land added to the Reserve within

a Priority Area sufficient to connect all of the Occupied Habitat and Suitable Habitat in that Priority Area

into one contiguous patch (Section 9(b)(i))

conservation banking—obtaining Conservation

Credits, either by making Reserve Contributions or by

purchasing them from other private parties, and holding them for future use or sale rather than immediately

using them to obtain ESA Compliance (Section 8(d))

Conservation Category—the conservation land use

category, which is Category E (Section 5(b))
44

Conservation Credit—the “currency” of the CHMS

given to private parties in exchange for Reserve Contributions; a Conservation Credit represents one Conservation Unit of Conservation Value (Section 7(a))

Conservation Unit—the unit of measurement of

Conservation Value under the CHMS (Section 7(a);

see also “CU”)

Conservation Value—the value of land for the conservation of the Carbonate Plants, as measured in

Conservation Units (Section 7 introduction & box on

page 9; see also “CV”)

Contingent Contribution—a Reserve Contribution

that is made contingent on either (i) ESA Compliance

becoming available in a particular Administrative Unit

(based upon the addition of the entire Stage 1 Priority

Area to the Habitat Reserve) or (ii) approval of a Mining Plan for a particular project (Section 10(d))

County—County of San Bernardino (Section 1)

Covered Activities—mining activities that can obtain the benefit of ESA Compliance under the CHMS

(Section 3(a))

Credit Holder—the registered owner of some number

of Conservation Credits (Section 10(a))

Credit Registry—a database maintained by the

Credit Registrar that tracks the creation, use, and

transfer of Conservation Credits under the CHMS

(Section 10(f))

Credit Verification Letter—a concurrence letter issued by the Forest Service that establishes the creation

or transfer in ownership of a specified number of Conservation Credits (Section 10(f))

CU—abbreviation for Conservation Unit (Section 7(a))

CV—abbreviation for Conservation Value (Section 7

introduction)

edge—the line where land of one of the three type of

land use categories (Mining Category, Reserve Category, or Uncommitted Category) meets another of

the three types (box on bottom of page 15; Section

7(e)(ii))

ESA—federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Section 1 introduction)

ESA Compliance—compliance with the ESA for

Covered Activities with respect to the Carbonate

Plants and any other listed species addressed by the

CHMS in the future (Sections 3(b)(i), 11)

Federal Land Plan—a land use and management

plan that covers Forest Service or BLM land within the

CHMA (Section 2(a)(v))

Forest Service—the U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Section 1)

GIS—geographical information system (Section 4(b))

Habitat Inventory—the Forest Service’s official GIS

database for the CHMS that identifies habitat types

within the CHMA (Sections 7(c), 14(d))

Habitat Reserve—the reserve system for the Carbonate Plants to be formed pursuant to the CHMS (Section 1)

Initial Furnace Transactions—the initial transactions toward the addition of the Furnace Unit Stage 1

Priority Areas to the Reserve (Sections 4(d)(iii), 9(d))

Initial Habitat Reserve—the Habitat Reserve at the

commencement of CHMS implementation, prior to

any private Reserve Contributions under the CHMS

(Sections 4(d)(i), 9(a))

LWCF—Land and Water Conservation Fund (Section

(15(a)(iii))

Mining Category—any of the mining-related land

use categories, which include Categories M1, M2, and

F (Section 5(a))

Mining Law—the Mining Law of 1872, as amended

(Section 1)

Mining Plan—a mining plan of operations (in the

case of a claim on federal land) or a mining and reclamation plan (in the case of mining on private land)

(Section 5(a)(i))

MOU—the memorandum of understanding setting

forth the understanding of key parties regarding the responsibilities and activities of those parties with respect

to the CHMS (Section 13(g))

MOU Parties—the Resource Management Agencies,

the County, CNPS, the private parties who intend to

enter into the Initial Furnace Transactions, and each

Appendix A
45

other party who receives either a Credit Verification

Letter or a Compliance Verification Letter in the future (Section 13 introduction)

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act (Section

2(a)(v))

Net Edge Adjustment—an adjustment to the Conservation Value of an area used to arrive at Adjusted

Conservation Value (Section 7(e))

Occupied Habitat—land designated on the Habitat

Inventory as occupied habitat for one or more of the

Carbonate Plants; excludes Revegetated Habitat (box

on page 14)

Other Beneficial Habitat—land that is designated on

the Habitat Inventory as undisturbed natural land that

provides some geomorphological, hydrological, or

habitat configuration benefit to the Carbonate Plants;

excludes all other habitat categories that provide some

benefit to the Carbonate Plants (box on page 14)

Permanent Contribution—a Reserve Contribution

in the form of an absolute, permanent grant of privately owned land or relinquishment of a mining claim

(Section 10(b)(i); see also “Relocatable Contribution”)

Priority Area—any Stage 1 Priority Area or Stage 2

Priority Area (Section 9(b))

Reclamation Regulations—collectively, all existing

reclamation requirements outside of the CHMS that

apply to a given mining operation, which may include,

depending on location and other factors, reclamation

standards under SMARA; a Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service, BLM, and the

State of California signed October 1992 regarding the

application of SMARA on federal lands in California;

the Forest Service regulations under 36 CFR 228; and

the 1991 Big Bear District Mining Reclamation Standards (Section 11(c))

Relocatable Contribution—a Reserve Contribution

in the form of an agreement not to disturb certain land

and to allow it to be managed as part of the Habitat

Reserve, but reserving the right to substitute a different

Reserve Contribution in the future (Section 10(b)(ii);

see also “Permanent Contribution”)

Reserve—the Habitat Reserve (Section 1)

Reserve Contribution—a contribution to the Habitat Reserve in the form of either (i) granting privately

owned land, (ii) abandoning a mining claim, (iii) restricting a mining claim or privately owned land for

conservation purposes subject to later redemption by

offering equivalent Conservation Value in another

form, or (iv) granting or relinquishing the surface

rights of privately-owned land or a mining claim while

retaining the right to conduct subsurface mining (box

on page 9; Section 10(b))

Resource Management Agency—the Forest Service

or the BLM, each with respect to the land under its jurisdiction (Section 1)

Revegetated Habitat—mining land that has been

revegetated and meets all of the requirements for obtaining conservation credit set forth in the Revegetation Guidelines (box on page 14; Section (a) of Appendix E)

Revegetation Guidelines—the “Guidelines and Success Criteria for Revegetation and Carbonate Plant Introductions” set forth in Appendix E (Section 8(g))

SBNF—the San Bernardino National Forest (Section

1)

SMARA—the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, as amended (Section 2(c)(iv))

Stage 1 Priority Area—an area within the CHMA so

designated on Map 3 in Appendix I; certain portions of

the Stage 1 Priority Areas within a Unit must be added

to the Habitat Reserve for such Unit to be Activated

(Section 9(b); see also “Priority Area”)

Stage 2 Priority Area—an area within the CHMA so

designated on Map 3 in Appendix I; although there is

no requirement that Stage 2 Priority Areas be added to

the Habitat Reserve before loss of habitat may occur

within a Unit, no loss of habitat may occur under the

CHMS within any Stage 2 Priority Area (Section 9(b);

see also “Priority Area”)

Suitable Habitat—land designated on the Habitat Inventory as suitable habitat for one or more of the Carbonate Plants; excludes Occupied Habitat and Revegetated Habitat (box on page 14)

Surface Entry Restriction—an instrument that is recorded against fee-owned land or a mining claim reGlossary of Terms
46

stricting the surface entry rights of the landowner or

claim holder; a Surface Right Restriction is a method

of making a Reserve Contribution of the surface of

land (Section 10(b)(iii))

Uncommitted Category—any of the land use categories that do not indicate a commitment to either

mining activities or the Reserve, which include Categories D, P, and X (Section 5(c))

Unit—an Administrative Unit (Section 6)

Use Restriction Agreement—an agreement used to

make a Relocatable Contribution whereby the contributor agrees not to disturb a parcel of land during

the term of the agreement (Section 10(b)(ii))

USFWS—United States Fish and Wildlife Service

(Section 1)

West Mojave Plan—a multi-jurisdictional habitat

conservation plan under preparation, with the BLM as

the federal lead agency (Section 17(c)(v))

Working Group—certain mining interests, conservation interests, and government agencies that have been

working together since October 1999 to develop the

CHMS (Section 1) ❀

Appendix A
Appendix B: Species Accounts

1. Cushenbury buckwheat

Cushenbury buckwheat—Eriogonum ovalifolium Nutt.

var. vineum (Stokes) Jepson

(a) Author. Andrew C. Sanders, Herbarium, Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University

of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124

(b) Management status. Federal: Endangered; California: S1.1, G5T1 (CDFG, 1998); CNPS: List

1B, RED code 3-3-3 (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994)

(c) General distribution. Cushenbury buckwheat is

endemic to California and is restricted to dry calcareous (primarily limestone) slopes of the northern San

Bernardino Mountains (Reveal, 1993). Most populations are on lands within the boundary of the San Bernardino National Forest, but the taxon does extend

slightly onto BLM and private lands along the southern edge of the WMPA. The overall range of this plant

extends from White Mountain southeast to Mineral

Mountain on the north side of Rattlesnake Canyon.

There is a recent report of what is possibly this

plant from the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains, but

the identification has not yet been confirmed. This discovery is discussed in greater detail in the Natural History section, below.

(d) Natural history. Cushenbury buckwheat

(Polygonaceae) was originally described as a distinct

species, Eriogonum vineum, by Small (1898) from

plants collected near Rose Mine by S.B. Parish (#3170)

in 1894. At that time Small confused it with plants

from farther north and cited a specimen from Oregon

as representing this taxon also. It is now believed that

this plant is endemic to the San Bernardino Mountains, with the possible exception of a small population

in the southern Sierra Nevada.

Cushenbury buckwheat is a long-lived prostrate to

mound-forming shrub that typically occurs on rocky

slopes, often in cracks on bedrock or on otherwise

stable slopes, but is also known from deeper soils derived from decomposed carbonates. It is typically not

found in disturbed areas (either naturally or by man),

nor is it usually found along washes or on canyon bottoms, unlike Parish’s daisy (Erigeron parishii), another

limestone endemic that often occurs nearby. But, it has

occasionally been found colonizing abandoned haul

roads, as at Furnace Canyon (pers. obs., 1998). It is

the only variety of Eriogonum ovalifolium found in the

San Bernardino Mountains, though other varieties occur elsewhere on similar substrates. It has never been

found away from carbonate substrates and appears to

be more common on the higher value limestones than

it is on the economically unimportant dolomites. It is

thus, based on information from a survey done for a

consortium of mining companies in 1992 (Tierra

Madre, 1992), particularly vulnerable to destruction

by limestone mining (Sanders, 1992).

Cushenbury buckwheat plants are very compact

with short woody stems spreading a few centimeters

over the ground. They have been described as “forming

large silver mats” resembling “boulders of the limestone it occurs on” (T. Krantz, label notes, UCR). The

foliage mounds seldom rise more than 4 in. (10 cm)

above the surrounding rocks or soil. However, when

the plants begin flowering, they send up inflorescences

1-5 in. (2-12 cm) above the foliage. The several to

many short woody stems spread and ascend over a very

small patch of ground from a thick woody base above a

deep and well-developed woody taproot. The short

branches hold many small round-obovate leaves with

blades 0.16-0.5 in. (4-12 mm) long and slightly narrower. The petioles are distinct and ca. 0.12-0.24 in.

(3-6 mm) long. The foliage is densely covered with

tangled, white, rather felty, hairs on both surfaces. The

leaves densely cover the upper parts of the stems and

are densely grouped so that the ground is generally not

visible through the plant. This overall plant density is

partly caused by the dried leaves which do not fall

from the plant but simply turn a dark brown color and

cling to the older parts of the stem. This presumably

provides insulation for the plant as well as added protection from water loss through the stems.
48

Cushenbury buckwheat seems to share many general ecological characteristics with the other varieties of

E. ovalifolium. It is a perennial of open areas and appears intolerant of extensive shading, preferring full

sunlight, and typically occurs between shrubs rather

than under them (White, 1997). Eriogonum

ovalifolium is not a species well adapted to competing

for light, but it is very competitive on sites where tall

and fast growing species are excluded by moisture deficiencies, wind, winter cold, or nutrient deficiencies.

The compact “cushion” habit probably serves to reduce

moisture loss on windy ridges as is true for other species of similar life form (Walter, 1973). The short annual growth intervals and consequent low stature

makes all races of E. ovalifolium poor competitors on

sites that are capable of supporting tall or dense vegetation. However, sites where moisture stress is combined

with high insolation are highly favorable for plants

such as this one. The nutrient deficiencies of limestone

soil, exacerbated by the high pH which interferes with

mineral uptake, doubtless serve to further reduce competition by fast growing species.

Winter cold is another major ecological factor that

affects interior and montane species in the temperate

zone. Cushenbury buckwheat, and other low growing

cushion species, may be regularly covered by snow during the period of the year when soil moisture is unavailable because the ground is frozen, and when, in

arid areas, the humidity of the air may still be very low.

When covered with snow, Cushenbury buckwheat is

subjected to even less moisture stress than it would be

if exposed to the dry air. Under snow, the relative humidity is at virtually 100% and wind effects are excluded. Even when exposed, the low dense form of the

plant shelters much of it from direct wind effects. The

dense covering of wool on the leaves is evidence that

moisture and not light is a major controlling factor for

this species. Such a woolly covering will greatly reduce

the amount of light striking the chloroplasts in the leaf

tissue, but this tomentum also forms a layer of dead air

at the leaf surface and may reduce water loss due to

wind.

The inflorescence consists of a leafless peduncle

(flowering stem) that supports a group of involucres

that form a single head-like unbel of cream-white to

reddish flowers, with green to reddish midribs, at the

tip. The flowers are perfect (possess both male and female parts). Cushenbury buckwheat is distinguished

from other mat-forming buckwheats in the San Bernardino Mountains by its compact cushion-form

habit, large solitary heads of cream-white to maroon

flowers, and round-obovate leaves. There are two similar buckwheat species in the general region. Perhaps

the most grossly similar species in the area is southern

mountain buckwheat (Eriogonum kennedyi var.

austromontanum), which occurs in a different habitat

(pebble plains) and which has narrower leaves and

smaller heads. Its general lifeform is very similar to

Cushenbury buckwheat. Skree buckwheat (Eriogonum

saxatile) is also quite similar, and occurs in the same

general areas, but has a more open form and occurs

primarily on loose granitic soils on slides and along

washes. It is also less long-lived and is seldom conspicuously woody. Its leaf morphology is very similar,

but its open cymose inflorescence is quite different

from the compact head of Cushenbury buckwheat.

