[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29384-29414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13337]



[[Page 29383]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Final Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the Riverside Fairy Shrimp; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 29384]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AG34


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation 
of Critical Habitat for the Riverside Fairy Shrimp

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus 
woottoni), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). A total of approximately 2,790 hectares (6,870 acres) in Los 
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Ventura counties, 
California, is designated as critical habitat.
    Critical habitat identifies specific areas that have the physical 
and biological features that are essential to the conservation of a 
listed species, and that may require special management considerations 
or protection. The primary constituent elements for the Riverside fairy 
shrimp are those habitat components that are essential for the primary 
biological needs of foraging, sheltering, reproduction, and dispersal. 
Critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp includes those areas 
possessing one or more of the primary constituent elements.
    Section 7 of the Act prohibits destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out 
by any Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider 
economic and other impacts of specifying any particular area as 
critical habitat. We solicited data and comments from the public on all 
aspects of the proposed rule and economic analysis. We revised the 
proposal to incorporate or address new information received during the 
comment periods.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes effective on June 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California 92008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad 
Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone 760/431-9440; 
facsimile 760/431-9624).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The endangered Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) is 
a small aquatic crustacean (Order: Anostraca) that occurs in vernal 
pools, pool-like ephemeral ponds, and human-modified depressions from 
coastal southern California south to northwestern Baja California, 
Mexico. This species is typically found in pools, ponds, and 
depressions that are deeper than the basins that support the endangered 
San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) (Hathaway and 
Simovich 1996). Water chemistry, depth, temperature, and ponding are 
considered important factors in determining fairy shrimp distribution 
(Belk 1977; Branchiopod Research Group 1996; Gonzales et al. 1996); 
hence, no individuals have been found in riverine or marine waters.
    The Riverside fairy shrimp was first collected in 1979 by C.H. 
Eriksen and was identified as a new species in 1985 (Eng et al. 1990). 
Mature males are between 13 and 25 millimeters (mm) (0.5 to 1.0 inches 
(in.)) long. The cercopods (structures that enhance the rudder-like 
function of the abdomen) are separate with plumose setae (feathery 
bristles) along the borders. Mature females are between about 13 to 22 
mm (0.5 to 0.87 in.) in total length. The brood pouch extends to the 
seventh, eighth, or ninth abdominal segment. The cercopods of females 
are the same as the males. Both sexes of Riverside fairy shrimp have 
the red color of the cercopods covering all of the ninth abdominal 
segment and 30 to 40 percent of the eighth abdominal segment. Nearly 
all species of fairy shrimp feed on algae, bacteria, protozoa, 
rotifers, and bits of organic matter (Pennak 1989; Eng et al. 1990).
    Basins that support Riverside fairy shrimp are typically dry a 
portion of the year, but usually are filled by late fall, winter, or 
spring rains, and may persist into April or May. All anostracans, 
including the Riverside fairy shrimp, deposit eggs or cysts (organisms 
in a resting stage) in the pool's soil to wait out dry periods. The 
hatching of the cysts usually occurs from January to March. The species 
hatches within 7 to 21 days after the pool refills, depending on water 
temperature, and matures between 48 to 56 days, depending on a variety 
of habitat conditions (Hathaway and Simovich 1996). The ``resting'' or 
``summer'' cysts are capable of withstanding temperature extremes and 
prolonged drying. When the pools refill in the same or subsequent rainy 
seasons, some but not all of the eggs may hatch. Fairy shrimp egg banks 
in the soil may be composed of the eggs from several years of breeding 
(Donald 1983; Simovich and Hathaway 1997). Simovich and Hathaway (1997) 
found that only a fraction of the total cyst bank of anostracans in 
areas with variable weather conditions or filling periods, such as 
southern California, may hatch in any given year. Thus, reproductive 
success is spread over several seasons.
    Vernal pools are discontinuously distributed in several regions of 
California (Keeler-Wolf et al. 1995), from as far north as the Modoc 
Plateau in Modoc County, south to the international border with Mexico 
in San Diego County. Vernal pools form in regions with Mediterranean 
climates, where shallow depressions fill with water during fall and 
winter rains and then evaporate in the spring (Collie and Lathrop 1976; 
Holland 1976, 1988; Thorne 1984; Zedler 1987; Simovich and Hathaway 
1997). In years of high precipitation, overbank flooding from 
intermittent streams may augment the amount of water in some vernal 
pools (Hanes et al. 1990). Vernal pool studies indicate that the 
contribution of subsurface or overland water flows only contribute to 
volume to vernal pools in years of high precipitation when pools are 
already saturated (Hanes and Stromberg 1996) which may promote genetic 
exchange with the transfer of cysts and adults between pools.
    Critical to the formation of vernal pools is the presence of nearly 
impermeable surface or subsurface soil layers and flat or gently 
sloping topography (less than 10 percent slope). Downward percolation 
of water in vernal pool basins is prevented by the presence of this 
impervious layer (Holland 1976, 1988). In southern California, these 
impervious layers are typically alluvial materials with clay or clay 
loam subsoils, and they often form a distinctive micro-relief known as 
Gilgai or mima mound topography (Cox 1984). Basaltic or granitic 
substrates (e.g., Hidden Lake and Santa Rosa Plateau in Riverside 
County) or indurated hardpan layers (e.g., coastal San Diego County) 
may contribute to poor drainage as well. Vernal pool studies conducted 
in the Sacramento Valley indicate that the contribution of subsurface 
or overland water flows is significant only in years of high 
precipitation when pools are already saturated (Hanes and Stromberg 
1996).

[[Page 29385]]

    On the coastal terraces in San Diego County, pools are associated 
with the Huerhuero, Stockpen, Redding, and Olivenhain soil series. 
Huerhuero and Stockpen soils were derived from marine sediments and 
terraces, while the Redding and Olivenhain soils series were formed 
from alluvium. The Redding and Olivenhain soils are believed to have 
supported the majority of the pools historically found in San Diego 
County. In Riverside County, the Santa Rosa Plateau has Murrieta stony 
clay loams and soils of the Las Posas series (Lathrop and Thorne 1976), 
and at Skunk Hollow the soils in the immediate area of the vernal pool 
are Las Posas clay loam, Wyman clay loam, and Willows soil (Service 
1998).
    Vernal pool systems are often characterized by different landscape 
features including mima mound (miniature mounds) micro-topography, 
varied pool basin size and depth, and vernal swales (low tract of 
marshy land). Vernal pool complexes that support one or more vernal 
pools are often interconnected by a shared watershed. This habitat 
heterogeneity (consisting of dissimilar elements or parts) may allow 
between-pool water flow, as well as fairy shrimp cysts, particularly 
during years of high rainfall.
    Urban and water development, flood control, highway and utility 
projects, as well as conversion of wildlands to agricultural use, have 
eliminated or degraded vernal pools and/or their watersheds in southern 
California (Jones and Stokes Associates 1987). Changes in hydrologic 
patterns, certain military activities, unauthorized fills, overgrazing, 
and off-road vehicle use also may imperil this aquatic habitat and the 
Riverside fairy shrimp. The flora and fauna in vernal pools or swales 
can change if the hydrologic regime is altered (Bauder 1986). 
Anthropogenic (human origin) activities that reduce the extent of the 
watershed or that alter runoff patterns (i.e., amounts and seasonal 
distribution of water) may eliminate the Riverside fairy shrimp, reduce 
population sizes or reproductive success, or shift the location of 
sites inhabited by this species. The introduction of non-native plant 
species, competition with invading species, trash dumping, fire, and 
fire suppression activities were some of the reasons for listing the 
Riverside fairy shrimp as endangered on August 3, 1993 (58 FR 4138). 
Because of these threats, we anticipate that intensive long-term 
monitoring and management will be needed to conserve this species.
    Historically, vernal pool soils covered approximately 500 square 
kilometers (km<SUP>2</SUP>) (200 square miles (mi<SUP>2</SUP>)) of San 
Diego County (Bauder and McMillan 1998). The greatest recent losses of 
vernal pool habitat in San Diego County have occurred in Mira Mesa, 
Rancho Penasquitos, and Kearny Mesa, which account for 73 percent of 
all the pools destroyed in the region during the 7-year period between 
1979 and 1986 (Keeler-Wolf et al. 1995). Other substantial losses have 
occurred in the Otay Mesa area, where over 40 percent of the vernal 
pools were destroyed between 1979 and 1990. Similar to San Diego 
County, vernal pool habitat was once extensive on the coastal plain of 
Los Angeles and Orange counties. Unfortunately, there has been a near-
total loss of vernal pool habitat in these areas (Ferren and Pritchett 
1988; Keeler-Wolf et al. 1995; Mattoni and Longcore 1997; Service 
1998). Significant losses of vernal pools supporting this species have 
also occurred in Riverside County.