Based on a relatively small sample of herbarium

specimens, it appears that Cushenbury buckwheat

fruits ripen primarily in about July following the main

May-June flowering period, but must ripen later for

later flowerings (see below). This would make the seeds

ready for germination at the time of any summer rains

in August/September, assuming the seeds do not remain dormant for a lengthy period following dispersal.

It appears that the relatively large perianth may dry

around the fruit, with the achenes remaining attached

to the receptacle, and that this whole unit is involved

in dispersal, with the dried tepals acting as wings.

Wind is thus probably important for local dispersal.

Wind is not, however, very effective over long distances. Seed dispersal has not been studied in this species (or variety), but Stokes (1936) thought that birds

may play a role in the dispersal of all Eriogonum seeds

based on various observations of birds and their behaviors. She thought that seeds stored in the crop of a bird

killed by a predator might serve to establish new populations in areas distant from existing populations. She

also mentioned wind, rain and streams as dispersal

agents, but presented no data to support these ideas.

Given the extremely restricted distribution of

Cushenbury buckwheat, it is not clear that long-disAppendix B
49

tance dispersal has ever occurred and it certainly does

not appear to be a common phenomenon. The rest of

the varieties of E. ovalifolium occur north of the

Mojave Desert, such as in the Inyo-White Mtns. and

Sierra Nevada (Reveal, 1968) as well as through the

Great Basin (e.g., Kartesz, 1988; Welsh et al, 1987;

Reveal, 1968). It thus does appear that long distance

dispersal occurred at some point, unless there was formerly suitable habitat across the Mojave Desert. There

are scattered limestone outcrops on the Mojave Desert

that would have supported pinyon woodland when,

during the Pleistocene, this more mesic vegetation occupied what are now desert flats (Raven and Axelrod,

1978). These limestone hills could perhaps have served

as stepping stones across the desert for populations of

Eriogonum ovalifolium. It should also be noted that

Eriogonum ovalifolium in general is not restricted to

limestone. Other varieties of the species commonly occur on granite or general alluvium in sagebrush scrub

(Reveal, 1968; Welsh et al., 1987). Thus it is possible

that this taxon entered the range on other substrates,

but then became restricted to limestone by competitive

exclusion and subsequent refinement of existing adaptations.

The flowers are relatively large and are clustered

into conspicuous head-like umbels. The flowers fade to

pink or red at maturity (i.e., probably after pollination) and primarily bloom in May and June. There can

be later flowering, for example in September (e.g.,

Derby and Krantz, s.n., UCR), but the extent of such

late flowering or its environmental triggers are unknown. The flowers often dry to a yellowish color in

herbarium specimens, but whether this may reflect the

original color of some populations is unknown and

unlikely. Few collectors of this species appear to bother

recording flower color. White (#4012, UCR) has recorded the color of young flowers as “dull white w/reddish vein at centers of “petals” and reddish anthers”.

Maile Neel (pers. comm.) reports that there is flower

color variation within populations and that fresh flowers vary from creamy white to yellowish and that some

are pinkish to maroon even when newly opened. She

also reports that not all individuals have flowers that

turn reddish in age. Clearly, there is need for further

study of the trends in flower color in this plant.

Pollination of this plant has only recently been

studied, and small insects are almost certainly its pollinators (S. Morita, pers. comm., 1998). The flower

color changes to red suggest that the pollinator may be

a bee, but such have rarely been observed on the species and Morita (pers. comm., 1998) thinks the pollinators may be generalist flower visitors, rather than a

specialist such as a bee. In the summer of 1998 Morita

observed nearly 100 insect species visiting this plant,

including potential pollinators, plant feeders and others. She noted that because it is relatively late flowering, it is one of the few nectar sources available in its

habitat at the time it flowers and so may be heavily visited for that reason. The generalists that are potentially

pollinators included many flies, particularly tachinids

and bee-flies (Bombylidae), but also many smaller species, such as chloropids. A small species of bee-fly was

locally common on the flowers. Two species of small

solitary bees (Andrenidae and Halictidae) were also

seen visiting, but these were very few (Morita, pers.

comm., 1998). Exactly which species serve as effective

pollinators has not yet been determined.

Among the plant feeders present were a leaf beetle

(Chrysomelidae) which was seen eating the flowers,

soft-winged flower beetles (Dasytidae) which were

present in the flowers, and various hemipterans, including the small milkweed bug (Lygaeus), various

plant bugs (Miridae), and stink bugs (Pentatomidae).

Grasshoppers (Acrididae) and their nymphs were also

present and probably feed on the foliage of the

Cushenbury buckwheat.

(e) Habitat requirements. This taxon is apparently

restricted to carbonate slopes on the north side of the

San Bernardino Mountains. As noted above, it seems

to display a preference for limestone rather than dolomite, but this needs confirmation. It also seems to prefer stable slopes with bedrock outcropping, and is

rarely found on unstable slopes or along active washes.

It can be locally common where it is found, but more

commonly is present as scattered individuals.

Cushenbury buckwheat occurs primarily in pinyon-juniper woodland but also descends into Joshua tree

woodland, mixed desert and blackbrush scrub and extends upward into Jeffrey pine-western juniper woodland (Munz, 1974; Skinner and Pavlik, 1994; Gonella

Species Accounts
50

and Neel, 1995). Among its typical associates are:

single-needled pinyon (Pinus monophylla), big-berried

manzanita (Arctostaphylos glauca), curl-leaf mountainmahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius), Shockley’s rock cress

(Arabis shockleyi), rose sage (Salvia pachyphylla), yellow

rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), rubber rabbitbrush (C. nauseosus), big sagebrush (Artemisia

tridentata), pine needlegrass (Stipa pinetorum), canyon

live-oak (Quercus chrysolepis), nevada forsellesia

(Forsellesia nevadensis), green Mormon tea (Ephedra

viridis), blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), Coville’s

dwarf abronia (Abronia nana covillei), yellow

cryptantha (Cryptantha confertiflora), Utah juniper

(Juniperus osteosperma), small-cup buckwheat

(Eriogonum microthecum), and Parish’s daisy (Erigeron

parishii).

Based on specimens at UCR, populations occur at

elevations between 4800 and 6500 ft. (1450 and 1982

m), though Munz (1974) reports “ca. 5000-5500 ft.”

(1500-1675 m) and Reveal (1993) reports 1500-2100

m (5000-7000 ft.). Recent plot-based sampling has

found it between 4680 and 7840 ft. (M. Neel, pers.

comm.), and Melody Lardner (pers. comm.) reports

that the Forest Service has the species mapped up to

8100 ft. elevation.

(f) Population status. Cushenbury buckwheat is

naturally very restricted in its distribution, but has additionally suffered a large but unquantified population

decline due to limestone mining (Krantz, 1988;

Gonella and Neel, 1995). There are no populations

that are secure from mining activity and most are

within areas subject to massive disturbance within the

next few decades.

Populations of this long-lived plant appear stable in

areas where they are undisturbed (pers. obs.), but its

habitat has been heavily disturbed and many plants destroyed by mines, haul roads, waste dumps and other

mining related activities in recent decades (Krantz,

1988).

(g) Literature cited.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).

Aug. 1997. Special Plants List , Natural Heritage

Division, Natural Diversity Data Base, Sacramento, California.

Gonella, M. P. and M. C. Neel 1995. Characterizing

Rare Plant Habitat for Restoration in the San Bernardino National Forest, In: B.A. Roundy, E.D.

McArthur, J.S. Haley and D.K. Mann (eds.) Proceedings: wildland shrub and arid land restoration

symposium; 1993 October 19-21; Las Vegas, NV.

Gen Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-315. Ogden, Utah: U.

S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Kartesz J. T. 1988. A Flora of Nevada. Ph.D. Diss.,

Univ. of Nevada, Reno. Univ. Microfilms Int.,

Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Krantz, Tim 1988. Limestone Endemics of Big Bear

Valley, Fremontia 16(1):20-21.

Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California.,

Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Raven, P. and D. Axelrod. 1978. Origin and relationships of the California flora, Univ. Calif. Publ.

Bot., vol. 72.

Reveal, J., 1968. In: P.A. Munz, Supplement to A California. Flora. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley,

California.

Reveal, J. 1993. In: J. Hickman (ed.), The Jepson

Manual, Higher Plants of California, Univ. of

California Press, Berkeley, California.

Sanders, A.C. 1992. Comments on “Draft, Evaluation

of Carbonate Substrates and Species Distributions

for Five Plant Species Reported from the San Bernardino Mountains, San Bernardino County, California.”, submitted to Tierra Madre Consultants,

Inc.

Skinner, M.W. and B.M. Pavlik (eds.). 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular plants of

California. Special Pub. No. 1 (5th ed.). California

Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

Small, J.K. 1898. Studies in North American

Polygonaceae, I, Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 25: 40-53

(45-46, specifically).

Stokes, S.G. 1936. The Genus Eriogonum, A Preliminary Study Based on Geographic Distribution,

J.H. Neblett Pressroom, San Francisco, California.

Appendix B
51

Tierra Madre Consultants 1992. Evaluation of Carbonate Substrates and Species Distributions for

Five Plant Species Reported from the San Bernardino Mountains, San Bernardino County, California. Unpublished report prepared for Pfizer Inc.,

Pluess-Staufer (California) Inc., Mitsubishi Cement Corporation, and Riverside Cement Company.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. San

Bernardino Mountains Carbonate Plants Draft

Recovery Plan, USFWS Region 1, Portland, Oregon.

Walter, H. 1973. Vegetation of the Earth in Relation

to Climate and the Eco-Physiological Conditions,

Springer-Verlag, New York.

Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich and L.C.

Higgins. 1987. A Utah Flora. Great Basin Nat.

Mem., No. 9.

White, S. 1997. Comments on San Bernardino Mountains Carbonate Plants Draft Recovery Plan, submitted to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

2. Cushenbury milkvetch

Cushenbury milk-vetch—Astragalus albens Greene

(a) Author. Pamela J. MacKay, Department of

Biology, Victor Valley College, 18422 Bear Valley

Road, Victorville, CA 92392

(b) Management status. Federal: Endangered;

California: S1.1, G1 (CDGF, 1998); CNPS: List

1B, R-E-D code 3-3-3 (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994)

(c) General distribution. Cushenbury milk-vetch is

found in the northeast end of the San Bernardino

Mountain range in San Bernardino County, California. With rare exceptions, it is restricted to carbonate

and carbonate-related soils and outcrops from 4000-

6600 ft. (1300-2000 m). Its range extends from a

ridgetop just east of Dry Canyon to the southeast

through Lone Valley, east of Baldwin Lake, to upper

Burns Canyon. An unverified population at Box ‘S’

Springs, two to three miles northwest of Cushenbury

at 3600 ft. (1100 m), is its northernmost and lowest

reported location.

(d) Natural history. Cushenbury milk-vetch is an

herbaceous member of the pea family (Fabaceae), and

was first collected by Parish and Parish (Greene, 1885).

Several prostrate stems, each 2-12 in. (0.5-3 cm) long,

emerge from the base. The leaves and stem have appressed silvery-white hairs, giving the plant a smooth,

sleek, gray appearance. The pinnately-compound

leaves have 5-9 leaflets which are elliptic to ovalshaped, have obtuse tips, and are each 0.2-0.4 in. (5-

10 mm) long. Flowers occur in racemes on 0.8-2.0 in.

(2-5 cm) long peduncles. The calyces are about 0.16

in. (4 mm) long, and also bear the silky silvery-white

hairs. The papillionaceous corolla is pink to purplish,

with both banner and keel 0.3-0.4 in. (7-10) mm in

length, exceeding the wing length. The sessile fruits

have two locules, are about 0.4-0.7 in. (10-18 mm)

long, crescent-shaped, three-sided, and densely strigose

(Hickman, 1993; Munz, 1974; Barneby, 1964). This

fruit shape helps to distinguish the Cushenbury

milkvetch from Bear Valley milk-vetch (A. leucolobus)

which may also grow sympatrically on carbonate soils

(USFWS 1997). It also resembles Mojave milk-vetch

(A. mohavensis) from the northern Mojave Desert, but

Mojave milk-vetch is not pubescent, as is the

Cushenbury milk-vetch (Isely, 1984).

Cushenbury milk-vetch has been described both as

an annual and as a short-lived perennial herb (Barneby,

1964; Greene, 1885; Hickman, 1993; Munz, 1974;

Skinner and Pavlik, 1994). Little is known of its life

history. Greene reported that a “good proportion” of

the plants flower precociously and are monocarpic, especially in years of low rainfall (Greene, 1885). However, it is not known whether the plants typically

flower and fruit the first year, how long they live, or

what conditions might cause them to act as annuals in

some cases or perennials in other cases. Flowering occurs from late March to mid-June. Pods ripen at least

as early as May, and become stiff and papery with long

hairs as they mature.

Pollen vectors are most likely small bees, given the

flower shape and color (Faegri and Van der Pijl, 1978).

It is not known if this species is self-compatible. Most

Species Accounts
52

Cushenbury milk-vetch reproduction presumably occurs by seed, and seeds have been found to have high

viability (Tierra Madre Consultants, 1996). Vegetative

reproduction has never been reported. Seeds require

scarification, and greenhouse experiments have shown

that seedlings are susceptible to damping off when

grown in pots (Tierra Madre Consultants, 1996). It

has long been known that seeds remain dormant in the

soil during drought years (Greene, 1885), but the

numbers of viable seeds present in the soil and the

length of time they can remain viable is unknown. The

extent of seed predation, the numbers and kinds of

seed predators, and seed dispersal mechanisms are also

unknown.

(e) Habitat requirements. Generally Cushenbury

milk-vetch is restricted to carbonate soils (Gonella and

Neel, 1995; Tierra Madre Consultants, 1992), but one

account reported populations from non-carbonate

soils. Subsequent surveys have not supported this finding (Tierra Madre Consultants, 1992), and it is likely

that these plants were on carbonate alluvium that had

been deposited over granite bedrock, as is often the

case in populations below 5000 ft. (1600 m) elevations

(USFWS, 1997). More recently, Cushenbury milkvetch plants have been found on granitic soil (Psomas

and Associates, 1996), but it is likely that these plants

fell into the site, along with some carbonate substrate,

during a debris slide. It is expected that, as larger species move into the disturbed area, the Cushenbury

milk-vetch plants will be eliminated (Psomas and Associates, 1996). It often occupies areas with an open

canopy, less litter accumulation (2.3%), higher per

cent calcium (average 21.3%), and shallower slope

angles (average 12.1 ) than other carbonate sites that

do not support these plants (Gonella and Neel, 1995;

USFWS, 1994).

Cushenbury milk-vetch has been reported from

Joshua tree woodland and blackbush scrub communities, but is most commonly found in pinon-juniper

woodland. It has been reported growing with dominant species Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), joint

fir (Ephedra viridis), paper bag plant (Salazaria

mexicana), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus

ledifolius), Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera), manzanita

(Arctostaphylos glauca), flannel bush (Fremontodendron

californicum), Great Basin sagebrush (Artemisia

tridentata), and needlegrass (Stipa coronata) (CDFG

1997; Gonella and Neel, 1995).

(f) Population status. It has been estimated that

there are between 5000-10,000 Cushenbury milkvetch plants throughout the entire range (USFWS,

1997), and the total number probably varies annually

depending on rainfall (Barneby, 1964; USFWS, 1997).

Estimates from previous surveys in 1988 indicated a

total of just over 2000 plants (Barrows, 1988), but

more detailed surveying in subsequent years with

greater rainfall led to the increase in estimated number

of plants. The population center with the most dense

population is most likely in Lone Valley, with 3172

Cushenbury milk-vetch plants found at the proposed

Right Star mine site in 1991 (USFS, 1992). However,

the variation due to environmental conditions,

coupled with the unknown nature of the soil seed

population and inability to survey all potential habitat,

make it very difficult to develop any reliable estimate

of population size.

(g) Constraints to Recovery and Restoration.

(i) Natural recolonization. There appears to be

some potential for natural recolonization of slightly

disturbed sites by Cushenbury milk-vetch (Barrows,

1988; Tierra Madre Consultants, 1992; USFWS,

1997). This species has been observed on little used

roads and on two small quarries that have been abandoned for 20 to 25 years (USFS, 1992). There is no

indication that they can tolerate continuous disturbance or high levels of disturbance, such as active

quarrying or continual usage of roads (Sanders 1992;

Tierra Madre Consultants, 1992). That this species can

tolerate a degree of disturbance does not mean that

disturbed sites are preferred. At Right Star mine site in

Lone Valley, there were significantly fewer Cushenbury

milkvetch plants per acre in previously disturbed areas

than in adjacent undisturbed areas. A greater proportion of juvenile plants were found in undisturbed areas, possibly indicating more recruitment when there is

less disturbance (USFS, 1992).

(ii) Propagation. It is uncertain whether

Cushenbury milkvetch plants could be propagated in a

greenhouse for purposeful revegetation. Although an

attempt to germinate seeds was successful as long as

Appendix B
53

seeds were scarified, the necessity to keep soil moist for

seedling establishment encouraged the growth of the

root rot fungus, Pythium, which probably caused death

of all of the seedlings in the study (Tierra Madre Consultants, 1996). In a trial revegetation program at Gordon Quarry, Cushenbury milk-vetch plants were salvaged, potted, and kept in a greenhouse prior to relocation and transplant to a field site, but all plants died

in the greenhouse. However, plants were observed later

in the Gordon Quarry, evidently recolonizing naturally

(Tierra Madre Consultants, 1992).

(iii) Genetic characteristics. Cushenbury milkvetch populations experience extreme fluctuations due

to amounts of annual precipitation (Barneby, 1964;

USFWS, 1994). This could possibly lead to genetic

bottlenecks, which could result in loss of genetic diversity (Barrett and Cohn, 1991). However, recent

isozyme research has shown a surprisingly high degree

of heterozygosity for an endemic species (Neel, 1999).

The maintenance of genetic diversity through years

with low populations is likely due to the soil seed

bank. Although there are currently no seedbank data,

Cushenbury milk-vetch population increases following

rainy seasons indicate that seeds must persist in the soil

for at least several years.

Human disturbances, such as road building and

quarry excavation, cause habitat fragmentation which

might eventually restrict gene flow and also lead to loss

of genetic diversity and long term population viability

(Beeby, 1993).

(h) Research needs.

(i) Reserve location and design. Further research

is needed to obtain information necessary for appropriate selection of reserve sites as well as for management of Cushenbury milk-vetch. The specific areas already designated may turn out to be the best locations

for recovery plan reserves, and it would be a good

strategy to secure these lands as temporary reserves as

soon as possible before any more habitat is destroyed.

However, just because these areas have the highest

number of carbonate endemic species, establishment of

reserves in these locations does not ensure long-term

population viability of any or all of the carbonate endemic taxa involved. Establishing a reserve for all carbonate endemics does not take into account habitat

preferences for each species to be protected (Gonella

and Neel, 1995). In addition, these areas may not represent the genetic diversity present within this taxon,

and may not represent the ecological range of the

taxon, both of which are important criteria in establishing effective reserves (Neel, 1999).

It is recommended that reserves should be set

up at a variety of elevations and geographic locations,

so that random events, such as fires or flash floods,

would not impact all reserves at one time (White,

1997; Neel, 1995), and that each reserve site should

include unoccupied habitat into which the species can

move in the future (White, 1997).

(ii) Life history research needs. If data were available on recruitment and reproductive success in various areas within its range, efforts could be directed toward establishing reserves in those sites where the

Cushenbury milk-vetch gets established and produces

viable seed most readily. Research is needed to determine if the plants always flower and fruit the first year,

how long they live, and what conditions influence

their life history strategy. This information would be

useful in conservation management by helping to predict future reproductive effort and population fluctuations.

If seed bank information were available (such as

seed bank population size, numbers and kinds of seed

predators, and the extent of seed predation) the genetic

repercussions of random population variation due to

climate could be more predictable, potential rates of

recolonization of disturbed areas might also be determined with more accuracy, and there would be greater

precision in determining how large preserves and buffers must be to maintain population viability. If seed

dispersal mechanisms were known, there would be a

better understanding of potential for natural

recolonization.

(iii) Research on habitat requirements. It would

be helpful to obtain information about mycorrhizal associations (White, 1997), and to use available information about soil mineral nutrient content and texture

preferences for this species (Gonella and Neel, 1995);

reserves could be established and revegetation efforts

Species Accounts
54

could be directed only in areas which meet those requirements. To understand data gleaned from monitoring population fluctuations, it is imperative to

know how rainfall affects population size from year to

year, so these effects can be separated from those from

human activities.

(i) Literature cited.

Barneby, R.C. 1964. Atlas of North American Astragalus. 2:1020-1026.

Barrett, S.C.H. and J.R. Kohn. 1991. Genetic and

evolutionary consequences of small population size

in plants: Implications for conservation. pp. 3-30,

In: D.A. Falk and K.E. Holsinger (eds.), Genetics

and Conservation of Rare Plants. Oxford Univ.

Press, New York.

Barrows, K. 1988. Element conservation plan: Astragalus albens. An unpublished report to the San Bernardino National Forest and The Nature Conservancy.

Beeby, A. 1993. Applying Ecology. Chapman and Hall

Publishers, The Alden Press, Oxford, Great Britain.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1997.

Natural Diversity Data Base, RareFind Report.

Egan, T., 1993. Unpublished correspondence from T.

Egan of the Bureau of Land Management, Barstow

Office, to B. Henderson of the USFS Big Bear

Ranger District on locations of Astragalus albens.

Faegri, K. and L. van der Pijl. 1979. The Principles of

Pollination Ecology, 3rd ed. Pergamon Press Ltd.,

Oxford, Great Britain.

Gonella, M.P., and M.C. Neel. 1995. Characterization

of rare plant habitat for restoration in the San Bernardino National Forest. In: Proceedings: Wildland Shrubs and Arid Land Restoration Symposium, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-315, Ogden, Utah.

Greene, E.L. 1885. Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences.

Henderson, B. 1995. Natural Diversity Data Base field

survey forms for Astragalus albens, submitted to

the California Department of Fish and Game.

Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher

Plants of California. Berkeley, University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Huenneke, L.F. 1991. Ecological implications of genetic variation in plant populations. pp. 31-44, In:

D.A. Falk and K.E. Holsinger (eds.), Genetics and

Conservation of Rare Plants. Oxford Univ. Press,

New York.

Isley, D. 1984. Astragalus L. (Leguminosae:

Papilionoideae) II: Species Summary A-E. Iowa

State J. Res. 59(2):99-209.

Karron, J.D. 1991. Patterns of genetic variation and

breeding systems in rare plant species. pp. 87-98,

In: D.A. Falk and K.E. Holsinger (eds.). Genetics

and Conservation of Rare Plants. Oxford Univ.

Press, New York.

Leverett, A. 1995. Natural Diversity Data Base field

survey forms for Astragalus albens, submitted to

the California Department of Fish and Game.

Menges, E.S. 1991. Application of minimum viable

population theory to plants. pp. 45-61, In: D.A.

Falk and K.E. Holsinger (eds.), Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants. Oxford Univ. Press, New

York.

Munz, P. A. 1974. A flora of southern California.

Univ. California Press, Berkeley, California.

Neel, M., 1995. Unpublished Dissertation Proposal,

Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside.

Neel, M. 1999. Ph.D. Diss. data, Department of

Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside.

Psomas and Associates, 1996. Federally listed plants on

selected Specialty Minerals, Inc., lands. Unpublished report prepared for Specialty Minerals, Inc.,

and submitted to San Bernardino County Planning Department, San Bernardino, California.

Rutherford, C., 1993. Unpublished correspondence

from C. Rutherford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service botanist, Ventura Office, to Maile Neel of the

USFS Big Bear Ranger District on three new locations of Astragalus albens.

Appendix B
55

Sanders, A.C. 1992. Comments to Tierra Madre Consultants about TMC’s “Evaluation of Carbonate

Substrates and Species Distributions for Five Plant

Species Reported from the San Bernardino Mountains, San Bernardino County, California.”

Skinner, M.W. and B.M. Pavlik (eds.). 1994. California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and

Endangered Vascular Plants of California, CNPS

Special Publication Number 1 (5th ed.). California

Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc. 1992. Evaluation of

carbonate substrates and distributions for five

plants reported from the San Bernardino Mountains, San Bernardino County, California. Report

prepared for: Pfizer, Inc., Pleuss-Staufer Inc.,

Mitsubishi Cement Corporation, and Riverside

Cement Company.

Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc. 1991?. Effects of soil

composition, use of inoculant, and seed scarification on Astragalus albens germination. Study by

Tierra Madre Consulting, initiated by Specialty

Minerals, Inc.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991. Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for Five Limestone Endemic Plants

from Southern California. Federal Register

56(223).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994. Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Five Plants from

the San Bernardino Mountains in Southern California Determined to be Threatened or Endangered. Federal Register 59(163).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997. San Bernardino

Mountains Carbonate Plants Draft Recovery Plan.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon,

51 pp.

U.S. Forest Service, 1992. Comments on Proposed

Rule RIN 1018-AB73, a USFWS proposal to list

Cushenbury milkvetch, Parish’s daisy, Cushenbury

buckwheat, San Bernardino bladderpod, and

Parish’s oxytheca on the Federal Endangered Species List.

U.S. Forest Service, 1995. Unpublished carbonate plot

vegetation data taken by botanists of the Big Bear

Ranger District.

U.S. Forest Service, 1998. Comments from the San

Bernardino National Forest on the Draft San Bernardino Mountains Carbonate Endemic Plants

Recovery Plan.

University of Redlands Center for Environmental

Management (URCEM), 1996. Review of data

and analysis to support the development of a conservation strategy for five carbonate plant species:

A study of land use conflict in the San Bernardino

National Forest. Unpublished report prepared for

the USDA Forest Service, San Bernardino National Forest, July 1996.

3. Cushenbury oxytheca

Cushenbury oxytheca—Oxytheca parishii var.

goodmaniana

(a) Author. Andrew C. Sanders, Herbarium, Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of

California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124

(b) Management status. Federal: Endangered; California: S1.1, G4?T1 (CDFG, 1998); CNPS: List 1B

RED code 3-3-3 ( Skinner and Pavlik, 1994)

(c) General distribution. Cushenbury oxytheca is

endemic to the San Bernardino Mountains of southern

California and is restricted to the dry carbonate slopes

on the north side of the range. It has never been found

outside of this limited area.

(d) Natural history. Cushenbury oxytheca is an annual herb of the buckwheat family (Polygonaceae). It is

poorly known and was almost unknown before it began to be studied as a result of the realization that most

of its limited habitat was subject to elimination by

limestone mining. Little has been published on the

natural history of the plant and much of what follows

is based on personal observation and the study of a

limited number of herbarium specimens. It occurs on

Species Accounts
56

dry open slopes, mostly in loose scree and talus derived

from limestone (Hickman, 1993; pers. obs.).

Oxytheca plants germinate in the fall following the

first rains and exist as a vegetative rosette through the

winter months. The basal rosette consists of relatively

broad, oblong-obovate, green leaves, which are followed in the spring by a slender leafless inflorescence.

As the inflorescence matures the leaves wither and dry,

so that by the time of late flowering or fruit ripening

the plant typically has no living leaves at all. All late

season photosynthesis is presumably carried on by the

green stems and the involucral bracts. The flowers are

white with a reddish midrib, and are apparently insect

pollinated. Specific pollinators, germination requirements, seed longevity, and most other aspects of the biology of this species are largely unknown, but there are

some recent observations on the insect associates of

this plant.

Based on limited observations in the summer of

1998, it appears that the insect pollinators of this species are generalists, such as various flies and possibly

small beetles (S. Morita, pers. comm.), rather than

highly specialized pollinators tied closely to this species. Small gray beetles of the family Dasitidae were

found visiting the flowers (S. Morita, pers. comm.). At

least two plant feeding insects have been identified attacking this species, including the bordered plant bug

(Largidae: Largus cinctus californicus), which is a generalist sap feeder, and an otherwise unidentified leaf

beetle (Chrysomelidae) which was observed eating the

flowers (S. Morita, pers. comm.). In addition to the

above, a number of big-eyed bugs (Lygaeidae: Geocoris)

were found on the plants (S. Morita, pers, comm.), but

these were probably predators on other insects rather

than plant feeders (G. Ballmer, pers. comm.).

The taxonomy of Cushenbury oxytheca is in need

of clarification, with respect to the distinctiveness of

this taxon relative to the other two varieties of

Oxytheca parishii in the San Bernardino Mountains,

var. parishii and var. cienegensis. Cushenbury oxytheca

is most readily separated from the other two San Bernardino Mountains varieties by its possession of only

four (or rarely 5) involucral awns (Reveal, 1989).