Previous Federal Action

    The San Gorgonio chapter of the Sierra Club submitted a petition 
dated September 19, 1988, to list the Riverside fairy shrimp as 
endangered. The petitioner asserted that emergency listing for this 
species was appropriate. However, we determined that emergency listing 
was not warranted since the species was more widespread than first 
thought and occurred in at least one protected site. Nevertheless, we 
did publish a proposed rule to list the Riverside fairy shrimp as an 
endangered species in the Federal Register on November 12, 1991 (56 FR 
57503). Because the species was not identified until 1985, and its 
existence remained known only to a few scientists until 1988, the 
proposed rule constituted the first Federal action on the Riverside 
fairy shrimp. We published the final rule to list the Riverside fairy 
shrimp as endangered in the Federal Register on August 3, 1993 (58 FR 
41384). In 1998, the Vernal Pools of Southern California Recovery Plan 
(Recovery Plan) (Service 1998) was finalized. This Recovery Plan 
detailed the efforts required to meet the recovery needs of the 
Riverside fairy shrimp.
    On June 30, 1999, the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity 
filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court for the Northern District of 
California for our failure to designate critical habitat for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp. On February 15, 2000, we entered into a 
settlement agreement with the plaintiff (Southwest Center for 
Biodiversity v. United States Department of the Interior et al., C99-
3202 SC). Under this settlement agreement, a final determination of 
critical habitat was to be completed by May 1, 2001. Subsequently, the 
plaintiffs agreed to our request to extend this deadline until May 22, 
2001.
    At the time of listing, we concluded that designation of critical 
habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp was not prudent because such 
designation would not benefit the species. We were concerned that 
critical habitat designation would likely increase the degree of threat 
from vandalism, collecting, or other human activities. We believed that 
the publication of maps showing critical habitat units would result in 
additional habitat destruction through trampling, discing, grading, and 
intentional acts of habitat vandalism. Although we acknowledged that 
critical habitat designation may identify and call attention to areas 
important for conservation or requiring special protection, we 
concluded that the vandalism threat posed by designating critical 
habitat would outweigh these benefits.
    Subsequently, in the course of working with local partners, 
planning for conservation and management of the Riverside fairy shrimp, 
responding to several Freedom of Information Act requests, and 
publishing the Vernal Pools of Southern California Recovery Plan 
(Service 1998), information about the locations of vernal pools, vernal 
pool complexes, and occurrences of Riverside fairy shrimp were widely 
distributed to the public. Since the release of these data, we have not 
documented an increase in the threats to the species through vandalism, 
collection, habitat destruction, or other means. The instances of 
likely vandalism, though real, were relatively isolated. In contrast, 
we have observed an increase in public interest in the subspecies and 
its conservation through survey efforts by species experts, scientific 
research, regional and local planning, and educational outreach. Based 
on the lack of an increase in vandalism threats, we have determined 
that the threats to the Riverside fairy shrimp and its vernal pool 
habitat from the specific instances of habitat destruction we 
identified in the final listing rule do not outweigh the broader 
educational, regulatory, and other possible benefits that a designation 
of critical habitat would provide for this subspecies. Specifically, 
the potential benefits include: (1) Triggering section 7 consultation 
in areas where it may not otherwise occur because, for example, the 
area becomes unoccupied; (2) focusing conservation activities in the 
most essential areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or 
county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from 
causing inadvertent harm to this subspecies.

[[Page 29386]]

Therefore, we have determined that designation of critical habitat for 
the Riverside fairy shrimp is prudent.
    The proposed rule designating critical habitat for the Riverside 
fairy shrimp was published on September 21, 2000 (65 FR 57136). In the 
proposal, we determined that it was prudent to designate approximately 
4,880 hectares (ha) (12,060 acres (ac)) of lands in Los Angeles, 
Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and Ventura counties as critical habitat. 
The publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day public comment 
period, which closed on November 20, 2000. On February 28, 2001, we 
published a notice announcing the reopening of the comment period on 
the proposal to designate critical habitat for the Riverside fairy 
shrimp, and a notice of availability of the draft economic analysis on 
the proposed determination (66 FR 12754). This second public comment 
period closed on March 30, 2001.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the 
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations 
or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are 
necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at 
which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on 
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. In our regulations at 50 CFR 
402.02, we define destruction or adverse modification as ``* * * a 
direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of 
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed 
species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations 
adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features that 
were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.'' Aside from 
the added protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does 
not provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical 
habitat. Because consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply 
to activities on private or other non-Federal lands that do not involve 
a Federal nexus, critical habitat designation would not afford any 
additional protections under the Act against such activities.
    To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must 
first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide 
essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are 
found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 
424.12(b)).
    Section 4 requires that we designate critical habitat at the time 
of listing and based on what we know at the time of the designation. 
When we designate critical habitat at the time of listing or under 
short court-ordered deadlines, we will often not have sufficient 
information to identify all areas of critical habitat. We are required, 
nevertheless, to make a decision and, thus, must base our designations 
on what, at the time of designation, we know to be critical habitat.
    Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we will 
designate only areas currently known to be essential. Essential areas 
should already have the features and habitat characteristics that are 
necessary to sustain the species. We will not speculate about what 
areas might be found to be essential if better information became 
available, or what areas may become essential over time. If the 
information available at the time of designation does not show that an 
area provides essential life cycle needs of the species, then the area 
should not be included in the critical habitat designation. Within the 
geographic area occupied by the species, we will not designate areas 
that do not now have the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 
CFR 424.12(b), that provide essential life cycle needs of the species.
    Our regulations state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as 
critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied 
by the species only when a designation limited to its present range 
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species'' (50 CFR 
424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific and 
commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the 
species require designation of critical habitat outside of occupied 
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographic area occupied by the species.
    Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species 
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), 
provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides guidance to 
ensure that decisions we make are based upon the best scientific and 
commercial data available. It requires Service biologists, to the 
extent consistent with the Act, to use primary and original sources of 
information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat. When determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary 
source of information should be the listing package for the species. 
Additional information may be obtained from a recovery plan, articles 
in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and 
counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological 
assessments, unpublished materials, and expert opinion or personal 
knowledge.
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of 
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may 
eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the 
species. For these reasons, all should understand that critical habitat 
designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is 
unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Areas outside the 
critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to 
conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) and 
to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard and the section 9 take prohibition, as determined on the basis 
of the best available information at the time of the action. We 
specifically anticipate that federally funded or assisted projects 
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat 
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, 
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or 
other species conservation planning efforts if new information 
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

    In determining areas that are essential to conserve the Riverside 
fairy shrimp,

[[Page 29387]]

we used the best scientific and commercial data available. These 
included data from research and survey observations published in peer-
reviewed articles, recovery criteria outlined in the Recovery Plan for 
Vernal Pools of Southern California (Recovery Plan) (Service 1998), 
regional Geographic Information System (GIS) vegetation and species 
coverages (including layers for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San 
Diego counties), data collected on U.S. Marine Corps Air Station 
Miramar (Miramar) and U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (Camp 
Pendleton), and data collected from reports submitted by biologists 
holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits. In addition, information 
provided in comments on the proposed designation and draft economic 
analysis were evaluated and considered in the development of this final 
designation.
    As stated earlier, Riverside fairy shrimp occur in ephemeral pools 
and ponds that may not be present throughout a given year or from year 
to year. Therefore, critical habitat includes a mosaic of vernal pools, 
ponds, and depressions currently supporting Riverside fairy shrimp and 
vernal pool vegetation. One area has been included in which the current 
occupancy by Riverside fairy shrimp is not known, but which contains 
the primary constituent elements for the species and is considered 
essential to its conservation.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to designate as critical 
habitat, we are required to consider those physical and biological 
features (primary constituent elements) that are essential to the 
conservation of the species, and that may require special management 
considerations or protection. These features include, but are not 
limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior; food, water, or other nutritional or physiological 
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding and reproduction; 
and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative 
of the historic and ecological distributions of a species.
    The primary constituent elements for the Riverside fairy shrimp are 
those habitat components that are essential for the primary biological 
needs of foraging, sheltering, reproduction, and dispersal. These 
primary constituent elements are found in areas that support vernal 
pools or other ephemeral ponds and depressions and their associated 
watersheds. The primary constituent elements are: small to large pools 
with moderate to deep depths that hold water for sufficient lengths of 
time necessary for Riverside fairy shrimp incubation and reproduction, 
but not necessarily every year; the associated watershed(s) and other 
hydrologic features that support pool basins and their related pool 
complexes; flat or gently sloping topography; and any soil type with a 
clay component and/or an impermeable surface or subsurface layer known 
to support vernal pool habitat. All designated critical habitat areas 
contain one or more of the primary constituent elements for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    In an effort to map areas essential to the conservation of the 
species, we used data on known Riverside fairy shrimp locations and 
those vernal pools and vernal pool complexes that were identified in 
the Recovery Plan (Service 1998) as essential for the recovery of the 
species, aerial photography at a scale of 1:24,000 (comparable to the 
scale of a 7.5 minute U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle topographic 
map), current aerial photography prints, and boundaries of approved 
habitat conservation plans (HCPs). We then evaluated those areas based 
on soil types, the hydrology, watershed, and topographic features 
including local variation of topographic position (i.e., coastal mesas 
or inland valleys). Following this evaluation, a 250-meter (m) (0.16 
mile (mi)) Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid was overlaid on top 
of those vernal pool complexes and their associated watersheds to 
describe the unit boundaries more precisely. Each unit of the grid was 
evaluated to determine whether it was appropriate to include in the 
critical habitat designation. The critical habitat units designated 
using this technique encompass either individual vernal pool basins or 
vernal pool complexes and provide additional assurances that watersheds 
and hydrologic processes are captured and maintained for this species. 
In those cases where occupied vernal pools were not specifically mapped 
in the Recovery Plan (Service 1998), we relied on recent scientific 
data to update the map coverage. For the purpose of this final 
determination, critical habitat units have been described using UTM 
coordinates derived from a 250-m (0.16-mi) grid that approximated the 
boundaries delineated from the digital aerial photography.
    We could not depend solely on federally owned lands for critical 
habitat designation as these lands are limited in geographic location, 
size, and habitat quality within the current range of the Riverside 
fairy shrimp. In addition to the federally owned lands, we are 
designating critical habitat on non-Federal public lands and privately 
owned lands. All non-Federal lands designated as critical habitat meet 
the definition of critical habitat under section 3 of the Act in that 
they are within the geographical area occupied by the species, are 
essential to the conservation of the species, and may require special 
management considerations or protection. The long-term survival and 
conservation of Riverside fairy shrimp is dependent upon the protection 
and management of existing occurrences, and the maintenance of 
ecological functions within these areas.
    In defining critical habitat boundaries, we made an effort to 
exclude all developed areas, such as towns or housing developments, or 
other lands unlikely to contain the primary constituent elements 
essential for conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp. Our 250-m 
(0.16 mi) UTM grid minimum mapping unit was designed to minimize the 
amount of development along the urban edge included in our designation. 
Existing features and structures, such as buildings, roads, railroads, 
urban development, and other such developed features not containing 
primary constituent elements, are not considered critical habitat. 
Federal actions limited to these areas would not trigger a section 7 
consultation, unless they affect the species and/or the primary 
constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
    Lands designated as critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp 
are considered to be occupied by the species with the exception of 12 
ha (30 ac) within critical habitat Unit 2 in which the occupancy by the 
Riverside fairy shrimp is not known. The lands in which the occupancy 
is not known contain the primary constituent elements for the species, 
have been determined to be essential to the conservation of the 
species, and are under consideration as a reestablishment site, if the 
species does not occur there. Refer to the description for Unit 2 for 
our justification as to why this location is essential to the 
conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp.