These awns are also shorter (ca. 2-3 mm) and more

slender and inconspicuous than those in the other two

varieties. Parish’s oxytheca (var. parishii ) is the most

widespread and distinctive variety with its numerous

(10-36) long (ca. 4-4.5 mm) awns on the involucral

lobes. These awns are thicker and much more conspicuous than those in the other varieties. It is also the

most widespread variety, due to its habitat preferences

— openings on granitic slopes in yellow pine forest. It

is widespread from Big Bear, west through the

Crestline/Arrowhead area, and then continuing

through the San Gabriel Mountains to the mountains

of Ventura County (Reveal, 1989). Variety cienegensis

is the most poorly known of the three varieties and the

one most similar to variety goodmaniana. It is intermediate in involucral awn number (7-10) and length (3-4

mm) between the other two varieties. Variety

cienegensis occurs on various substrates from Tip-Top

Mountain to Cienega Seca near Onyx Peak, and plants

near Tip-Top Mountain are on limestone and appear

to be morphologically transitional toward var.

goodmaniana. Being recently described (Ertter, 1980),

and not being in an area of high environmental impact, this variety has received much less attention from

botanists and environmental consultants than has

Cushenbury oxytheca. All three varieties are illustrated

in the Jepson Manual (Hickman, 1993).

(e) Habitat requirements. Cushenbury oxytheca occurs only on carbonate slopes, usually steep ones, and

almost always on loose scree or talus. This preference is

revealed in the data from the only published results

from plot-based population sampling of limestone

endemics in the San Bernardino Mountains (Gonella

and Neel, 1995). Cushenbury oxytheca was never (0 of

30 plots) found on sample plots centered on

Cushenbury milkvetch (Astragalus albens) plants but

was fairly regularly found on plots lacking this species

(Gonella and Neel, 1995). Cushenbury milkvetch is a

species typical of stable, often bedrock, slopes. Likewise, Cushenbury oxytheca appears to be negatively

correlated with the presence of Cushenbury buckwheat

(Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum), another species

which prefers stable slopes (Gonella and Neel, 1995).

However, recent surveys conducted by Rancho Santa

Ana Botanic Garden for the U.S. Forest Service did

find Cushenbury oxytheca growing with Astragalus

albens and Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum in some

areas (V. Sosa, pers. comm.).

Appendix B
57

Populations occur at elevations between 4000 and

7800 ft. (1200-2380 m) in the pinyon-juniper woodland (Reveal, 1989) and Jeffrey pine-western juniper

(M. Neel, pers. comm.) vegetation zones which, of

course, occurs on the desert-facing slope of the mountains. In this zone air movement is primarily descending and hence often removes moisture from vegetation,

rather than depositing moisture as rain as it does on

the coastal slope. The resulting lack of rainfall and

consequent substrate aridity makes it important that

plants be either early flowering or deep rooted, so that

they can take advantage of the limited water supply.

Cushenbury oxytheca is late flowering (May-June), but

has a relatively long straight taproot and presumably is

able to tap into supplies of soil moisture below the surface where low atmospheric humidity results in moisture being removed from the soil.

The loose gravel and rock substrate preferred by

Cushenbury oxytheca has several important ecological

characteristics that may favor this species. The first and

most obvious is that, because the slopes are unstable, it

is difficult or impossible for larger, potentially competing, trees and shrubs to become established. This leaves

the habitat open for smaller annuals like Cushenbury

oxytheca to occupy. A second noteworthy characteristic is the coarse and well-aerated character of the substrate, which permits rapid infiltration of rainfall and

thus less moisture loss to runoff than would otherwise

be expected. It is probable, also, that soil moisture in

occupied talus is supplemented by runoff from rocky

slopes, cliffs and bedrock outcrops above, where those

are present. The loose character of the soil also permits

the easy penetration of roots and the coarse surface

material serves as a “ock mulch” to retard the loss of

soil moisture to the atmosphere. These characteristics

permit plant growth after the soil surface has dried.

(f) Population status. Cushenbury oxytheca was

found at nine of 88 sites sampled on carbonate substrates in the San Bernardino Mountains in 1992 and

1993 (Gonella and Neel, 1995), which clearly indicates that it is more widespread than formerly known

though still uncommon. A total of at least 50 populations were known as of 1998 (V. Sosa, pers. comm.),

which is a substantial increase from the four known in

1992 (Tierra Madre, 1992), or the 15 reported more

recently (USFWS, 1997). It is apparent that a clear

understanding of the abundance and distribution of

this plant within its narrow range is still developing.

Populations of Cushenbury oxytheca do not appear

to exhibit a general downward trend, given the population fluctuations that are normal in an annual plant, at

sites where it is not being directly impacted by mining

(pers. obs.). Populations are highly variable (White,

1997) at any given site, but plants can be locally common after particularly favorable years. Populations vary

in response to rainfall and other climatic conditions, so

that at a given site where there was a substantial population one year there may be few to none the next.

Even in years when no plants are present, a living seed

bank remains. However, large parts of its range are under heavy pressure by mining interests and so overall

Cushenbury oxytheca has certainly declined significantly over recent decades. It has been estimated that

over 1600 acres of potential habitat for the various carbonate endemics had been lost to mining by 1993

(Gonella and Neel, 1995). Unfortunately, because this

plant was little collected and never censused prior to

the 1980s, the historical pattern of its population sizes

and distribution is unknown, except by inference. At

best, we can infer former distributions based on habitat type and general range. Sites that are now mined

down to bedrock, but which are in areas which were

formerly suitable habitat, must be presumed to have

formerly supported this plant. A quantitative survey of

the abundance and distribution of this species has recently been completed and this has revealed that the

species is more widespread than formerly known (V.

Sosa, pers. comm.), though it is still seen to be very restricted in its distribution.

Cushenbury oxytheca is a naturally restricted endemic, but populations have apparently been further

reduced by mining activity within its range, based on

the widespread disturbance of carbonate habitats

(Gonella and Neel, 1995).

(g) Literature cited.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game),

Aug. 1997. Natural Heritage Division, Natural

Diversity Data Base, Special Plants List.

Species Accounts
58

Ertter, Barbara. 1980. A Revision of the Genus

Oxytheca, Brittonia 32 (1): 70-102.

Gonella, M. P. and M. C. Neel 1995. Characterizing

Rare Plant Habitat for Restoration in the San Bernardino National Forest, in: Roundy, B. A., E. D.

McArthur, J. S. Haley and D. K. Mann (eds.) Proceedings: wildland shrub and arid land restoration

symposium; 1993 October 19-21; Las Vegas, NV.

Gen Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-315. Ogden, UT: U. S.

Dept. of Agric., Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Hickman, J. (ed.) 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher

Plants of California. University of California Press,

Berkeley, California.

Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Skinner, M.W. and B.M. Pavlik (eds.). 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular plants of

California. Special Pub. No. 1 (5th ed.). California

Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

Tierra Madre Consultants. 1992. Evaluation of Carbonate Substrates and Distributions for Five Plants

Reported from the San Bernardino Mountains,

San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for

Pfizer Inc., Pleuss-Staufer (California) Inc.,

Mitsubishi Cement Corporation and Riverside

Cement Company.

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service).

1997. San Bernardino Mountains Carbonate Endemic Plants Draft Recovery Plan, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

White, S. 1997. Comments on USFWS San Bernardino Mountains Carbonate Endemic Plants Draft

Recovery Plan, submitted to USFWS.

4. Parish’s daisy

Parish’s daisy—Erigeron perishii Gray

(a) Author. Andrew C. Sanders, Herbarium,

Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124

(b) Management status. Federal: Threatened;

California: S2.1, G2 (CDFG, 1998); CNPS: List

1B, RED code 2-3-3 ( Skinner and Pavlik, 1994)

(c) General distribution. Parish’s daisy is endemic

to southern California and is restricted to the dry calcareous (primarily limestone) slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains, with a few collections from generally

granitic areas at the east end of the San Bernardino

Mountains and in the Little San Bernardino Mountains. The substrate at the sites where the species was

collected away from the major carbonate deposits has

often not been clearly specified and needs clarification.

Most of the populations are on lands within the

boundary of the San Bernardino National Forest. This

species is reported by Nesom (1993) only from

Cushenbury Canyon on the north slope of the San

Bernardino Mountains, but specimens exist documenting its occurrence in many other nearby areas. There

are reported to be 50 occurrences (USFWS, 1997) but

many of these probably represent reports of different

parts of single populations. Specific localities include:

mouth of Marble Canyon (BLM land); Arctic Canyon,

Bousic Canyon, Furnace Canyon, Grapevine Canyon,

Cactus Flat (head of Cushenbury Canyon);

Cushenbury Spring; Horsethief Flat, near Blackhawn

Canyon, limestone outcrop 1.5 mi. (2.5 km) NE of

Baldwin Lake, 6200 ft. (1890 m); 8 miles (13.3 km) S

of Warren’s Well [= site of Yucca Valley Airport], and E

of Long Canyon, 3600 ft.(1100 m). The latter two localities are in the Little San Bernardino Mountains.

There have been, over the years, a number of reports and collections that indicate that this species occurs in the Eastern Mojave Desert in the vicinity of the

Ivanpah Mountains but these have all, upon examination, proved to be errors, usually based on the vaguely

similar Erigeron concinnus (H. & A.) Torr. & Gray [=E.

pumilus var. concinnoides] and the species has never

been reported from that area by any major flora (e.g.,

Nesom, 1993; Munz, 1974). It has also been erroneously reported from other areas based on the related E.

utahensis (USFWS, 1997), which occurs on limestone

slopes in the Providence Mountains (Nesom, 1993).

The Cactus Flat locality is somewhat dubious in

that the habitat is not typical (largely or entirely granitic instead of calcareous) and it is based only on an

Appendix B
59

Though, oddly, the second edition (apparently unaltered) of the original description (Gray, 1888) merely

says “rocky caÒons, borders of the Mojave Desert, S.E.

California, Parish.” Later authors must be relying on

additional information derived from the label on the

type specimen, since their locality descriptions are

more expansive than the original description.

The stems are erect or ascending and may be either

numerous or rather few on each plant, but on mature

plants are typically at least 20 in number. The stems

tend to be faintly zig-zag rather than straight. They

arise from a somewhat woody base that usually bears

the remains of previous years branches. The plants are

3-12 in. (7-30 cm) tall and have the stems and foliage

covered with a conspicuous, loose, whitish to grayish

appressed pubescence. This pubescence is particularly

thick and persistent on the stems and these often stand

out as whiter than the leaves. The older leaves appear

to gradually lose pubescence so that they are often

greener than the rest of the plant. The pubescence is

often described as silvery-white. The leaves are slender

and entire.

The flower heads are solitary on bracted, almost

leafy, peduncles, but there are commonly 2-4 peduncles per stem. The total number of heads on a mature plant can easily equal 50 in a given season. The

heads bear lavender ray flowers and yellow disk flowers.

The method of pollination is unknown for Parish’s

daisy, but is certainly by insects, based on the conspicuously colored flowers. Likely candidates include

bees, butterflies or long-tongued flies, based on the

known pollinators of other composites of similar general flower structure. Seed dispersal is unstudied as is

the relative importance of seeds versus possible vegetative spread in the maintenance and expansion of populations, though seedlings have been reported at several

sites (Krantz, 1979) and are probably the predominant

mode of reproduction. Flowering is reported to occur

from May to July (Krantz, 1979), but the peak of

flowering seems to be from mid May to mid June. At

least in some years a few plants continue flowering into

July and some even into August (M. Provance, pers.

com., 1998). Flower heads have been found to be attacked by insect larvae [Tephritid flies?] but the extent

old Marcus Jones collection. It is probable that Jones

was camped at Cactus Flat and collected the Erigeron

in the carbonate either below in Cushenbury Canyon,

above in the Lone Valley area, or around Blackhawk

Mtn. Jones is fairly notorious for generalized localities

based on the site where he stayed and collected out

from (e.g., Barstow, Blythe, etc.) and he is responsible

for highly dubious records from a number of locations.

There are also comparable problems with the Little

San Bernardino Mountains locality, in that two of the

three collections are by Edmund Jaeger. Jaeger had a

life-long habit of intentionally misplacing or blurring

collection sites slightly in order to protect the identity

of his favored camping localities (P. Roos, pers.

comm.). One of his Parish’s daisy specimens, in fact, is

merely labeled “Joshua Tree National Monument”, but

is generally presumed to be from the same site as his

more precisely located specimen taken four days earlier. There is a more recent reported collection by P.

Leary from the same area, which means that the species probably does occur, although the identity of the

Leary specimen (presumably located in the herbarium

at Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas) seems not to have been

confirmed. A search for the species in the late 1980s

failed to find the Little San Bernardino Mountains locality and did not find any suitable habitat (either suitable washes or carbonates) in the area where it was reported. At least some people think the species was erroneously mapped (K. Barrows, pers. com., 1997).

The CNDDB (CDFG, 1989) reports this locality as

having the plant “growing out of a steep slope beneath

pinyon pine” which is a somewhat unusual habitat for

the species given the its preference for washes and

loose soil elsewhere, but the plant does occur on dry

slopes in the San Bernardino Mountains. The most serious peculiarity of this site is that there is no carbonate rock reported in the area (Dibblee, 1967a), and the

labels of the collected specimens do not specify substrate.

(d) Natural history. Parish’s daisy is an herbaceous

perennial with a long simple tap root that extends for

some distance (perhaps 50 cm) into the loose carbonate alluvium, which the species favors. This species was

first described by Asa Gray in 1884 from specimens

collected by S.B. Parish (#1251) at Cushenbury

Springs in May 1881 (Ferris, 1960; Krantz, 1979).

Species Accounts
60

and effect of such damage is unknown, though reported to be “not widespread” (Krantz, 1979).

(e) Habitat requirements. Parish’s daisy is largely restricted to carbonate substrates, but has been found on

other rock types occasionally. Plants appear to be most

commonly found either along washes on the canyon

bottoms or on loose alluvial deposits on adjacent

benches, but are also regularly found on steep rocky

slopes. It appears that the Pioneertown site is primarily

granitic, but along the washes where the species occurs

there are reported to be some carbonate materials

washed down from higher elevations (K. Barrows, pers.

com., 1997). This is not certain and needs to be confirmed. There is limestone in the general vicinity

(Dibblee, 1967b). It may be that the apparent carbonate preference is based on reduced competition from

other plants on this substrate. Certain non-carbonate

sites that are otherwise ecologically favorable could

thus support the species. Two of the collections that

appear to be from granitic areas are old (old collections

are more frequently inaccurate or vague in their site

data than more recent ones) and do not specify the

substrate at the site where the plant was collected.

However, there are recent reports of this species on

non-calcareous, decomposed granite, slopes within the

carbonate region on the north slope of the San Bernardino Mountains (M. Provance, pers. comm., 1998).