Critical Habitat Designation

    The areas we are designating as critical habitat currently provide 
all of those habitat components necessary to meet the primary 
biological needs of the

[[Page 29388]]

Riverside fairy shrimp, as described in the Recovery Plan (Service 
1998), and defined by the primary constituent elements. The approximate 
area encompassing designated critical habitat by county and land 
ownership is shown in Table 1. Critical habitat for the Riverside fairy 
shrimp includes approximately 2,790 ha (6,870 ac) in Los Angeles, 
Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Ventura counties, California, and is 
based on the geographic location of vernal pools, soil types, and local 
variation of topographic position (i.e., coastal mesas or inland 
valleys). Lands proposed are under private, State, and Federal 
ownership and divided into five critical habitat units. A brief 
description of each unit, and reasons for designating it as critical 
habitat, are presented below.

                               Table 1.--Approximate Area Encompassing Designated Critical Habitat in Hectares (ha) (Acres (ac)) by County and Land Ownership \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               County                              Federal land                         Local/state land                         Private land                              Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles.........................  0 ha (0 ac)..........................  0 ha (0 ac)..........................  195 ha (480 ac)......................  195 ha (480 ac)
Orange..............................  45 ha (110 ac).......................  5 ha (10 ac).........................  315 ha (780 ac)......................  365 ha (900 ac)
Riverside...........................  0 ha (0 ac)..........................  755 ha (1,865 ac)....................  1,005 ha (2,490 ac)..................  1,760 ha (4,355 ac)
San Diego...........................  320 ha (770 ac)......................  0 ha (0 ac)..........................  125 ha (305 ac)......................  445 ha (1,075 ac)
Ventura.............................  0 ha (0 ac)..........................  0 ha (0 ac)..........................  25 ha (60 ac)........................  25 ha (60 ac)
                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................  365 ha (880 ac)......................  760 ha (1,875 ac)....................  1,665 ha (4,115 ac)..................  2,790 ha (6,870 ac)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Approximate hectares have been converted to acres (1 ha = 2.471 ac). Based on the level of imprecision of mapping at this scale, approximate hectares and acres have been rounded to the
  nearest 5.

Map Unit 1: Transverse Range Critical Habitat Unit, Ventura and Los 
Angeles counties, California (144 Ha (355 Ac))

    The Transverse Range critical habitat unit includes the vernal pool 
habitat that is known to be occupied by the Riverside fairy shrimp and 
associated essential watershed which helps maintain the integrity and 
water quality of the vernal pool. These vernal pools are located at 
Cruzan Mesa, Los Angeles County, and the former Carlsberg Ranch, 
Ventura County. All lands designated within this unit are on private 
lands. These vernal pools represent the northern limit of occupied 
habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp and may have genetic 
characteristics essential to the overall long-term conservation of the 
species (i.e., they may be genetically different from more centrally 
located populations) (Lesica and Allendorf 1995). Additionally, these 
vernal pools are the last remaining vernal pools in Los Angeles and 
Ventura counties known to support this species. The Recovery Plan for 
the Vernal Pools of Southern California (Service 1998) indicates that 
the conservation of the vernal pool habitat and associated watershed in 
this unit is essential to allow for the maintenance and recovery of the 
populations of Riverside fairy shrimp in Los Angeles and Ventura 
counties.

Map Unit 2: Los Angeles Basin-Orange Management Area, Los Angeles and 
Orange counties, California. (437 Ha (1,080 Ac))

    The Los Angeles coastal prairie unit includes an approximately 13 
ha (30 ac) area within and adjacent to the El Segundo Blue Butterfly 
Preserve, west of Pershing Drive at the Los Angeles International 
Airport that contains vernal pool habitat and its associated watershed 
essential to the conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp. This area 
is, however, not known to be occupied by the Riverside fairy shrimp. 
This unit is the only suitable remnant of vernal pool habitat (vernal 
pool basin and its associated essential watershed) located within the 
historical coastal prairie landscape, which formerly extended from 
Playa del Rey south to the Palos Verdes Peninsula, an area of 
approximately 96 km<SUP>2</SUP> (37 mi<SUP>2</SUP>). This landscape 
historically included the federally endangered California Orcutt grass 
(Orcuttia californica) and San Diego button-celery (Eryngium 
aristulatum var. parishii). This unit also supports versatile fairy 
shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli) and western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus 
hammondii). Riverside fairy shrimp cysts were first collected east of 
Pershing Drive in 1997, but adult shrimp have not been found to date, 
likely due to the extensive disturbance to the landscape, including the 
introduction of fill material, changes in water chemistry, modification 
of the watersheds, and the resulting shortened duration of water 
ponding. We are not designating the area east of Pershing Drive due to 
the extensive alteration of the habitat that has occurred. However, we 
are designating the area west of Pershing Drive as critical habitat 
because it contains vernal pool habitat essential for the conservation 
of the Riverside fairy shrimp. Considering the extensive habitat 
available, populations of Riverside fairy shrimp in this region were 
likely robust and formed the core population between the Cruzan Mesa 
and Carlsberg Ranch pools (Unit 1), at the northern end of the range of 
the species, and the pool groups in central and southern Orange County. 
Conservation of the area west of Pershing Drive is necessary for the 
recovery of an isolated, formerly robust population that may have 
genetic characteristics important to the overall long-term conservation 
of the species.
    In Orange County, this critical habitat unit includes the vernal 
pools and vernal pool-like ephemeral ponds and essential watershed 
lands at the Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, Chiquita Ridge, Tijeras 
Creek, Viejo parcel, Saddleback Meadows, and along the southern Orange 
County foothills. These vernal pool habitats are the last remaining 
vernal pools in Orange County known to support this species (58 FR 
41384). The Orange County vernal pool habitat and essential associated 
watershed represent the vast majority of Riverside fairy shrimp habitat 
within this critical habitat unit. In addition, the Orange County pools 
represent a remnant complex of pools and vernal pool habitat unique to 
the Riverside fairy shrimp in southern Orange County. The Riverside 
fairy shrimp habitat in Orange County is geographically distinct from 
other pools within the species' range and is essential to the overall 
long-term conservation of the species. Therefore, as indicated in the 
Recovery Plan for the Vernal Pools of Southern California (Service 
1998), the conservation of these vernal pools and their associated 
watersheds is essential to reduce the risk of extinction through random 
and natural events to Riverside fairy shrimp populations in Orange 
County and throughout its current range.

[[Page 29389]]

Map Unit 3: Western Riverside County Critical Habitat Unit, Riverside 
County, California (1,762 Ha (4,355 Ac))

    The western Riverside County critical habitat unit includes the 
vernal pool basins and associated essential watersheds on the Santa 
Rosa Plateau and in Murrieta. These vernal pools and pool complexes 
represent the eastern limit of occupied Riverside fairy shrimp habitat, 
unique vernal pool habitat, and may have genetic characteristics 
important to the overall long-term conservation of the species (i.e., 
they may be genetically different from more centrally located 
populations) (Lesica and Allendorf 1995). Pools within this unit also 
support the federally endangered California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia 
californica) and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). These 
pools and their associated watersheds are essential for the 
conservation and recovery of the Riverside fairy shrimp as indicated in 
the Recovery Plan (Service 1998). This unit includes two of the five 
remaining populations of Riverside fairy shrimp in Riverside County. A 
third population, Skunk Hollow, is protected as part of an approved 
mitigation bank that is within the Rancho Bella Vista HCP area and as 
part of the conservation measures contained in the Assessment District 
161 Subregional HCP. Of the remaining two vernal complexes containing 
Riverside fairy shrimp, one complex consists of a series of stock ponds 
in which the Riverside fairy shrimp was discovered after the 
publication of the proposed critical habitat designation. The other 
complex, which includes a basin (one of a series) adjacent to Lake 
Elsinore in which the Riverside fairy shrimp was found, was not 
identified as essential in the Recovery Plan and was, therefore, not 
included in this critical habitat designation.

Map Unit 4: North San Diego County Critical Habitat Unit, San Diego 
County, California (372 Ha (920 Ac))

    The north San Diego County critical habitat unit includes essential 
vernal pool habitat and associated watersheds at Marine Corps Base Camp 
Pendleton and one pool complex within the City of Carlsbad. This unit 
encompasses approximately 312 ha (770 ac) in non-training areas within 
Camp Pendleton. These include pool complexes and lands within the 
associated watersheds in the Wire Mountain Housing Area, within the 
Cockleburr Sensitive Area, and lands leased to the State of California 
and included within San Onofre State Park. The Recovery Plan (Service 
1998) includes these pool complexes and their watersheds within the San 
Diego North Coastal Mesas Management Areas. This critical habitat unit 
is included in the designation because the vernal pool habitat and 
associated watersheds on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton represent one 
of the largest populations of the Riverside fairy shrimp and vernal 
pool habitat in southern California. These parcels of land are being 
designated as critical habitat because they represent unique vernal 
pool habitat and are essential to the long-term conservation of the 
Riverside fairy shrimp as identified in the Recovery Plan (Service 
1998).
    Within the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, one vernal pool 
complex is located at the Poinsettia Lane train station. This complex 
and its watershed are associated with a remnant parcel of coastal 
terrace habitat. These lands contain unique vernal pool habitat and are 
essential to the conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp in northern 
San Diego County, as indicated in the Recovery Plan (Service 1998).

Map Unit 5: South San Diego County Critical Habitat Unit, San Diego 
County, California (63 Ha (155 Ac))

    In the proposed rule (65 FR 57136), we had six units and this unit 
was known as unit 6. However, we deleted proposed unit 5 (Marine Corps 
Air Station, Miramar) from the final rule, so this unit has changed 
from unit 6 to unit 5.
    The South San Diego County critical habitat unit is composed of 
private and Federal lands and includes the ephemeral basin and its 
associated watershed along the United States-Mexico border. This 
ephemeral basin is on Federal lands (Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS)) and represents the southern limit of occupied habitat 
for the Riverside fairy shrimp in the United States. This basin is 
identified in the Recovery Plan (Service 1998) as necessary for the 
conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp in southern San Diego County 
by providing the remnant vernal pool habitat unique to this species. 
The protection provided through the designation of critical habitat 
will assist in the recovery efforts identified in the Recovery Plan.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7  Consultation

    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do 
not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat to the extent that the 
action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for the 
survival and recovery of the species. Individuals, organizations, 
States, local governments, and other non-Federal entities are affected 
by the designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on 
Federal lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other 
authorization, or involve Federal funding.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is 
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its 
critical habitat, if any is designated or proposed. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies 
to confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Conference reports 
provide conservation recommendations to assist the action agency in 
eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The 
conservation recommendations in a conference report are advisory. We 
may issue a formal conference report, if requested by the Federal 
action agency. Formal conference reports include an opinion that is 
prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species was listed or 
critical habitat designated. We may adopt the formal conference report 
as the biological opinion when the species is listed or critical 
habitat designated, if no substantial new information or changes in the 
action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they 
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, we 
would ensure that the permitted actions do not destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the 
project, if any are identifiable. ``Reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions 
identified during consultation that can be

[[Page 29390]]

implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the 
action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's 
legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and 
technologically feasible, and that the Director believes would avoid 
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Reasonable 
and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to 
extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with 
implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly 
variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical 
habitat is subsequently designated, and the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law. 
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of 
consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal 
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated 
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical 
habitat.
    Activities on Federal lands that may affect the Riverside fairy 
shrimp or its critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. 
Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal 
agency, such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps 
of Engineers) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a section 
10(a)(1)(B) permit from the Service, or some other Federal action, 
including funding (e.g., Federal Highway Administration, Federal 
Aviation Administration, or Federal Emergency Management Agency), will 
also continue to be subject to the section 7 consultation process. 
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat and 
actions on non-Federal lands that are not federally funded, authorized, 
or permitted do not require section 7 consultation.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation. Activities that destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat include those that appreciably reduce the value of critical 
habitat for both the survival and recovery of the Riverside fairy 
shrimp. We note that such activities may also jeopardize the continued 
existence of the species.
    To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we 
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may 
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may 
affect a listed species. Section 7 prohibits actions funded, 
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the 
continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying the listed species' critical habitat. Actions likely to 
``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a species are those that 
would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and 
recovery, and actions likely to ``destroy or adversely modify'' 
critical habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the value of 
critical habitat for the survival and recovery of the listed species.
    Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on 
both survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of 
these definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species 
concerned, particularly when the area of the proposed action is 
occupied by the species concerned. Therefore, designation of critical 
habitat in areas occupied by the Riverside fairy shrimp is not likely 
to result in a regulatory burden above that already in place due to the 
presence of the listed species.
    Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas 
occupied by the species to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize 
the continued existence of the species. These actions include, but are 
not limited to:
    (1) Any activity, including the regulation of activities by the 
Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the CWA or activities carried 
out by or licensed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, that 
could alter the watershed, water quality or quantity to an extent that 
water quality becomes unsuitable to support Riverside fairy shrimp, or 
any activity that significantly affects the natural hydrologic function 
of the vernal pool system and/or ephemeral pond or depression;
    (2) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation, 
and regulation of agricultural activities, or any activity funded or 
carried out by the Department of Transportation or Department of 
Agriculture that results in discharge of dredged or fill material, 
excavation, or mechanized land clearing of ephemeral and/or vernal pool 
basins;
    (3) Regulation of airport improvement or maintenance activities by 
the Federal Aviation Administration;
    (4) Military training and maneuvers on Camp Pendleton and Miramar, 
and other applicable Department of Defense (DOD) lands;
    (5) Construction of roads and fences along the international border 
with Mexico, and associated immigration enforcement activities by the 
INS; and
    (6) Licensing of construction of communication sites by the Federal 
Communications Commission.
    Any of the above activities that appreciably diminish the value of 
critical habitat to the degree that they affect the survival and 
recovery of the Riverside fairy shrimp may be considered an adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We note that such activities may also 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
    All lands designated as critical habitat are within the current 
geographic range of the Riverside fairy shrimp, and are occupied by the 
species, and/or are likely to be used by the species, whether for 
foraging, breeding, growth of larvae, dispersal, migration, genetic 
exchange, and sheltering, with the exception of the lands within Unit 
2. Lands within Unit 2 are not currently known to be occupied by the 
Riverside fairy shrimp. Federal agencies already consult with us on 
activities in areas currently occupied by the species, or if the 
species or vernal pool habitat may be affected by the action, to ensure 
that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species. Thus, we do not anticipate significant additional regulatory 
protection or burden will result from this critical habitat 
designation.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the Field 
Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). 
Requests for copies of the regulations on listed wildlife, and 
inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species, 911 NE. 11th 
Ave, Portland, OR 97232 (telephone 503/231-2063; facsimile 503/231-
6243).

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Military Lands

Exclusions Under Section 3(5)(A)
    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) requires each 
military installation that includes land and water suitable for the 
conservation and management of natural resources to complete, by 
November 17, 2001, an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 
(INRMP). An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of 
the installation with

[[Page 29391]]

stewardship of the natural resources found there. Each INRMP includes 
an assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, including 
needs to provide for the conservation of listed species; a statement of 
goals and priorities; a detailed description of management actions to 
be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and a monitoring 
and adaptive management plan. We consult with the military on the 
development and implementation of INRMPs for installations with listed 
species. We believe that habitat on bases that have completed and 
approved INRMPs that address the needs of the species generally do not 
meet the definition of critical habitat discussed above, as they 
require no additional special management or protection.
    Therefore, we do not include these areas in critical habitat 
designations if they meet the following three criteria: (1) A current 
INRMP must be complete and provide sufficient conservation benefit to 
the species, (2) the plan must provide assurances that the conservation 
management strategies will be implemented, and (3) the plan must 
provide assurances that the conservation management strategies will be 
effective, by providing for periodic monitoring and revisions as 
necessary. If all of these criteria are met, then the lands covered 
under the plan would not meet the definition of critical habitat.
    We evaluated INRMPs for DOD land that was within the proposed 
critical habitat to determine whether any INRMPs met the special 
management criteria. To date, Miramar is the only DOD installation that 
has completed a final INRMP that provides for sufficient conservation 
management and protection for vernal pools and the Riverside fairy 
shrimp. We reviewed this plan and determined that it addresses and 
meets the three criteria. Therefore, lands on Miramar (proposed 
Critical Habitat Unit 5) do not meet the definition of critical 
habitat, and they have not been included in this final designation of 
critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp.
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
    Subsection 4(b)(2) of the Act allows us to exclude areas from 
critical habitat designation where the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of designation, provided the exclusion will not result in 
the extinction of the species. We have considered whether it is 
appropriate to exclude any DOD lands under section 4(b)(2).
    In contrast to Miramar, Camp Pendleton has not yet completed their 
INRMP. Camp Pendleton has several substantial vernal pool complexes 
that support the Riverside fairy shrimp and are essential to the 
conservation of the species. In light of these factors, we proposed 
2,295 ha (5,670 ac) on Camp Pendleton as critical habitat for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp.
    The INRMP for Camp Pendleton will be completed by the statutory 
deadline of November 17, 2001. We will consult with the Marines under 
section 7 of the Act on the development and implementation of the 
INRMP. We fully expect that, once the INRMP is completed and approved, 
areas of Camp Pendleton included in the proposed critical habitat 
designation will not meet the definition of critical habitat, as they 
will require no additional special management or protection.
    To date, as the INRMP for Camp Pendleton has not yet been completed 
and approved, these lands meet the definition of critical habitat. 
Nevertheless, we have determined that it is appropriate to exclude 
training areas on Camp Pendleton from this critical habitat designation 
under section 4(b)(2). The main benefit of this exclusion is ensuring 
that the mission-critical military training activities can continue 
without interruption at Camp Pendleton while the INRMP is being 
completed. On March 30, 2000, at the request of the Marines, we 
initiated formal consultation with Camp Pendleton on their upland 
activities. These activities include military training, maintenance, 
fire management, real estate, and recreation programs. Upon completion, 
this consultation will address the 93 percent of that base not included 
in our 1995 opinion concerning their programmatic conservation plan for 
riparian and estuarine/beach ecosystems (Service 1995). Because of the 
immense complexity of dealing with a multitude of hard-to-define upland 
activities and numerous federally listed plants and animals, the 
consultation has been extended and is on-going.
    The proposed critical habitat designation included about 2,295 ha 
(5,670 ac), or about 10 percent of the base. If critical habitat is 
designated within the training areas on Camp Pendleton for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp, the Marines believe they would be compelled to 
significantly curtail necessary training within the area designated as 
critical habitat, to the detriment of mission-critical training 
capability, until the consultation is concluded. As a result, the Camp 
Pendleton's utility as a Marine training site could be limited.
    In contrast, the benefits of designating critical habitat within 
the training areas on Camp Pendleton now are small. The primary benefit 
of designation is the prohibition on destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat under section 7 of the Act. However, 
we believe that section 7 consultation on any proposed action on Camp 
Pendleton that would result in an adverse modification conclusion would 
also result in a jeopardy conclusion, and we are now engaged in formal 
consultation with the Marines on their activities in vernal pool 
habitat on the base. In addition, the Marines have a statutory 
obligation under the Sikes Act to complete an INRMP for Camp Pendleton. 
As noted above, we expect that, when completed and adopted, this INRMP 
will provide equal or greater protection to Riverside fairy shrimp 
habitat on Camp Pendleton than a critical habitat designation.
    We conclude that the benefits of excluding training areas on Camp 
Pendleton exceed the benefits of including them in the critical habitat 
designation. Further, we have determined that excluding the training 
areas will not result in the extinction of the Riverside fairy shrimp, 
as sufficient vernal pools remain within the final critical habitat 
designation, and sections 7(a)(2) and 9 of the Act still apply to the 
activities affecting Riverside fairy shrimp on Camp Pendleton. This 
exclusion does not apply to the vernal pool complexes in the Wire 
Mountain Housing Area, within the Cockleburr Sensitive Area, and lands 
leased to the State of California and included within San Onofre State 
Park. Because these lands are used minimally, if at all, by the Marines 
for training, the 312 ha (770 ac) of lands proposed on Camp Pendleton 
and within the San Onofre State Park are retained in the final 
designation.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Habitat Conservation Plans