These reports are very few, however. All sites where the

soil was actually tested have been found to have

strongly alkaline soils, regardless of predominant origin

(M. Provance, pers, comm., 1998). This implies that

even the granitic areas may have been somewhat influenced in their soil chemistry by drift from adjacent

carbonate slopes.

Parish’s daisy occurs, based on available specimens,

at elevations from 3700-6600 ft. (1125 - 2012 m),

though Nesom (1993) gives a range of 800-2000 m

(2625-6560 ft.). The low end of the range given by

Nesom seems definitely to be in error as that elevation

(2625 ft.) would put the species far out onto the flats

of the Mojave Desert, where it has never been collected.

(f) Population status. This species is naturally of

rather restricted distribution and is probably largely

confined to a very specific substrate that is not of wide

occurrence within its range. That particular substrate

(limestone) has become economically valuable in recent years and so many populations have been destroyed or damaged by limestone mining.

Parish’s daisy is clearly declining, much habitat has

been destroyed by limestone mining, but is still among

the more common of the carbonate endemics of the

San Bernardino Mountains. This species was reported

to be “abundant on stony hillsides at Cushenberry

Springs” by Hall (1907), which suggests a change in

abundance over the past 90 years, but this is obviously

not conclusive since the precise meaning of “abundant” in Hall’s mind is unknown. It is possible that

Hall never actually saw the plant at this site, since he

notes that as of the date he wrote only Parish had collected it. He may have based his description of daisy

abundance on notes on one of Parish’s collections or

on discussions with Parish (whom he knew personally). If Hall had seen it himself, at a suitable season, it

seems likely he would have collected the plant.

Parish’s daisy seems better able to recover after disturbance than some carbonate endemics. There is considerable need for clarification of its distribution and

substrate preference at the eastern end of the San Bernardino Mountains (Pioneertown area) and in Joshua

Tree National Park. These are areas where the reported

occurrence is based on just a few specimens, often very

old or poorly located (especially with respect to substrate). There were fewer than 25 occurrences of this

species known prior to its listing as threatened by the

USFWS, with a total of ca. 16,000 individuals reported. But, that occurrence total has since been increased to ca. 50 (USFWS, 1997). There are several

problems with both the original estimate and this expansion based on the newer “occurrence” estimate.

The largest problem is that it is not at all certain that

the various reported occurrences actually represent

separate populations or that some of the individuals reported in one “occurrence” are not also reported again

in another.

(g) Literature cited.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).

1989. Database Report, Natural Heritage DiviAppendix B
61

sion, Natural Diversity Data Base, Sacramento,

California..

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).

1997. Special Plants List , Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data Base, Sacramento,

California..

Dibblee, T.W. Jr. 1967a. Geological Investigations of

the Joshua Tree Quadrangle [15’], U.S. Geological

Survey, Misc. Geol. Invest. Map I-516.

Dibblee, T.W. Jr. 1967b. Geologic Map of the

Morongo Valley Quadrangle [15’], San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, U.S.

Geological Survey, Misc. Geol. Invest. Map I-517.

Dibblee, T.W. Jr. 1967c. Geologic Map of the Old

Woman Springs Quadrangle [15’], San Bernardino

County, California, U.S. Geological Survey, Misc.

Geol. Invest. Map I-518.

Ferris, R.S. In: L. Abrams and R.S. Ferris (eds.). 1960.

Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Washington,

Oregon and California, Vol. IV, Bignoniaceae to

Compositae, Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, California.

Gray, A. 1888. Synoptical Flora of North America,

The Gamopetalae, Vol. I, Part II, and Vol II, Part

I, 2nd ed., Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections

# 501, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Hall, H.M. 1907. Compositae of Southern California,

Univ. of California Publ.Bot. 3 (1):1-302, 28 Dec.

1907.

Krantz, T.P. 1979. A Botanical Investigation of Erigeron parishii. Unpublished report [prepared for

U.S. Forest Service].

Krantz, Tim 1988. Limestone Endemics of Big Bear

Valley, Fremontia 16(1):20-21.

Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California.

Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Nesom, G.L. 1993. Erigeron in: Hickman, J.C. (Ed.).

The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California.

Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Skinner, M.W. and B.M. Pavlik (eds.). 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular plants of

California. Special Pub. No. 1 (5th ed.). California

Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1997. San

Bernardino Mountains Carbonate Plants Draft

Recovery Plan, USFWS Region 1, Portland, Oregon. ❀

Species Accounts

Appendix C: Habitat Definitions

The calculation of Conservation Value under the CHMS (see Section 7) depends upon the definitions of “Occupied Habitat,” “Suitable Habitat,” and “Other Beneficial Habitat.” This appendix explains how available

data has been and will be used to determine whether land falls into these categories. Under the CHMS, Conservation Value can also be established for various categories of revegetated habitat, whose definitions are found in Appendix E.

As described in Sections 7(c) and 14(d), the Habitat Inventory officially establishes the habitat categories that

apply to any given parcel of land within the CHMA. The Forest Service maintains the Habitat Inventory as a set

of digital GIS files.

(a) Habitat definitions for the initial Habitat Inventory. The initial Habitat Inventory for the CHMS

has been established and is represented in the habitat

statistics in Appendix D and by Map 4 in Appendix I.

The initial Habitat Inventory has been accepted by the

MOU Parties as the official Habitat Inventory of the

CHMS and will be the basis for the biological assessment prepared by the Resource Management Agencies

to initiate the CHMS Section 7 Consultation and for

the CHMS Biological Opinion from the USFWS that

results from such consultation. Except as modified in

accordance with Section 14(d), the initial Habitat Inventory controls for purposes of determining Conservation Values under the CHMS. The habitat models

that were used to develop the GIS database for the initial Habitat Inventory are described in a memorandum

dated September 5, 2001 from Sean Redar and Scott

Eliason to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (Redar

and Eliason (2001); available from the Forest Service

upon request). Based on those habitat models, the

habitat category definitions for the initial Habitat Inventory were established in accordance with the following:

(i) Occupied Habitat. Habitat that is known to

be occupied by one or more species of Carbonate

Plants. Currently, these data are based on field survey

information gathered over approximately the last 15

years. The Occupied Habitat data layer includes a wide

range of precision, from approximately 30 meters

down to approximately 1 meter. This range is based on

improving GPS technology over time and differing

mapping techniques. Despite this range of precision,

the current occupied habitat layer is considered to be

accurate and is the best available information.

(ii) Suitable Habitat. Habitat that possesses the

qualities necessary to support occurrences of Carbonate Plant occurrences, but is not known to be occupied. These are areas where undiscovered occurrences

are most likely to be found in the future, and are also

areas that are likely to be occupied over long periods of

time as the distribution of carbonate plants changes

across the landscape. These are also important areas

that support many species of plants and animals (including pollinators) that are associated with the Carbonate Plants. The data underlying the current mapping of Suitable Habitat, derived from the model described in Redar and Eliason (2001), are considered to

be fairly accurate. Aerial photo interpretation and limited ground-truthing has verified the model, though

much of the suitable habitat has not been verified in

the field. Despite this uncertainty, the current Suitable

Habitat layer represents the best available information.

(iii) Other Beneficial Habitat. Undisturbed natural land that provides some geomorphological, hydrological, or habitat configuration benefit to the Carbonate Plants, but excluding Occupied Habitat and Suitable Habitat. The layer for Other Beneficial Habitat

was developed heuristically with reference to (A) available geological and hydrological information and (B)

the locations of mapped patches of Occupied Habitat

and Suitable Habitat.

(b) Habitat definitions for modifications to the

Habitat Inventory. As the Habitat Inventory is revised
64

over time in accordance with Section 14(d), it is necessary to apply clear and consistent data standards. Applying such data standards over time will eventually remove discrepancies in the precision of Occupied Habitat polygons and uncertainties in the Suitable Habitat

layer and will ensure that Conservation Value derived

from these layers is uniformly applied. These standards

include survey protocols, suitable habitat criteria, mapping standards (both for the field and for the digital

Habitat Inventory), and attribute data and metadata

requirements. All of these standards are in draft form

and available from the Forest Service upon request.

(c) Conservation Value mapping. As the Occupied

Habitat and Suitable Habitat layers are refined based

on future fieldwork, the Conservation Value layer will

be updated with the same level of precision. Although

the current Conservation Value map (Map 5 in Appendix I) was created with 30 meter resolution raster data,

future revisions should result in a more precise mapping of Conservation Value. At any time, calculations

should be based on the best (i.e., most recent, accurate,

and precise) data available. ❀

Appendix C
Appendix D: Habitat Statistics

The following tables provide an account of the habitat data in the current Habitat Inventory by Unit, habitat

type, and land use category. All figures are given in acreage, except the summary of Conservation Value

within each Unit, which is given in Conservation Units. “All Occupied Habitat” may be less than the sum of the

Occupied Habitat of each of the Carbonate Plants because some acreage is occupied with more than one of the

Carbonate Plants. Critical Habitat is the Carbonate Habitat that has been designated as critical habitat by the

USFWS.

(Continued on the following page)

White Mountain Unit Total M1 M2 & X D P Init Resrv S1 Priority S2 Priority

Conservation Value 922 - - 701 112 109 326 

Occ Hab, E. ovalifolium 29 - - 21 8 - 7 

Occ Hab, A. albens - - - - - - - 

Occ Hab, O. parishii 68 - 58 - - 10 53 

Occ Hab, E. parishii 21 - - 12 9 - - 

All Occupied Habitat 99 - - 80 9 10 57 

Suitable Habitat 1,331 - - 1,065 198 68 416 

Other Beneficial Habitat 619 - - 349 - 270 231 

Total habitat acreage 2,049 - - 1,494 207 348 704 

Critical Habitat 435 - - 335 - 100 308 

Furnace Unit Total M1 M2 & X D P Init Resrv S1 Priority S2 Priority

Conservation Value 10,544 - 4,597 1,045 2,918 2,094 1,234 1,125 

Occ Hab, E. ovalifolium 592 29 - 352 166 53 219 115 

Occ Hab, A. albens 507 11 - 383 74 66 198 182 

Occ Hab, O. parishii 342 7 - 198 61 81 146 28 

Occ Hab, E. parishii 530 14 - 266 243 35 119 192 

All Occupied Habitat 1,545 47 - 915 426 202 452 418 

Suitable Habitat 14,077 1,442 - 6,785 4,067 2,832 1,265 1,212 

Other Beneficial Habitat 6,753 1,114 - 2,096 1,665 1,882 329 304 

Total habitat acreage 22,375 - 2,603 9,796 6,158 4,916 2,046 1,934 

Critical Habitat 6,050 213 60 3,362 1,876 729 1,423 1,314 

Helendale Unit Total M1 M2 & X D P Init Resrv S1 Priority S2 Priority

Conservation Value 8,865 - - 5,862 72 2,934 1,513 842 

Occ Hab, E. ovalifolium 592 - - 454 4 137 218 123 

Occ Hab, A. albens 695 - - 663 7 25 386 165 

Occ Hab, O. parishii 108 - - 80 6 23 82 - 

Occ Hab, E. parishii 478 - - 416 - 64 228 132 

All Occupied Habitat 1,460 - - 1,243 15 218 633 335 

Suitable Habitat 13,356 - - 8,825 111 4,492 1,522 895 

Other Beneficial Habitat 2,571 - - 685 18 1,863 224 154 

Total habitat acreage 17,387 - - 10,753 144 6,573 2,379 1,384 

Critical Habitat 5,430 - 19 3,848 95 1,481 1,674 924 
66

White Mountain Unit Total M1 M2 & X D P Init Resrv S1 Priority S2 Priority

Conservation Value 922 - - 701 112 109 326 

Occ Hab, E. ovalifolium 29 - - 21 8 - 7 

Occ Hab, A. albens - - - - - - - 

Occ Hab, O. parishii 68 - 58 - - 10 53 

Occ Hab, E. parishii 21 - - 12 9 - - 

All Occupied Habitat 99 - - 80 9 10 57 

Suitable Habitat 1,331 - - 1,065 198 68 416 

Other Beneficial Habitat 619 - - 349 - 270 231 

Total habitat acreage 2,049 - - 1,494 207 348 704 

Critical Habitat 435 - - 335 - 100 308 

Furnace Unit Total M1 M2 & X D P Init Resrv S1 Priority S2 Priority

Conservation Value 10,544 - 4,597 1,045 2,918 2,094 1,234 1,125 

Occ Hab, E. ovalifolium 592 29 - 352 166 53 219 115 

Occ Hab, A. albens 507 11 - 383 74 66 198 182 

Occ Hab, O. parishii 342 7 - 198 61 81 146 28 

Occ Hab, E. parishii 530 14 - 266 243 35 119 192 

All Occupied Habitat 1,545 47 - 915 426 202 452 418 

Suitable Habitat 14,077 1,442 - 6,785 4,067 2,832 1,265 1,212 

Other Beneficial Habitat 6,753 1,114 - 2,096 1,665 1,882 329 304 

Total habitat acreage 22,375 - 2,603 9,796 6,158 4,916 2,046 1,934 

Critical Habitat 6,050 213 60 3,362 1,876 729 1,423 1,314 

Helendale Unit Total M1 M2 & X D P Init Resrv S1 Priority S2 Priority

Conservation Value 8,865 - - 5,862 72 2,934 1,513 842 

Occ Hab, E. ovalifolium 592 - - 454 4 137 218 123 

Occ Hab, A. albens 695 - - 663 7 25 386 165 

Occ Hab, O. parishii 108 - - 80 6 23 82 - 

Occ Hab, E. parishii 478 - - 416 - 64 228 132 

All Occupied Habitat 1,460 - - 1,243 15 218 633 335 

Suitable Habitat 13,356 - - 8,825 111 4,492 1,522 895 

Other Beneficial Habitat 2,571 - - 685 18 1,863 224 154 

Total habitat acreage 17,387 - - 10,753 144 6,573 2,379 1,384 

Critical Habitat 5,430 - 19 3,848 95 1,481 1,674 924 

Appendix D
The following guidelines and success criteria have been developed to provide consistency in revegetating lands

disturbed by mining activities in carbonate habitat within the CHMA. The intent herein is to provide specific guidelines and success criteria for revegetation of native plants and habitats and introduction of Carbonate

Plants in conjunction with mining reclamation. The revegetation objectives promoted by these guidelines are to set

a successional trajectory toward a specified target vegetation as closely as practicable and to promote the reintroduction of listed plant species to reclaimed sites, where applicable. These guidelines and success criteria were prepared

for incorporation into the CHMS, and those portions which are not specific to Carbonate Plants may also be incorporated into other planning documents, as appropriate, subject to public review. These guidelines are supplemental

to revegetation requirements contained in the Reclamation Regulations. Except as specifically indicated to the contrary, capitalized terms in this appendix shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the CHMS, of which this appendix is a part.