    Subsection 4(b)(2) of the Act allows us to exclude areas from 
critical habitat designation where the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of designation, provided the exclusion will not result in 
the extinction of the species. For the following reasons, we believe 
that in most instances the benefits of excluding legally operative 
HCPs, for which the Riverside fairy shrimp is a covered species and 
take has been authorized, will outweigh the benefits of including them.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
    The benefits of including HCP lands in critical habitat are 
normally small. The principal benefit of any designated critical 
habitat is that activities in such

[[Page 29392]]

habitat that may affect it require consultation under section 7 of the 
Act. Such consultation would ensure that adequate protection is 
provided to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat. Where HCPs 
are in place, our experience indicates that this benefit is small or 
non-existent. Currently approved and permitted HCPs are already 
designed to ensure the long-term survival of covered species within the 
plan area. Where we have an approved HCP, lands that we ordinarily 
would define as critical habitat for covered species will normally be 
protected in reserves and other conservation lands by the terms of the 
HCPs and their Implementing Agreements. These HCPs and Implementing 
Agreements include management measures and protections for conservation 
lands designed to protect, restore, and enhance their value as habitat 
for covered species.
    In addition, an HCP application must itself be consulted upon. 
While this consultation will not look specifically at the issue of 
adverse modification of critical habitat, unless critical habitat has 
already been designated within the proposed plan area, it will look at 
the very similar concept of jeopardy to the listed species in the plan 
area. Because HCPs, particularly large regional HCPs, address land use 
within the plan boundaries, habitat issues within the plan boundaries 
will have been thoroughly addressed in the HCP and through the 
consultation on the HCP. Our experience is also that, under most 
circumstances, consultations under the jeopardy standard will reach the 
same result as consultations under the adverse modification standard. 
Implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 402) define ``jeopardize the 
continued existence of'' and ``destruction or adverse modification of'' 
in virtually identical terms. Jeopardize the continued existence of 
means to engage in an action ``that reasonably would be expected * * * 
to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery 
of a listed species.'' Destruction or adverse modification means an 
``alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat 
for both the survival and recovery of a listed species.'' Common to 
both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on both survival 
and recovery of a listed species, in the case of critical habitat, by 
reducing the value of the habitat so designated. Thus, actions 
satisfying the standard for adverse modification are nearly always 
found to also jeopardize the species concerned, and the existence of a 
critical habitat designation does not materially affect the outcome of 
consultation. Additional measures to protect the habitat from adverse 
modification are not likely to be required.
    Further, HCPs typically provide for greater conservation benefits 
to a covered species than section 7 consultations because HCPs assure 
the long-term protection and management of a covered species and its 
habitat, and funding for such management through the standards found in 
the 5-Point Policy for HCPs (64 FR 35242) and the HCP No Surprises 
regulation (63 FR 8859). Such assurances are typically not provided by 
section 7 consultations which, in contrast to HCPs, often do not commit 
the project proponent to long-term special management or protections. 
Thus, a consultation typically does not accord the lands it covers the 
extensive benefits an HCP provides.
    The development and implementation of HCPs provide other important 
conservation benefits, including the development of biological 
information to guide conservation efforts and assist in species 
recovery, and the creation of innovative solutions to conserve species 
while allowing for development. The education benefits of critical 
habitat, including informing the public of areas that are important for 
long-term survival and conservation of the species, are essentially the 
same as those that would occur from the public notice and comment 
procedures required to establish an HCP, as well as the public 
participation that occurs in the development of many regional HCPs. For 
these reasons, then, we believe, that designation of critical habitat 
has little benefit in areas covered by HCPs.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
    The benefits of excluding HCPs from being designated as critical 
habitat may be more significant. They include relieving landowners, 
communities, and counties of any additional minor regulatory review 
that might be imposed by critical habitat. Many HCPs, particularly 
large regional HCPs, take many years to develop and, upon completion, 
become regional conservation plans that are consistent with the 
recovery of covered species. Most regional plans benefit many species, 
both listed and unlisted. Imposing an additional regulatory review 
after HCP completion could be viewed as a disincentive to those 
developing HCPs. Excluding HCPs provides us with an opportunity to 
streamline regulatory compliance for HCP participants.
    A related benefit of excluding HCPs is that it would encourage the 
continued development of partnerships with HCP participants, including 
States, local governments, conservation organizations, and private 
landowners, that together can implement conservation actions we would 
be unable to accomplish alone. By excluding areas covered by HCPs from 
critical habitat designation, we preserve these partnerships and, we 
believe, set the stage for more effective conservation actions in the 
future.
    In general, then, we believe the benefits of critical habitat 
designation to be small in areas covered by approved HCPs, and the 
benefits of excluding HCPs from designation to be significant. Weighing 
the small benefits of inclusion against the benefits of exclusion, 
including the benefits of relieving property owners of an additional 
layer of approvals and regulation, together with the encouragement of 
conservation partnerships, would generally result in approved HCPs 
being excluded from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act.
    Not all HCPs are alike with regard to species coverage and design. 
Within this general analytical framework, we need to evaluate completed 
and legally operative HCPs in which the Riverside fairy shrimp is a 
covered species on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the 
benefits of excluding these particular areas outweigh the benefits of 
including them.

Section 4(b)(2)  Evaluation of Specific HCPs

    We expect that critical habitat may be used as a tool to identify 
those areas essential for the conservation of the species, and we will 
encourage development of HCPs for such areas on non-Federal lands. 
Habitat conservation plans currently under development are intended to 
provide for protection and management of habitat areas essential for 
the conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp, while directing 
development and habitat modification to nonessential areas of lower 
habitat value.
    Only HCPs within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat 
units are discussed herein. Those approved and legally operative HCPs 
that provide coverage and incidental take approval for the Riverside 
fairy shrimp have been excluded from this designation.
    A number of habitat planning efforts have been completed within the 
range of the Riverside fairy shrimp. Principal among these are the San 
Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) in San Diego County, 
the Rancho Bella Vista HCP, and the Assessment District 161 Subregional 
HCP in Riverside

[[Page 29393]]