Appendix E: Guidelines and Success Criteria for

Revegetation and Carbonate Plant Introductions

(a) Credit for successful revegetation and introduction of Carbonate Plants. Operators or claim holders

may elect to introduce one or more Carbonate Plant

species onto mines or other disturbed sites undergoing

or having completed reclamation. Where introduction

is successful, these operators or claim holders may (but

are not required to) make a Reserve Contribution of

the sites for conservation credit in accordance with

Section 10 of the CHMS using the conservation multipliers set forth below in this Section. To qualify for

such credit, revegetation must be carried out and its

success measured in accordance with this Appendix E.

“Introduction,” as used in this appendix, includes both

reintroduction of Carbonate Plants that occurred on

the site prior to mining disturbance and introduction

of Carbonate Plants onto the site when there were no

previously known occurrences. The applicable multipliers for purposes of determining the Conservation

Value of Revegetated Habitat are as follows:

 (i) 0.25 per acre for successful revegetation in

accordance with the revegetation success criteria described in Section (b)(iii) below without meeting success criteria for Carbonate Plants under Section (c)(i)

below.

(ii) 0.50 per acre or sites meeting the success

criteria described in Section (c)(i) below for at least

one of the Carbonate Plants.

(iii) An additional 0.20 per acre for sites that

meet the enhanced success criteria described in Section

(b)(iv) below.

(iv) An additional 0.10 per acre will be added

for each additional Carbonate Plant species (i.e., in excess of one) that meets the success criteria on the site,

for an addition to the multiplier of up to 0.30 per acre.

Occurrences of Carbonate Plants that meet the success

criteria set forth in this appendix will be mapped and

credited using the same data and mapping standards

that apply to Occupied Habitat on natural surfaces (see

Appendix C).

(b) General revegetation guidelines and success criteria. The following revegetation guidelines are required as a condition of receiving conservation credit

for revegetation areas under the CHMS, and subsections (i)–(iii) and (v) of this subsection (b) may be incorporated, subject to public review, into future Federal Land Plans. The County may also adopt subsections (i)–(iii) and (v) as conditions of future reclamation plans under SMARA. For revegetation under the

CHMS, in the event of any conflict between the

guidelines set forth in this Section (b) and revegetation

guidelines in a future Federal Land Plan that are applicable in a particular case, the guidelines in such Federal

Land Plan shall control. Because revegetation practice
68

continues to evolve, practitioners should remain current with the literature and advances in the field. They

also should contact SBNF, the BLM California Desert

District, and the County for recommendations on

revegetation practice.

(i) Target vegetation. The “target vegetation” for

each revegetation site will be selected based on existing

reference data for the appropriate vegetation zone or

site-specific sampling (collectively, the “Baseline

Data”), at the agreement of the applicant and the applicable Resource Management Agency. Reference data

within the CHMA were derived from plot-based vegetation sampling taken across more than 600 plots between 1990 and 1998. Future sampling may result in

an update and revision to these data. These data will

be made available upon request by the Mountaintop

District Botanist on the SBNF.

(ii) Soil inventory. Soil resources (all available

topsoil or “growth medium”) will be inventoried for

volume and reclamation suitability during the planning stages, and soils inventory results will be included

in the revegetation plan. To avoid the need for extended soil stockpiling, the use of soil salvaged from a

new quarry site for reclamation of another (closed)

quarry or waste dump will be encouraged.

(iii) Success criteria. All operations will be required to document full compliance with the applicable reclamation plan and associated regulations. The

following additional criteria must be met to receive

conservation credit under the CHMS. These criteria

may be incorporated into revised Federal Land Plans

(due for completion in 2004), subject to public review,

after which these criteria would apply to future mining

and reclamation plans on the SBNF and in the California Desert Conservation Area.

(A) Reclamation. Meet or exceed all reclamation requirements under the mining and reclamation

plan for the site and under the applicable Reclamation

Regulations, and maintain the mining operation in full

compliance with the Mining Plan.

(B) Cover. Achieve a mean native vegetation

cover percentage of at least 50% of the mean native

cover value specified in the Baseline Data.

(C) Density. Achieve a mean density of each

of three climax/dominant species for that vegetation

zone that is at least 50% of the specified mean densities for those species in the Baseline Data.

(D) Richness. Achieve a mean species richness

(average species count per 0.1 acre sample plot or other

unit area as applicable, depending on sample methods)

that is at least 50% that of the value specified in the

Baseline Data.

(E) Non-native species cover. Non-native species cover will be no more than an absolute cover of

15%, and annual monitoring data will show a downward trend, documented by a declining regression coefficient (negative b value) over the monitoring period.

(F) Aggressive/invasive weeds. On the date of

approval by the applicable Resource Management

Agency, none of the following species of highly invasive exotic species (the “Invasive Exotics”), will occur

within the revegetated site:

• Arundo donax

• Pennisetum setaceum

• Tamarix spp.

• Elaeagnus angustifolia

• Ricinus communis

• Spartium junceum

• Verbascum thapsus

• Nicotiana glauca

• Linaria spp.

All occurrences of Invasive Exotics must be documented and removed upon detection, and the reports

required in Section (b)(v)(B) below must document

any removal and confirm that all these species are absent from the site. Such removal may be performed at

any time without being regarded as “Manipulation”

that is otherwise prohibited during certain periods (see

following paragraph of this subsection (F). The list of

Invasive Exotics may be modified by the SBNF in cooperation with the BLM, the County, and appropriate

stakeholders, including the mining industry. It will be

limited to non-native species which show the potential

to spread rapidly and are practical to completely eradicate. It will exclude non-native species that are wideAppendix E
69

spread within the CHMA and not practical to completely eradicate. Thus, brome grasses (Bromus spp.),

weedy mustards (Brassica spp., Sisymbrium spp.,

Hirschfeldia incana), Russian thistle (or tumbleweed,

Salsola spp.), and storksbill (Erodium spp.) would not

be appropriate.

In applying the foregoing criteria, only the habitat patches that meet the criteria, applying the habitat

definitions and mapping standards set forth in Appendix C, shall be regarded as revegetated and qualify for

conservation credit (upon updating the Habitat Inventory to reflect the revegetation success) If such patches

are part of a larger reclamation site, only those areas

that meet the criteria shall be eligible for conservation

credit. The operator’s final monitoring report will provide quantitative data that will determine whether or

not the foregoing success criteria have been met. The

final monitoring data will generally be submitted ten

years following initiation of revegetation, though an

operator may choose to finalize the work earlier or

later, depending on individual circumstances. Regardless of the date of final monitoring, the revegetated site

shall not be subject to enhancement (e.g. by irrigation,

weeding, supplemental planting, or seeding; collectively, “Manipulation”), subject to the exception specified under criterion (F) above, during a minimum

three years prior to the final data collection.

(iv) Enhanced success criteria. The following success criteria are required to receive an additional 0.2

CU/acre added to the Conservation Value multiplier

under the Section (a)(i) above. These criteria are not

required if the additional conservation credit is not

sought, and there is no intention to incorporate these

enhanced criteria into future Federal Land Plans or

County conditions of approval except as they relate to

conservation value under the CHMS.

(A) Standard revegetation. Satisfy all the standard success criteria under Section (b)(iii), above.

(B) Cover. Achieve a mean native vegetation

cover percentage of at least 75% of the mean native

cover value specified in the Baseline Data.

(C) Native herbaceous component. Achieve a

relative abundance of three native herbaceous species

with relative abundance equivalent to or greater than

that specified in the Baseline Data.

(D) Richness. Achieve a mean species richness (average species count per 0.1 acre sample plot or

other unit area as applicable, depending on sample

methods) that is at least 75% that of the value specified in the Baseline Data.

(E) Non-native species relative abundance. Do

not exceed the average relative abundance of non-native species specified in the Baseline Data.

(F) Ecosystem Function. Demonstrate at least

one quantitative measure of ecosystem function as described in Section (c)(i)(E). Section (c)(i)(E) itself requires demonstration of at least one such measure as

part of the standard introduction success criteria, so a

party desiring to meet both the enhanced success criteria of this subsection (iv) and the standard introduction success criteria of Section (c)(i)(E) must demonstrate two quantitative measures of ecosystem function.

(v) Monitoring and revegetation reporting requirements. Each mining reclamation plan must include a

revegetation plan. This plan will specify target vegetation, reference data, acres that will undergo active

revegetation, and a revegetation schedule. To document progress under the revegetation plan, monitoring

and periodic reporting will be required. Phased plans

may compile these reports into a combined report

where an area covered under a single mine plan has

revegetation ongoing at different stages.

(A) Annual monitoring. Operators will monitor revegetation sites annually, making each of the following observations and measures, which will be recorded and provided to the applicable Resource Management Agency or County in periodic monitoring reports (see subsection (B) below):

(1) Survival of container plantings

(where applicable);

(2) Germination of seeded species,

noting distribution and abundance;

(3) List of native “volunteer” species,

noting distribution and abundance;

Revegetation Guidelines
70

(4) Measurements of vegetation cover,

target species density, total species richness (list), and

wildlife observations;

(5) Signs of erosion/soil loss;

(6) List of non-native species, with descriptions of abundance, distribution, and measures to

control/eradicate; and

(7) Recommendations for any other

needed remedial action (e.g., repairs to irrigation system, re-seeding, erosion control, or other).

(B) Reporting. On large revegetation sites,

quantitative data collected and presented in the interim and final monitoring reports must be randomly

sampled with sufficient replication to analyze and

document the data with 90% confidence intervals

about the mean values, and with a maximum confidence-interval-width of 20% of the mean value. For

smaller sites, an alternate sampling protocol may be

used so that the total sampling area is at least 50% of

the area revegetated.

The following three reports, to be submitted

to the applicable Resource Management Agency or the

County with a copy provided to the Forest Service, are

required to document the monitoring and status of

revegetation:

(1) Initial report. This report shall include: (aa) detailed site plan, (bb) planting palette, (cc)

propagule (seed, cutting, and container plant) inventory, and (dd) soil inventory (where applicable). This

report must be prepared and submitted within one

year of initiating revegetation.

(2) Interim (final minus 3) report. This

report shall be made at the initiation of the final 3-year

no-Manipulation period and shall mark the initiation

of that period. This report shall summarize the monitoring data that is collected annually. It must include

status of revegetation and qualitative and quantitative

measures each success criterion, and it must specify

any remediation prescribed. It shall also include a

propagule and soil inventory update. This report is

generally prepared during year 7, although may be earlier or later, depending on individual circumstances. If

the operator prefers to delay initiating the 3-year period without Manipulation beyond year 7 of the revegetation effort, then a substitute “Year 7” report should

be submitted, to include the contents described above

and an explanation of the operator’s plans for

remediation and eventual completion of the revegetation.

(3) Final report. This report shall be prepared and submitted upon completion of reclamation.

It shall have the same format and content requirements

as the interim report described in subsection (2) above.

Regardless of the date of final monitoring, the revegetated site shall have had no Manipulation during a

minimum three years prior to the final data collection

(subject to the exception specified under subsection

(iii)(F) above for weed control). This report shall document the extent to which the revegetation is successful

and shall be used, along with field checks, by the applicable Resource Management Agency to determine

whether or not the success criteria set forth in subsection (iii) above have been met.

(c) Guidelines and success criteria for introduction

of Carbonate Plants. To obtain conservation credit under the CHMS for the introduction of Carbonate

Plants into reclamation sites, such introductions must

follow the guidelines and meet the criteria described in

this Section (c), in addition to satisfying the general

revegetation guidelines and success criteria of Section

(b) above (note that there is no intent to propose incorporation of these provisions as revegetation requirements in future Federal Land Plans):

(i) Carbonate Plant success criteria. At the end of

a minimum 3-year period without Manipulation, the

introduced Carbonate Plants occurrences must be

documented to show:

 (A) Successful reproduction, indicated by

seed production, seedling establishment, and survival

of seedlings to reproductive state so that the total number of living and reproductively mature plants is at

least two times the number originally planted;

(B) A demographic pattern during the minimum 3-year no-Manipulation period in which recruitment to reproductive maturity is greater than or equal

to mortality, indicating a stable or growing population;

Appendix E
71

(C) Expansion of the introduction area, indicated by the presence of progeny of the introduced

plants at least 10 meters beyond the bounds of the

original seeded or planted area;

(D) Within the introduction area, density

(plants/acre) of the Carbonate Plants no less than one

standard deviation below the mean density of the same

species in natural populations, as documented in Forest Service data (where density in the overall area is below this level, the operator may wish to apply for Conservation Credits on a smaller area); and

(E) Demonstration of least one quantitative

measure of ecosystem function; applicable measures include, but are not limited to, soil respiration, mycorrhizal hyphal mass in soil, glomilin assays, pollinator

visitation, and wildlife utilization.

 (ii) Collection and salvage requirements. Where

revegetation includes introduction of Carbonate Plants

to mining-reclamation surfaces, the following requirements pertaining to the collection of listed species

must be followed in order to obtain conservation

credit under the CHMS. Where collection, salvage,

and/or planting of these species occurs as part of a

Mining Plan, additional standards will apply, as specified under current ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permits issued for this purpose.

(A) Seed collection. Seed collections of listed

species from public land will be at the discretion of the

USFWS. Unless other arrangements are made, collections on Forest Service or BLM land will be made under the authority of the applicable 10(a)(1)(A) permit

and all conditions in the permit will apply. For collections on all non-federal lands, and on federal lands unless stated otherwise in the permit, the conditions described in the balance of this subsection will apply. No

more than five percent of the seeds from any individual plant will be collected. Collections shall not be

made from more than five percent of the individuals

within a population. Collection methods will be designed to capture the majority of the genetic variation

found in the sampled populations, by collecting seed

systematically throughout the site and avoiding focusing only on certain plants due to size or location. Collections must avoid harming the source population’s

long-term viability. At no time will seeds derived from

different natural populations be intermingled in revegetation activities. Detailed field information will be recorded at the time of seed collection, including estimated population size, number of individuals sampled,

collecting strategy employed, apparent viability of the

seed, global positioning satellite (“GPS”) coordinates

of the collecting location, California Natural Diversity

Database element occurrence number (if any), and a

photocopy of a USGS topographic map with the collection site identified. Seed collection data will be kept

in permanent files and duplicated on the package

where the seed is stored.