County. The MSCP, through its subarea plans, provides conservation 
measures for the Riverside fairy shrimp as a covered species, although 
authorization for take, should any be needed, would come from a 
subsequent permitting process (typically through a section 7 
consultation with the Corps of Engineers). The MSCP provides that the 
remaining Riverside fairy shrimp habitat within the Multiple Habitat 
Planning Area (MHPA) should be avoided to the maximum extent 
practicable. Unavoidable impacts to this remaining area of habitat are 
to be minimized and mitigated to achieve no net loss of wetland 
function and value, and to provide additional protective measures, 
including adaptive management, contained in the MSCP.
    The Rancho Bella Vista HCP planning area includes a reserve 
established as a mitigation bank for the vernal pool that contains the 
Riverside fairy shrimp (Skunk Hollow), and the HCP includes the 
Riverside fairy shrimp as a covered species. The mitigation bank 
agreement, as confirmed in the HCP, provides management for the pool 
and watershed in perpetuity. The Riverside fairy shrimp is also a 
covered species under Assessment District 161 Subregional HCP, and this 
HCP provides for the protection and conservation of the remainder of 
Skunk Hollow's watershed.
    Consequently, we find that the benefits of excluding lands covered 
by these HCPs would be significant in preserving positive relationships 
with our conservation partners, lessening potential additional 
regulatory review and potential economic burdens, reinforcing the 
regulatory assurances provided for in the implementing agreements for 
the approved HCPs, and providing for more established and cooperative 
partnerships for future conservation efforts.
    In summary, the benefits of including these approved HCPs in 
critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp include increased 
educational benefits and minor additional management protections and 
measures. The benefits of excluding these HCPs from designated critical 
habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp include additional conservation 
measures for this and other listed species, preservation of 
partnerships that may lead to future conservation, and the avoidance of 
the minor regulatory and economic burdens associated with the 
designation of critical habitat. Therefore, we believe the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of including these areas. Furthermore, 
we have determined that these exclusions will not result in the 
extinction of the species. We have already completed section 7 
consultation on the impacts of these HCPs on the species. We determined 
that the approved HCPs will not jeopardize the continued existence of 
the Riverside fairy shrimp, which means that they will not appreciably 
reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species.
    We have not excluded the NCCP/HCP for the Central/Coastal Orange 
County subregion. This plan provides only conditional coverage for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp. Riverside fairy shrimp in vernal pool habitats 
that are highly degraded and/or artificially created are a covered 
species and take is authorized under the HCP. However, Riverside fairy 
shrimp in non-degraded, natural vernal pool habitats are not considered 
covered species under the HCP, and take, should any be needed, can be 
authorized only under a separate permitting process (typically through 
a section 7 consultation with the Corps of Engineers). Because the 
natural vernal pools within the Central/Coastal Orange County subregion 
that are considered to be high-quality habitat for the Riverside fairy 
shrimp are not covered by the current HCP, the benefits from 
designating this area as critical habitat are not outweighed by the 
benefits provided by the HCP. Therefore, we are including the natural 
vernal pools at the Viejo parcel, Tijeras Creek, and Marine Corps Air 
Station El Toro in this final critical habitat designation.
    HCPs currently under development are intended to provide for the 
protection and management of habitat areas essential for the 
conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp, while directing development 
and habitat modification to areas of lower habitat value. The HCP 
development process provides an opportunity for more intensive data 
collection and analysis regarding the use of particular habitat areas 
by the Riverside fairy shrimp. The process also enables us to conduct 
detailed evaluations of the importance of such lands to the long-term 
survival of the species in the context of constructing a biologically 
configured system of interlinked habitat blocks. We fully expect that 
HCPs undertaken by local jurisdictions (e.g., counties, cities) and 
other parties will identify, protect, and provide appropriate 
management for those specific lands within the boundaries of the plans 
that are essential for the long-term conservation of the species. We 
believe and fully expect that our analyses of these proposed HCPs and 
proposed permits under section 7 will show that covered activities 
carried out in accordance with the provisions of the HCPs and 
biological opinions will not result in destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat.
    We will provide technical assistance and work closely with 
applicants throughout the development of future HCPs to identify lands 
essential for the long-term conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp, 
and appropriate conservation management actions. Several HCP efforts 
are now under way that address listed and nonlisted species in areas 
within the range of the Riverside fairy shrimp that we are designating 
as critical habitat. The take minimization and mitigation measures 
provided under these HCPs are expected to protect the essential habitat 
in this rule and provide for the conservation of the covered species. 
Furthermore, we will complete intra-service consultation on our 
issuance of section 10(a)(1)(B) permits for these HCPs to ensure permit 
issuance will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. If an 
HCP that includes the Riverside fairy shrimp is ultimately approved, we 
will reassess the critical habitat boundaries in light of the HCP. We 
will seek to undertake this review when the HCP is approved, but 
funding constraints may influence the timing of such a review.
    Should additional information become available that changes our 
assessment of the benefits of excluding any of these (or other) areas 
compared to the benefits of including them in the critical habitat 
designation, we may revise the designation accordingly. Similarly, if 
new information indicates any of these areas should not be included in 
the designated critical habitat because they no longer meet the 
definition of critical habitat, we may revise this final rule. If, 
consistent with available funding and program priorities, we elect to 
revise this designation, we will do so through a subsequent rulemaking.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the September 21, 2000, proposed rule (65 FR 57136), we 
requested all interested parties to submit comments on the specifics of 
the proposal including information, policy, treatment of HCPs, and 
proposed critical habitat boundaries as provided in the proposed rule. 
The first comment period closed on November 20, 2000. The comment 
period was reopened from February 28, 2001, to March 30, 2001 (66 FR 
12754), to allow for additional comments on the proposed rule, and 
comments on the draft economic analysis of the proposed critical 
habitat. We accepted comments received from September 21, 2000, to

[[Page 29394]]

March 30, 2001, and entered them into the administrative record for the 
rule.
    We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, county 
governments, elected officials, and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment. In addition, we invited public comment through 
the publication of notices in the following newspapers in southern 
California: San Diego Union Tribune and Riverside Press Enterprise on 
September 25, 2000, and the Los Angeles Times on September 28, 2000. 
There were no requests for a public hearing.
    We requested four biologists, who have familiarity with the 
Riverside fairy shrimp and the conservation of vernal pools, to peer 
review the proposed critical habitat designation. Two of the peer 
reviewers submitted comments on the proposed critical habitat 
designation, providing updated biological information, critical review, 
and editorial comments, and two did not respond.
    We received a total of 632 written comments during the two comment 
periods. Comments were received from 1 Federal agency, 2 local 
agencies, and 617 private organizations or individuals. We reviewed all 
comments received for substantive issues and new information regarding 
critical habitat and the Riverside fairy shrimp. Of the 632 comments we 
received, 621 commenters supported the designation of critical habitat 
for the Riverside fairy shrimp, 7 were opposed to it, and 4 provided 
information or declined to oppose or support the designation. Similar 
comments were grouped into four general issues relating specifically to 
the proposed critical habitat determination and draft economic analysis 
on the proposed determination. These are addressed in the following 
summary.

Issue 1: Biological Justification and Methodology

    (1) Comment: The scale of the proposed critical habitat is overly 
broad, resulting in vague unit boundaries. Several commenters 
questioned the biological justification for proposing critical habitat 
for the Riverside fairy shrimp using such a landscape-scale approach 
when more precise information is available for use by the Service. 
Also, some commenters voiced concern that their property was within 
proposed critical habitat boundaries even though the land contained no 
Riverside fairy shrimp or primary constituent elements.
    Our Response: We are required to describe critical habitat (50 CFR 
424.12(c)) with specific limits using reference points and lines as 
found on standard topographic maps of the area.
    We recognize that not all parcels of land designated as critical 
habitat will contain the habitat components essential to the 
conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp. Due to the time constraints 
imposed by the court, and the absence of detailed map information 
during the preparation of the proposed determination, we used a 250-m 
(0.16-mi) UTM grid to delineate the critical habitat boundaries. Due to 
the mapping scale, some areas not essential to the conservation of the 
Riverside fairy shrimp were included within the boundaries of proposed 
critical habitat, such as towns, housing developments, or other 
developed lands unlikely to provide habitat for the Riverside fairy 
shrimp. Because these areas do not contain one or more of the primary 
constituent elements for the species, Federal actions limited to those 
areas will not trigger a section 7 consultation, unless they affect the 
species and/or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical 
habitat.
    (2) Comment: The proposal does not provide adequate notice of 
location of critical habitat units to impacted landowners as per the 
1978 amendments to the Act, causing a burden to landowners who must 
determine which portions of their land contain critical habitat.
    Our Response: We identified specific areas in the proposed 
determination that are referenced by UTM coordinates, which are found 
on standard topographic maps. We also made available, during the public 
comment period at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, a public 
viewing room where the proposed critical habitat units, superimposed on 
7.5 minute topographic maps, could be inspected. Furthermore, we 
distributed geographic data and maps of the proposed critical habitat 
to all 34 individuals, organizations, local jurisdictions and State and 
Federal agencies that requested them. We believe the information made 
available to the public was sufficiently detailed to allow for 
determination of critical habitat boundaries. This final rule contains 
the legal descriptions of areas designated as critical habitat required 
under 50 CFR 424.12(c). The accompanying maps are for illustration 
purposes only. If additional clarification is necessary, contact the 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    (3) Comment: The descriptions of the primary constituent elements 
of critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp are vague.
    Our Response: The description of the primary constituent elements 
for the Riverside fairy shrimp is based on the best available 
scientific and commercial data regarding the species, including a 
compilation of data from peer-reviewed published literature, 
unpublished or non-peer-reviewed survey or research reports, and 
biologists knowledgeable about the Riverside fairy shrimp and its 
habitat. The primary constituent elements, as described, represent our 
best estimate of what habitat components are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    (4) Comment: The proposed rule inappropriately uses a ``recovery 
standard'' to determine critical habitat, resulting in the inclusion of 
large areas in which the Riverside fairy shrimp is not known to occur 
or have occurred. The Service ignores the intent of Congress to 
designate only occupied areas and those areas essential to a species' 
conservation, and the Service has failed to determine if these 
unoccupied areas are essential to the Riverside fairy shrimp.
    Our Response: The definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A) 
of the Act includes ``(i) specific areas within the geographic area 
occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the 
Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require 
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific 
areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it 
is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species.'' The term ``conservation,'' as defined in 
section 3(3) of the Act, means ``to use and the use of all methods and 
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or 
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant 
to the Act are no longer necessary'' (i.e., the species is recovered 
and removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Species).
    In proposing critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp, we 
identified those areas that are essential to the conservation of this 
species. The areas we proposed to designate as critical habitat provide 
all of those habitat components essential for the Riverside fairy 
shrimp as described in the Recovery Plan (Service 1998). We did not 
include all areas currently occupied by the Riverside fairy shrimp, but 
designated those areas that possess large populations, have unique 
ecological characteristics, and/or represent the historic geographic 
areas where the

[[Page 29395]]

Riverside fairy shrimp can be re-established.
    The Recovery Plan (Service 1998) detailed the efforts required to 
meet the recovery needs of the Riverside fairy shrimp, and provides a 
description of habitat attributes that are essential to the survival 
and recovery of the species. After weighing the best available 
information, including the Recovery Plan, we conclude that the areas 
designated by this final rule, including areas that were not known to 
be occupied at the time the species was listed, are essential for the 
recovery of the species and subsequent removal from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Species.
    (5) Comment: The lands that are being proposed as critical habitat 
for the Riverside fairy shrimp represent a gross, unsubstantiated 
increase from the amount of habitat that was described in the final 
listing rule as being available for this species. In addition, the 
increase in number of known populations of Riverside fairy shrimp since 
listing indicates that designation of critical habitat may be 
unnecessary or unwarranted.
    Our Response: In the August 3, 1993, final listing rule for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp (58 FR 41384), we stated that there were four 
occupied pools near Temecula in Riverside County, encompassing 96 km\2\ 
(37 mi\2\) (approximately 9,713 ha (24,000 ac)), one population in 
Orange County (area not quantified), an unspecified number of occupied 
vernal pools at (then) Naval Air Station (NAS) Miramar and Otay Mesa in 
San Diego County, and two locations in Baja California, Mexico.
    Since the listing of this species, scientific and commercial 
studies on the distribution, life history, and ecology of the Riverside 
fairy shrimp have been conducted and a recovery plan covering the 
species published. We now recognize that conservation of the Riverside 
fairy shrimp depends not only on specific vernal pools, but also on 
vernal pool complexes, the watersheds immediately surrounding them, and 
the hydrological processes associated with those watersheds.
    Further, the known geographic range of the species has been 
expanded based on the identification of previously undocumented 
Riverside fairy shrimp populations in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, 
San Diego, and Ventura counties. Many of these previously undocumented 
occurrences consist of small, isolated pools varying in condition from 
highly degraded to high quality. Large complexes of vernal pools 
containing Riverside fairy shrimp were also discovered on Camp 
Pendleton. These complexes, many of which are interconnected, contain 
the highest concentration of Riverside fairy shrimp within the species' 
range, with the pools and adjoining watersheds encompassing 
approximately 2,295 ha (5,670 ac).
    The proposed determination of critical habitat for the Riverside 
fairy shrimp (65 FR 57136) identified approximately 4,880 ha (12,060 
ac) of vernal pools and their adjacent watersheds essential to the 
conservation of the species that was proposed as critical habitat. This 
value is less than half of the lands identified as being occupied in 
Riverside County in the final listing rule. This final determination 
designates 2,790 ha (6,870 ac) as critical habitat.
    Even though additional populations of the Riverside fairy shrimp 
have been discovered in the time since the species was listed, the 
factors that contributed to the decline of the species and its 
subsequent listing as federally endangered are still affecting vernal 
pool habitat and the species. Because these factors continue to affect 
the Riverside fairy shrimp and its habitat, the species still warrants 
protection under the Act, including the designation of lands essential 
to its conservation as critical habitat.
    (6) Comment: No scientific data were provided to indicate how the 
Service determined the extent of watersheds or the hydrological 
processes that comprise critical habitat.
    Our Response: As described in the section titled ``Criteria Used to 
Identify Critical Habitat,'' above, we compiled data on known Riverside 
fairy shrimp locations and those vernal pools and vernal pool complexes 
that were identified in the Recovery Plan as essential for the 
stabilization and recovery of the species. Second, we evaluated the 
hydrology, watershed, and topographic features of the surrounding areas 
to identify the drainages, or watersheds feeding the pools using our 
GIS system. Third, based on this evaluation, a 250-m (0.16-mi) UTM grid 
was overlaid on top of those vernal pool complexes and their associated 
watersheds using GIS to describe the unit boundaries more precisely. 
Each unit of the grid was evaluated to determine whether it was 
appropriately included as critical habitat. The critical habitat units 
designated using this technique encompassed individual vernal pool 
basins or vernal pool complexes to ensure that watersheds and 
hydrologic processes were captured and maintained for this species. 
Where occupied vernal pools were not specifically mapped in the 
Recovery Plan (Service 1998), we relied on recent scientific data to 
update the map coverage.

Issue 2: Policy and Regulations

    (7) Comment: In response to the Service's request that the public 
comment on critical habitat designation relative to currently approved 
and future HCPs, many commenters stated that critical habitat should be 
retained within the boundaries of approved HCPs. They felt that HCPs 
cannot be viewed as a functional substitute for critical habitat 
designation, and the approved HCPs provided inadequate protection and 
special management considerations for the species and their habitat. 
Other commenters supported the exclusion of approved HCPs from critical 
habitat designation, and several of these same commenters wanted 
pending HCPs to be excluded as well. They supported their 
recommendations by asserting that landowners will be reluctant to 
participate in HCPs unless they have incentives, including the removal 
of critical habitat from HCP boundaries.
    Our Response: We recognize that critical habitat is only one of 
many conservation tools for federally listed species. HCPs are one of 
the most important tools for reconciling land use with the conservation 
of listed species on non-Federal lands. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
allows us to exclude from critical habitat designation areas where the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, provided 
the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. We 
believe that in most instances the benefits of excluding HCPs from 
critical habitat designations will outweigh the benefits of including 
them. For this designation, we find that the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designation for all approved and legally 
operative HCPs in which the Riverside fairy shrimp is a covered species 
and the plan provides for its long-term conservation. These include the 
San Diego MSCP in San Diego County and the Rancho Bella Vista HCP and 
Assessment District 161 Subregional HCP in Riverside County.
    We anticipate that future HCPs in the range of the Riverside fairy 
shrimp will include it as a covered species and provide for its long-
term conservation. We expect that HCPs undertaken by local 
jurisdictions (e.g., counties and cities) and other parties will 
identify, protect, and provide appropriate management for those 
specific lands within the boundaries of the plans that are essential 
for the long-term conservation of the species. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of 
the Act states that HCPs must meet issuance criteria, including

[[Page 29396]]

minimizing and mitigating any take of the listed species covered by the 
permit to the maximum extent practicable, and that the taking must not 
appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the 
species in the wild. We fully expect that our future analyses of HCPs 
and section 10(a)(1)(B) permits under section 7 will show that covered 
activities carried out in accordance with the provisions of the HCPs 
and section 10(a)(1)(B) permits will not result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat designated for the Riverside 
fairy shrimp. The take minimization and mitigation measures provided 
under these HCPs are expected to adequately protect the essential 
habitat lands designated as critical habitat in this rule, such that 
the value of these lands for the survival and recovery of the Riverside 
fairy shrimp is not appreciably diminished through direct or indirect 
alterations. If an HCP that addresses the Riverside fairy shrimp as a 
covered species is ultimately approved, we will reassess the critical 
habitat boundaries in light of the HCP. We will seek to undertake this 
review when the HCP is approved, but funding constraints may influence 
the timing of such a review.
    The designation of critical habitat should not deter participation 
in the NCCP or HCP processes. Approvals issued under these processes 
include assurances of no additional mitigation through the HCP No 
Surprises regulation (63 FR 8859). The development of new HCPs or NCCPs 
should not be affected by designation of critical habitat primarily 
because we view the standards of jeopardy for listed species and of 
adverse modification for critical habitat as being virtually identical. 
We discuss these standards in detail in the ``Section 7 Consultation'' 
portion of this document.
    (8) Comment: The Service violated the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 (NEPA) by failing to prepare an Environmental Assessment 
(EA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
    Our Response: We have determined that we do not need to prepare an 
Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement as 
defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection 
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
    (9) Comment: The Service violated the Administrative Procedure Act 
by not making available for public review and comment the scientific 
data relied on in formulating the proposed rule, and not providing a 
complete list of references or access to unpublished data despite 
requests from interested parties.
    Our Response: In the proposed rule, we stated that all supporting 
documentation, such as the references and unpublished data used in the 
preparation of the proposed rule, would be available for public 
inspection at the Carlsbad and Ventura Fish and Wildlife Offices. A 
public viewing room was made available at the Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office where the proposed critical habitat units, superimposed 
on 7.5 minute topographic maps, could be inspected. In addition, we had 
34 requests for maps or GIS data and we responded to each request in a 
timely manner by providing copies of the maps and/or digital data. We 
believe we provided information pertaining to the proposed critical 
habitat to all those who requested it.
    (10) Comment: Comments received from the Marines requested that 
their lands be excluded from the critical habitat designation because 
protections and management afforded the Riverside fairy shrimp by 
Miramar's INRMP, pursuant to the Sikes Act, was sufficient, so the 
lands on that base did not require special management or protection, 
and did not meet the definition of critical habitat. In addition, the 
Marines requested that Camp Pendleton be excluded from critical habitat 
because of its existing programmatic, habitat-based management efforts, 
which already ensure long-term conservation of the species. 
Furthermore, designation of critical habitat would detrimentally impact 
the Marines' capability to perform military missions. Other commenters 
felt that: (a) The vernal pools on the bases are essential for the 
conservation of the species; (b) no evidence exists that training 
activities on Camp Pendleton would be significantly limited, especially 
considering the small amount of land within the proposed critical 
habitat that actually contains primary constituent elements; and (c) 
Miramar's INRMP is a guidance document only and does not provide the 
special management or protection for the Riverside fairy shrimp.
    Our Response: We agree that INRMPs provide special management for 
lands such that they no longer meet the definition of critical habitat 
when the plans meet the following criteria: (1) A current INRMP must be 
complete and provide conservation benefit to the species; (2) the plan 
must provide assurances that the conservation management strategies 
will be implemented; and (3) the conservation management strategies 
will be effective and provide for periodic monitoring and revisions as 
necessary.
    To date, Miramar is the only DOD installation that has completed a 
final INRMP that provides for sufficient conservation management and 
protection for the Riverside fairy shrimp. We have reviewed the plan 
and have determined that it addresses and meets the three criteria. 
Therefore, lands on Miramar (proposed Critical Habitat Unit 5) do not 
meet the definition of critical habitat, and have not been included in 
this final designation of critical habitat for the Riverside fairy 
shrimp.
    Additionally, we have determined that it is appropriate to exclude 
training areas on Camp Pendleton from this critical habitat designation 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We have concluded that the benefits 
of excluding training areas on Camp Pendleton exceed the benefits of 
including them in the critical habitat designation. Further, we have 
determined that excluding the training areas will not result in the 
extinction of the Riverside fairy shrimp, as sufficient vernal pools 
remain within the final critical habitat designation and sections 
7(a)(2) and 9 of the Act still apply to the activities affecting 
Riverside fairy shrimp on Camp Pendleton. This exclusion does not apply 
to vernal pool complexes in the Wire Mountain Housing Area, within the 
Cockleburr Sensitive Area, and lands leased to the State of California 
and included within San Onofre State Park. Because these lands are used 
minimally, if at all, by the Marines for training, the 312 ha (770 ac) 
of lands proposed on Camp Pendleton and within the San Onofre State 
Park are retained in the final designation.
    Please refer to the Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) section of 
this rule for a more detailed discussion of the exclusion of the 
training areas on Camp Pendleton from this final critical habitat 
designation.
    (11) Comment: A number of commenters requested additional areas be 
designated as critical habitat, including all vernal pools identified 
in the Recovery Plan (Service 1998) and other lands, because these 
areas are needed for the conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp.
    Our Response: The Recovery Plan for the Vernal Pools of Southern 
California (Service 1998), discusses vernal pool complexes and pools, 
their distribution, and known occupancy by federally listed species at 
the time of the plan's publication. Not all vernal pools discussed in 
the plan are known to be