 (B) Collection of cuttings. Seed collections of

listed species from public land will be at the discretion

of the USFWS. Unless other arrangements are made,

collections on Forest Service or BLM land will be

made under the authority of the applicable 10(a)(1)(A)

permit and all conditions in the permit will apply. For

collections on non-federal lands, and on federal lands

unless stated otherwise in the permit, the conditions

described in the balance of this subsection will apply.

No more than five percent of any individual plant will

be collected. Collections shall not be made from more

than five percent of the individuals within a population. Collections will be made systematically throughout the site to capture the majority of the genetic

variation found in the sampled populations. At no

time will seeds or plants collected from different natural populations be intermingled in revegetation activities. Individual cuttings will be labeled with numbered

metal tags corresponding to collection sites, as described above for seed collections. The tag numbers

will be kept in permanent records and will be kept

with the cuttings as they are incorporated into an offsite nursery or on-site revegetation sites for long-term

monitoring. Tags need not identify every individual

cutting, but should identify the source.

(C) Plant salvage. On sites where plants and

seeds will be disturbed or destroyed by authorized activities, the limitations above will not apply. Up to

100% of plants or seed may be salvaged for use in concurrent or future reclamation. Maximum effort should

be made to salvage listed carbonate plants from sites

where mining or other disturbance is approved, and

initial clearing and soil removal should be scheduled to

Revegetation Guidelines
72

allow for seed salvage at the end of at least one growing

season.

(D) Plant and seed return. Plants and seeds

will be returned to the same general vegetation zone

where they were collected (e.g. blackbush scrub),

within no more than 1000 ft. elevation and 5 miles of

the collection site, in order to ensure gene pool and

ecotype integrity. Where individual plants are introduced onto a reclamation site (e.g., salvaged plants, or

plants grown from seed or cuttings off-site), they will

be labeled with metal tags for future growth and survival monitoring. The tag numbers will be kept in permanent records. Tag numbers need not identify every

individual plant, but will identify their original source

and the year they are planted. Where seed is introduced onto a reclamation site, the amount (weight)

and seed collection data (above) will be kept in similar

records.

(E) Documentation. Methods of Carbonate

Plant introduction and progress of the introduction effort must be monitored and reported to the applicable

Resource Management Agency in accordance with the

monitoring requirements of Section (c)(iv), below. Operators may use Manipulation during the first few

years after planting. As provided in Section (c)(i) below, however, revegetation success criteria will not be

deemed to have been met until the end of a minimum

3-year period without Manipulation.

(iii) Monitoring. The following monitoring and

associated documentation are required to determine

successful introduction of Carbonate Plants. Introduction sites will also be subject to the revegetation monitoring described in Section (b)(v) below. Under this

Section (c), for the first 3 years following planting, introduction sites shall be monitored at least annually to

document survivorship and reproduction. After the

initial 3-year period, formal monitoring will be done as

needed to fulfill the requirements of the interim and

final reports described in subsection (iv) below. In addition to the formal monitoring and reporting described here, introduction sites should be qualitatively

monitored at least annually. Qualitative monitoring

should document general survival and reproductive

success of the Carbonate Plants and should document

potential problems, such as erosion, excessive herbivory, and damaged irrigation systems.

(A) Marking: Parish’s daisy and Cushenbury

buckwheat. These are perennial plants, woody at their

bases, and therefore capable of being tagged. Each

monitoring cycle, each new plant will be tagged and

numbered to indicate the year it was detected. Each

previously-existing plant will be examined, and its tag

number (if present) and condition will be recorded using the following categories:

(1) Healthy/reproductive (i.e., flower or

seed);

(2) Healthy/non-reproductive;

(3) Living but evidently unhealthy;

(4) Dead; or

(5) Missing.

After the first three years of monitoring, new plants

(not previously tagged) will be considered “progeny” of

the plants initially introduced onto the site. Plants will

not be tagged if they are too small to physically support the tags or if tagging is likely to damage them.

Plants will be considered “established” when they are

large enough to tag.

(B) Marking: Cushenbury milk-vetch and

Cushenbury oxytheca. These species cannot be tagged

due to their life histories. Instead, areas of occupied

habitat will be identified using GPS and markers on

the ground to define polygons containing a specified

number of individual Carbonate Plants. For these species, parents and progeny will not be distinguished,

and demographics will be inferred by total counts of

individuals within the defined polygons.

(C) Mapping, all four species. The bounds of

occupied habitat will be marked with colored flagging

and recorded with a GPS unit. These data will be collected and recorded following the SBNF data and

mapping standards. During the monitoring period or

later in the year, as appropriate, a small sample of seed

from introduced plants on the site will be collected

and examined for apparent viability (“fill”).

(iv) Reporting. Following the first three years of

monitoring, a report will be prepared to include data

tables of all plants examined, GPS coordinates of the

Appendix E
73

occupied habitat’s boundaries, representative photographs of the overall site and selected individual plants.

Following the second monitoring period (generally 4

years later) an interim report will be prepared with the

same format and content as the report following the

first 3 years, and additionally describing a demographic analysis of the occurrence. The demographic

analysis shall consist of (A) assembly and graphing of

monitoring data to show survivorship rates of plants

initially introduced onto the site and their progeny; (B)

calculation of the estimated half-life for each cohort;

and (C) calculation and comparison of recruitment

rates and death rates. This interim report initiates the

final minimum 3-year no-Manipulation period. A final report (generally 3 years later) with the same format and content as the interim report will also summarize the full monitoring dataset and document the

extent to which each of the Carbonate Plant success

criteria (see Section (c)(i) above) have been met. The

interim and final reports may be combined with the

general revegetation reports described in Section

(b)(v)(B), below.

 (d) Authorized loss of revegetated areas. Upon issuance of a favorable CHMS Biological Opinion, losses

of Carbonate Plants within the CHMA where Carbonate Plants have been introduced by operators or claim

holders shall be authorized under the terms and conditions described below. The authorization provided pursuant to this Section provides relief only from the provisions of the ESA and does not relieve an owner or

claim holder from any requirements of the Reclamation Regulations with respect to reclaimed or revegetated areas. This authorization also does not relieve

the applicant from NEPA, CEQA, or other environmental review of any proposed new land use.

 (i) Conditions to authorized loss. Occupied

Habitat that occurs as a result of revegetation efforts

on reclaimed land within the CHMA may be taken as

necessary to carry out mining activities without any

Compensation Requirement if the following conditions are met:

(A) The introduction effort, including a precise description of the location, has been reported to

the applicable Resource Management Agency or the

County in advance of the introduction work itself.

(B) The introduction effort proposed to be

lost has complied with all of the seed collection and

salvage requirements described in Section (c)(iii)

above.

(C) The introduction site to be lost must not

be the only remaining living material salvaged (as seed,

cuttings, or whole plants) from an occurrence lost to

previous land use changes unless a second salvage effort (from the introduced occurrence proposed to be

lost) has been approved by the applicable Resource

Management Agency or the County. Where operators

salvage plant material from sites to be developed as

quarries, waste areas, or other facilities, they should

carefully plan the locations where these salvaged materials are introduced.

 (ii) Coverage provided When all of the conditions set forth in subsection (i) above are satisfied, the

following coverage under the CHMS Biological Opinion shall apply:

(A) Any future impacts or proposed impacts

to the Carbonate Plants occurring as a consequence of

introductions carried out in compliance with this Section (d) will not be subject to further review or enforcement action under the ESA and will not be subject to any Compensation Requirement under the

CHMS.

(B) Collection of seed from living plants for

purposes of revegetation activities will be permitted on

public or private land, in compliance with USFWS

permits, as applicable.

(C) All occurrences of Carbonate Plants discovered within a revegetation site implemented under

the CHMS shall be treated as resulting from the introduction.

(iii) Not applicable to Reserve Contributions. This

Section (d) shall not permit any habitat disturbance on

land that has been contributed to the Habitat Reserve

as either a Permanent Contribution or a Relocatable

Contribution. In the case of a Relocatable Contribution, however, habitat disturbance may be permitted

hereunder after the parcel has been replaced in accordance with Section 10(b)(ii) of the CHMS. ❀

Revegetation Guidelines

Appendix F: Conservation Credit Worksheets

Contents

1. Reserve Contribution Valuation Worksheet, p. 76

2. Compensation Requirement Worksheet, p. 77
76

Reserve Contribution Valuation Worksheet

Use this form to determine the number of Conservation Credits to be received for a given Reserve Contribution of a

parcel of land. For multiple discontiguous parcels, use multiple worksheets.

1 Enter the Conservation Value of the parcel

2a Enter the lineal mileage of any portion of the edge of the parcel that meets Uncommitted Category lands

2b Enter the lineal mileage of any portion of the edge of the parcel that meets existing Mining Category lands

2c Enter the lineal mileage of any portion of the edge of the parcel that meets the

existing Habitat Reserve and that was previously Category D or P land

2d Enter the lineal mileage of any portion of the edge of the parcel that meets the

existing Habitat Reserve and that was previously Category M land

2g Enter line 2c × 12

2i Enter line 2e + line 2f – line 2g – line 2h (can be a negative number; this result is

the Net Edge Adjustment)

2h Enter line 2d × 24

2f Enter line 2b × 24

2e Enter line 2a × 12

5 Enter line 3 × line 4; this result is the Conservation Credits that would be given

for contributing the parcel

3 Enter line 1 – line 2i (if negative, enter 0); this result is the Adjusted Conservation Value

4 If the parcel is being contributed as a Permanent Contribution, enter 1.00; if as a

Relocatable Contribution, enter 0.50 (the permanence factor)

Appendix F
77

Compensation Requirement Worksheet

Use this form to determine the Compensation Requirement for obtaining ESA Compliance for a given parcel of

land. For multiple discontiguous parcels, use multiple worksheets.

1 Enter the Conservation Value of the parcel

2a Enter the lineal mileage of any portion of the edge of the parcel that meets Uncommitted Category lands

2b Enter the lineal mileage of any portion of the edge of the parcel that meets the

existing Habitat Reserve

2c Enter the lineal mileage of any portion of the edge of the parcel that meets existing Mining Category lands

2f Enter line 2c × 12

2g Enter line 2d + line 2e – line 2f (can be a negative number); this result is the Net

Edge Adjustment

4 Enter line 3 × 3.00 (the Compensation Ratio); this result is the Compensation

Requirement in terms of Conservation Credits

2e Enter line 2b × 24

2d Enter line 2a × 12

3 Enter line 1 + line 2g (if negative, enter 0); this result is the Adjusted Conservation Value

Conservation Credit Worksheets

Appendix G: Edge Effect Examples

1. General Edge Effect Examples

Each example on this page involves one of the

numbered parcels in the illustration to the right.

Each numbered parcel consists of 40 acres and has a

Conservation Value of 40 CU (1.00 CU/acre).

The examples in the table below demonstrate how

the Net Edge Adjustment operates to affect the number of Conservation Credits given for Reserve Contributions. Each column presents the calculation of the

Conservation Credits that would be given for making

a Reserve Contribution of one of the numbered parcels

in the illustration. The line numbers at the left edge of

the table correspond to the line numbers on the Reserve Contribution Calculation Worksheet in Appendix

F.

The examples in the table on the following page

demonstrate how the Net Edge Adjustment operates to

affect the Compensation Requirement for ESA Compliance. Each column presents the calculation of the

Compensation Requirement for obtaining ESA Compliance to mine one of the numbered parcels in the ilConservation Credits Available for Reserve Contributions

Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3 Parcel 4 Parcel 5

1 CV of parcel 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 

2a Edge ag. Uncommitted 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.75 1.00 

2b Edge ag. Mining 0.50 0.25 - - - 

2c Edge ag. Reserve (contrib. 

previously D or P)

 0.25 - 0.75 0.25 - 

2d Edge ag. Reserve (contrib. 

previously Cat. M)

 - - - - 

2e Lines 2a x 12 6.00 6.00 3.00 9.00 12.00 

2f Lines 2b x 24 12.00 6.00 - - - 

2g Lines 2c x 12 - 3.00 9.00 3.00 - 

2h Lines 2d x 24 - - - - - 

2i Lines 2e + 2f – 2g – 2h 18.00 9.00 (6.00) 6.00 12.00 

3 Lines 1 – 2i (ACV) 22.00 31.00 46.00 34.00 28.00 

4 Permanence factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

5 Lines 3 x 4 = 

Conservation Credits 

given

 31.00 22.00 46.00 34.00 28.00 

lustration. The line numbers at the left edge of the

table correspond to the line numbers on the Compensation Requirement Worksheet in Appendix F.
80

Compensation Requirements for ESA Compliance

Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3 Parcel 4 Parcel 5

1 CV of parcel 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 

2a Edge ag. Uncommitted 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.75 1.00 

2b Edge ag. Reserve - 0.25 0.75 0.25 - 

2c Edge ag. Mining 0.50 0.25 - - - 

2d Lines 2a x 12 6.00 6.00 3.00 9.00 12.00 

2e Lines 2b x 24 - 6.00 18.00 6.00 - 

2f Lines 2c x 12 6.00 3.00 - - - 

2g Lines 2d + 2e – 2f - 9.00 21.00 15.00 12.00 

3 Lines 1 + 2g (ACV) 40.00 49.00 61.00 55.00 52.00 

4 Line 3 x 3.00 = ESA 

Compliance cost

 147.00 120.00 183.00 165.00 156.00 

2. Edge Effect

Examples with

Curvilinear Edges

The examples on the

following pages show how the Net Edge Effect

adjustment affects Conservation Values using the scenario illustrated to the right. Based upon this scenario,

a mining company would establish the limits of disturbance taking into account the cost of ESA Compliance

and the value and accessibility of the mineral deposits

within the claim, as well as

other factors. The three examples below compare

three configurations of limits of disturbance to provide an idea of how a company might consider the

cost of ESA Compliance

under the CHMS when establishing limits of disturbance for a mining project.

The examples do not attempt to consider mineral

value and other factors.

For each example, the

cost of ESA Compliance is

calculated for the limits of disturbance as shown in the

example. Then the Conservation Credits are calculated

that would be available for making a Reserve Contribution of the remainder of the claim (the area outside

of the limits of disturbance). Note that it is an additional decision of the mining company (or claim

holder) whether or not to make a Reserve Contribution of the portion of the claim avoided. If a Reserve

Contribution is not made, then the mining company

or claim holder retains the option to obtain ESA Compliance for the remainder area and mine it in the future. On the other hand, making a Reserve Contribution of the area would help to minimize the current

net cost of ESA Compliance.

Appendix G
81

The detailed calculations behind the summaries above are shown on the following two pages.

Curvilinear Edge Effect Examples: Summaries

Example A Example B Example C

Area of disturbance: 160.0 acres

ESA Compliance cost: 285.2 CU

(1.78 CU/acre of mining)

Credits for Reserve Contrib. of remainder: n/a

Net ESA Compliance cost after Reserve Contrib.: n/a

Comments: This is a baseline case

that simply ignores the habitat present.

Area of disturbance: 129.5 acres

ESA Compliance cost: 206.8 CU

(1.60CU/acre of mining)

Credits for Reserve Contrib. of remainder: 7.8 CU (0.26 CU/acre of

contribution)

Net ESA Compliance cost after Reserve Contrib.: 198.9 CU (1.54 CU/

acre of mining)

Comments: In this case, the limits of

disturbance avoid the larger habitat

patch but include the smaller habitat

patch that is deeper in the mining area.

This would be the most efficient design

if all land had the same economic

value.

Area of disturbance: 97.6 acres

ESA Compliance cost: 174.9 CU

(1.79 CU/acre of mining)

Credits for Reserve Contrib. of remainder: 7.8 CU (0.13 CU/acre of

contribution)

Net ESA Compliance cost after Reserve Contrib.: 167.0 CU (1.71 CU/

acre of mining)

Comments: This case avoids all habitat patches, but is actually less efficient

than both Examples “A” and “B.” This

is primarily due to the large Net Edge

Adjustments associated with preserving the additional habitat.

This example also demonstrates how

the edge adjustment can devalue a

Reserve Contribution with high edge

effects. The number of Conservation

Credits available for contributing the

more northerly habitat area is zero for

31.9 acres. The Net Edge Adjustment

for this contribution is –25.1 off of a

pre-adjusted Conservation Value of

22.0, but the ACV cannot be less than

zero.

Edge Effect Examples
82

Curvilinear Edge Effect Examples: Detailed Calculations

Compensation Requirements for ESA Compliance

Examp. A Examp. B Examp. C

1 CV of parcel 95.07 70.87 48.82 

2a Edge ag. Uncommitted 1.00 0.84 1.37 

2b Edge ag. Reserve - - - 

2c Edge ag. Mining 1.00 1.00 0.58 

2d Lines 2a x 12 12.00 10.06 16.41 

2e Lines 2b x 24 - - - 

2f Lines 2c x 12 12.00 12.00 6.94 

2g Lines 2d + 2e – 2f - (1.94) 9.47 

3 Lines 1 + 2g (ACV) 95.07 68.92 58.29 

4 Line 3 x 3.00 = ESA 

Compliance cost

 206.77 285.21 174.87 

ESA Compliance cost 

per acre of mining

 1.60 1.78 1.79 

Conservation Credits Available for Reserve Contributions

Examp. A Examp. B

(C1 + C2)

Examp. C C1 C2

1 CV of parcel - 24.20 46.25 22.05 24.20 

2a Edge ag. Uncommitted - 0.56 0.06 0.56 

2b Edge ag. Mining - 0.40 1.01 0.40 

2c Edge ag. Reserve 

(contrib. previously 

Uncommitted)

 - - - - 

2d Edge ag. Reserve 

(contrib. previously 

Mining)

 - - - - 

2e Lines 2a x 12 - 6.75 0.75 6.75 

2f Lines 2b x 24 - 9.61 24.33 9.61 

2g Lines 2c x 12 - - - - 

2h Lines 2d x 24 - - - - 

2i Lines 2e + 2f – 2g – 2h - 16.36 25.08 16.36 

3 Lines 1 – 2i (ACV) 7.84 - 7.84 - 

4 Permanence factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

5 Lines 3 x 4 = Credits 

for Reserve Contrib. of 

remainder

 7.84 - 7.84 - 7.84 

Credits per acre for 

Reserve Contrib. of 

remainder

 0.26 - 0.13 - 0.26 

Net ESA Compliance cost after Reserve Contrib.

Examp. A Examp. B Examp. C

Total 198.93 285.21 167.03 

Per acre of mining 1.54 1.78 1.71 

Appendix G
83

Curvilinear Edge Effect Example: Areas and Perimeters

Shape Areas/CVs

Shape Acreage CV/ac. CV Perim. total 

A 1.25 1.6787 2.0984 0.1991 

B (incl. A) 11.3651 1.04 11.7848 0.6562 

B – A 9.6864 1.00 9.6864 0.8553 

C (incl. A & B) 31.8925 0.69 22.0485 1.0761 

D 0.50 97.6371 48.8186 1.9402 

C + D (incl. A & B) 129.5296 0.55 70.8670 1.8443 

E 1.00 17.8483 17.8483 0.8820 

F 0.50 12.7117 6.3558 0.6689 

E + F 30.5600 0.79 24.2042 0.9631 

All 160.0000 0.59 95.0712 2.0000 

Perimeter edges (li. mi.)

Edge1 0.4219 

Edge2 0.0781 

Edge3 0.5000 

Edge4 0.2187 

Edge5 0.1094 

Edge6 0.1719 

Edge7 0.2031 

Edge8 0.0781 

Edge9 0.1563 

Edge10 0.0625 

Edge11 0.5917 

Edge12 0.4006 

Edge13 0.2939 

Edge Effect Examples

Appendix H: Credit Registration

Private participation in the CHMS consists primarily in “transactions” involving Conservation Credits. Parties

can receive Conservation Credits for making Reserve Contributions, and they can “spend” Conservation Credits to obtain ESA Compliance. They can also sell Conservation Credits to another private party. To track the various types of Conservation Credit transactions, the CHMS has a “Credit Registry” administered by the Forest Service. Below is an example of the kinds of procedures that the Forest Service may adopt for credit registration.

Except as specifically indicated to the contrary, capitalized terms in this appendix shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the CHMS document to which this appendix is attached.

(a) Credit Registry. The Credit Registry is a database maintained by the Forest Service that tracks the

creation, use, and transfer of Conservation Credits under the CHMS, along with various records and legal

documents related to these transactions. The Forest

Service may make available certain information from

the Credit Registry on the World Wide Web. The basic

procedures for the three types of Conservation Credit

transactions are described in the following three subsections, which the Forest Service may modify from

time to time.

(b) Credit Creation for Reserve Contributions. The

following process applies when a landowner or claim

holder wishes to make a Reserve Contribution and receive Conservation Credits:

(i) Contribution Assessment. The applicant submits to the Forest Service a “Contribution Assessment

Application” that includes (A) a plat of the land to be

contributed at an appropriate map scale, (B) a statement of the intended means of contribution (transfer

of ownership, relinquishment of claim, a Use Restriction Agreement (in the case of a Relocatable Contribution), or a Surface Entry Restriction (in the case of a

contribution of a split-estate contribution) and (C) a

contribution assessment fee. Within five (5) business

days, the Forest Service will prepare a “Contribution

Assessment” that will state, as of the date of issuance,

the number of Conservation Credits that would be issued to the applicant if a Reserve Contribution were

made of the subject parcel.

(ii) Reserve Contribution Application. If the applicant elects to proceed after receiving the Conservation Value Assessment, the applicant submits to the

Forest Service a “Reserve Contribution Application,”

including (A) a completed and signed amendment to

the MOU, (B) a contribution processing fee (to cover

the cost of the land assessment and closing steps described below), and (C) a completed and signed grant

deed, mine claim quitclaim, Use Restriction Agreement, or Surface Entry Restriction (depending on the

intended means of contribution).

(iii) Land Assessment. Upon receipt of a complete Reserve Contribution Application, the Forest

Service shall perform a “Land Assessment” (by itself

and/or through parties with which it subcontracts),

which includes the following:

(A) A title search and evaluation of any encumbrances on the subject property;

(B) A Phase I environmental study;

(C) Site reconnaissance to determine the level

of human disturbance of the property in the form of

(I) trash and debris; (II) extent of soil and vegetation

disturbance from off-road vehicle use, grazing, and

other uses; and (III) any ongoing use;

(D) If needed in order to supply a correct legal description of the subject property, preparation of a

survey, a record of survey, and/or an approved subdivision in compliance with the California Subdivision

Map Act; and

(E) A report prepared by the Forest Service

(in coordination with the applicable Resource Management Agency, if not the Forest Service) summarizing

the contents of the Land Assessment, stating whether
86

the subject property meets the “Land Acceptance Criteria” established by the applicable Resource Management Agency, and, if not, listing the remedial measures

that must be undertaken to meet the Land Acceptance

Criteria.

If the subject property does not meet the Land Acceptance Criteria, follow-up Land Assessments may be

subject to additional fees. The Forest Service may require applicants to engage outside parties to perform

some or all of the Land Assessment work on behalf of

the Forest Service, but at the expense of the applicant.

(iv) Closing. Once the subject property is determined to have met the Land Acceptance Criteria, the

following steps occur to complete the closing of the

Reserve Contribution:

(A) The applicant pays a closing fee to cover

costs of title insurance, recordation, and processing the

closing;

(B) The Forest Service (in coordination with

the applicable Resource Management Agency, if not

the Forest Service) verifies the Contribution Assessment, which can change over time with changes in the

Habitat Inventory or shifts in the land use categories of

adjacent parcels, and obtains the applicant’s approval if

the Conservation Credits to be issued have decreased;

(C) The Forest Service arranges for a policy

of title insurance to be issued to the Resource Management Agency (not required when the contribution is

by relinquishment of claims);

(D) The Forest Service files the record of survey, if one was required;

(E) The Forest Service files and/or records

the instrument of conveyance (except in the case of a

Use Restriction Agreement, which is only accepted,

not recorded);

(F) The Forest Service records the transaction in the Credit Registry; and

(G) The Forest Service issues a Credit Verification Letter to the applicant indicating the number of

Conservation Credits that have been registered in his/

her/its name.

(v) Contingent Contributions (optional). Applicants have the option to make Contingent Contributions pursuant Section 10(d) using the process described in this subsection.

(A) To make a Contingent Contribution, the

applicant shall include with its closing fee, paid pursuant to subsection (iv)(A) above, (I) a request to make

the Reserve Contribution a Contingent Contribution,

(II) a description of the requested contingency or contingencies, and, optionally, (III) a “Compliance Evaluation” (see subsection (c)(i) below) for one or more parcels.

(B) If the application is complete and the requested contingencies are consistent with those permitted under Section 10(d), then the Forest Service

shall modify the closing process under subsection (iv)

above by adding to the closing conditions the satisfaction of the contingencies requested by the applicant.

(C) If the application is either incomplete or

the requested contingencies are inconsistent with Section 10(d), then the Forest Service shall reject the application and return it to the applicant.

(D) If the applicant has submitted a Compliance Evaluation, and the Forest Service can verify that

the Compensation Requirement stated in the Compliance Evaluation is valid as of the date of application,

then the Forest Service shall add an endorsement to

the Compliance Valuation to the effect that the Compensation Requirement stated in the Compliance

Evaluation is locked in so long as the Compensation

Requirement is met entirely using Conservation Credits issuing from the subject Contingent Contribution.

(c) Credit use for ESA Compliance. The following

process applies when a mining company, landowner, or

claim holder wishes to obtain ESA Compliance using

Conservation Credits:

(i) Compliance Evaluation. The applicant submits to the Forest Service a “Compliance Application”

that includes (A) a project plan, at an appropriate map

scale, depicting the land on which mining activity is to

occur, with boundary lines separating the limits of surface disturbance from areas not to be disturbed; and

(B) a fee for processing of the compliance evaluation.

Within five (5) business days, the Forest Service will

Appendix H
87

prepare (in coordination with the applicable Resource

Management Agency, if not the Forest Service) a

“Compliance Evaluation” that will state, as of the

date of issuance, the Compensation Requirement, in

terms of Conservation Credits, for mining activities on

the subject property. Note that the applicant may be a

mining company that does not own the land or claim,

but that the owner or claim holder must co-sign all applications required under this subsection (c).

(ii) Compliance Verification Letter. The applicant

obtains a Compliance Verification Letter, stating that

the proposed project has obtained ESA Compliance

under the CHMS, as follows:

(A) The applicant submits to the Forest Service (I) one or more Credit Verification Letters with a

face value that is greater than or equal to the Compliance Requirement, (II) an executed amendment to the

MOU adding applicant as a party with respect to the

proposed project, and (III) payment of a fee for processing the Compliance Verification Letter.

(B) The Forest Service verifies the Compensation Requirement, which can change over time with

changes in the Habitat Inventory, and obtains the

applicant’s approval if the Compliance Requirement

has increased.

(C) The Forest Service verifies that no suspension or partial suspension of permitting authority

under the CHMS Biological Opinion is in place that

applies to the proposed project.

(D) The Forest Service records the transaction in the Credit Registry, issues the applicant a Compliance Verification Letter for the proposed project,

and, if necessary, issues a new Credit Verification letter

to the applicant for the difference between the number

of Conservation Credits shown on the Credit Verification Letter(s) provided by the applicant and the Compliance Requirement.

(iii) Mining Plan. In the process of obtaining a

Mining Plan from the Resource Management Agency,

the applicant submits the Compliance Verification Letter obtained for the project as evidence of full compliance with the ESA with respect to the Carbonate

Plants and any other species that may be addressed by

the CHMS in the future. The Resource Management

Agency will be required to verify that the limits of surface disturbance shown in the Compliance Verification

Letter match the limits of surface disturbance shown

in the Mining Plan.

(d) Credit transfer. Any Credit Holder may transfer

any number of Conservation Credits registered in his/

her/its name to any other party. Such a transfer may be

the result of any kind of bargain between the parties or

can be a gift or donation from one party to another.

For any such transfer to be effective, however, it must

be registered in the Credit Registry. The process for

transferring Conservation Credits is as follows:

(i) The transferor and transferee both sign a

“Transfer Request,” with the transferor’s Credit Verification Letter attached, providing basic information

about the parties and indicating the number of Conservation Credits to be transferred.

(ii) Either party submits the Transfer Request,

along with a fee for processing the transfer, to the Forest Service.

(iii) The Forest Service records the transfer in

the Credit Registry and issues a new Credit Verification Letter to the transferee for the number of Conservation Credits transferred and, if applicable, issues a

new Credit Verification Letter to the transferor for the

difference between the number of Conservation Credits shown on the old Credit Verification Letter and the

number of Conservation Credits transferred to the

transferee. ❀

Credit Registration

Appendix I: Maps

Contents

1. Existing Conditions, p. 90

2. Furnace Unit Existing Conditions, p. 91

3. CHMS Categories, p. 92

4. Habitat, p. 93

5. Conservation Value, p. 94

6. Furnace Unit Initial Configuration, p. 95