[[Page 29397]]

occupied by the Riverside fairy shrimp, or considered to be essential 
to the conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp. Only those vernal 
pool habitats that are essential to the conservation of Riverside fairy 
shrimp were included in the critical habitat designation for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp.
    (12) Comment: A number of commenters identified specific areas that 
they thought should not be designated as critical habitat. For example, 
one commenter does not believe the Moorpark vernal pool is essential to 
the conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp because it is 40 km (25 
mi) from the nearest population, it is the only population known in 
Ventura County, and in the proposed rule, there is no connection made 
between the site and the conservation of the species.
    Our Response: Where site-specific information was submitted to us 
providing a rationale as to why an area should not be designated 
critical habitat, we evaluated that information in accordance with the 
definition of critical habitat, pursuant to section 3 of the Act, and 
made a determination as to whether modifications to the proposal were 
appropriate. We excluded lands from the final designation that we 
determined to be nonessential to the conservation of the Riverside 
fairy shrimp or located within an approved HCP for this species. We 
included lands in the final designation that we considered essential 
and which did not have special management sufficient for the species' 
conservation.
    The isolation of the Moorpark vernal pool is not unique. Other than 
the individual pools in a complex of vernal pools, most vernal pools 
are isolated from each other by topography and hydrology. This 
isolation does not diminish the value of individual pools to the 
conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp. In fact, and as the 
commenter notes, the Moorpark vernal pool is at the northwestern edge 
of the Riverside fairy shrimp distribution. Conservation biologists 
have demonstrated that populations at the edge of a species' 
distribution can be important sources of genetic variation and 
represent the best opportunity for colonization or re-colonization of 
unoccupied vernal pools and, thus, long-term conservation. These 
outlying populations may be genetically divergent from populations in 
the center of the range and, therefore, may have genetic 
characteristics that would allow adaptation in the face of 
environmental change. Such characteristics may not be present in other 
parts of the species' range (Lesica and Allendorf 1995). Considering 
these factors, the designation of the Moorpark vernal pool as critical 
habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp meets the criterion defined in 
section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act that critical habitat includes specific 
areas within the geographic range of the species on which are found the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    (13) Comment: The proposed boundary of critical habitat at the 
Lennar property is incorrect because it excludes portions of the 
watershed and includes areas that are outside of the watershed.
    Our Response: We reviewed the boundaries of the vernal pool 
containing the Riverside fairy shrimp and the proposed critical habitat 
relative to the project/property boundaries submitted to us on behalf 
of Lennar-Moorpark LLC. The proposed critical habitat unit consists of 
four 250-m (0.16-mi) UTM grid squares that intersect in the center of 
the vernal pool. Therefore, any revisions to our mapping of the Unit 
would result in the removal of portions of the vernal pool and its 
watershed.
    As indicated earlier in this determination, in defining critical 
habitat boundaries, we made an effort to exclude all developed areas, 
such as towns or housing developments, or other lands unlikely to 
contain the primary constituent elements essential for conservation of 
the Riverside fairy shrimp. Our 250-m (0.16-mi) UTM grid minimum 
mapping unit was designed to minimize the amount of development along 
the urban edge included in our designation. However, this minimum 
mapping unit does not exclude all developed areas, such as buildings, 
roads, aqueducts, railroads, airports, other paved areas, lawns, and 
other lands unlikely to contain the primary constituent elements. 
Federal actions limited to these areas would not trigger a section 7 
consultation, unless they affect the species and/or the primary 
constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
    (14) Comment: The construction of ponds west of Pershing Drive may 
attract birds, which could result in a wildlife hazard by increasing 
the threat of aircraft collisions with birds.
    Our Response: We are in negotiations with Los Angeles World 
Airports on restoring vernal pool habitat west of Pershing Drive near 
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), and using dormant Riverside 
fairy shrimp cysts that occur east of Pershing Drive to innoculate the 
new pools. While we understand the safety concerns regarding birds and 
aircraft collisions, we do not believe that restoring this vernal pool 
habitat will increase the amount of wildlife in the area, especially 
with the close proximity of the proposed vernal pools and LAX to the 
Pacific Ocean.

Issue 3: Economic Issues

    (15) Comment: The Service did not provide for adequate public 
notice of the proposed rule and sufficient opportunity for public 
comment. Additionally, the proposed rule was not accompanied by an 
economic analysis as required by law.
    Our Response: We published the proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp on September 21, 2000 (65 FR 
57136), and accepted comments from the public for 60 days, until 
November 20, 2000. We contacted all appropriate State and Federal 
agencies, county governments, elected officials, and other interested 
parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule. In addition, 
we invited public comment through the publication of notices in the San 
Diego Union Tribune and Riverside Press Enterprise on September 25, 
2000, and the Los Angeles Times on September 28, 2000. We published a 
notice in the Federal Register on February 28, 2001 (66 FR 12754), 
announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis and opening 
a public comment period from February 28, 2001, to March 30, 2001, to 
allow for comments on the draft economic analysis and additional 
comments on the proposed determination itself. We provided notification 
of the draft economic analysis through telephone calls, letters, and 
news releases faxed and/or mailed to affected elected officials, local 
jurisdictions, and interest groups. We also published the draft 
economic analysis and associated material on our Fish and Wildlife 
Office internet site following the draft's release on February 28, 
2001. Because of the court-ordered time frame, we were not able to 
extend the second comment period or open an additional public comment 
period.
    (16) Comment: Within the proposed rule, there are assumptions that 
the rule is not expected to result in any restrictions in addition to 
those currently in place.
    Our Response: In the proposed rule and draft economic analysis, we 
indicated that we did not expect that the designation of critical 
habitat would provide significant additional regulatory or economic 
burdens or restrictions incremental to those afforded the species 
pursuant to the Act. This assertion is based on the regulatory 
protections afforded vernal pools and the federally listed species that 
occur

[[Page 29398]]

within them by the Corps of Engineers (Corps) pursuant to section 404 
of the CWA and section 7 of the Act. Following a review of our 
consultation history with the Corps, it appears that the Corps has 
consulted with us on every project that may have affected vernal pools 
for which they have issued permits. Because of this consultation 
history with the Corps, we do not believe that critical habitat will 
provide any significant additional regulatory burdens or restrictions.
    (17) Comment: A couple of commenters were concerned that our 
economic analysis was incorrect to assume that a Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis was not required.
    Our Response: The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, generally requires 
an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 
Administrative Procedure Act, or any other statute, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. We are certifying that this 
rule will, in fact, not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities and as a result, we do not need to 
prepare either an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis.
    Our economic analysis identified several potential impacts 
associated with critical habitat designation, including increased 
consultation costs, project modification costs, and potential temporary 
decreases in property values. However, because we have only designated 
property that is within the geographic range occupied by the Riverside 
fairy shrimp, and because this species is federally listed, other 
Federal agencies are already required to consult with us on activities 
that they authorize, fund, permit, or carry out that may affect the 
Riverside fairy shrimp. Any associated costs related to these 
consultations, including project modifications, will therefore be 
attributable to the listing of the species and not to designation of 
critical habitat. In a few instances, completed (or near-complete) 
consultations may have to be reinitiated once the critical habitat 
designation is finalized to ensure Federal agencies' responsibilities 
under section 7 are met. As a result, the critical habitat designation 
could result in an economic effect associated with any delays to 
complete these consultations. Similarly, most decreases in property 
values, to the extent that they can be attributed to the Riverside 
fairy shrimp and result from actual restrictions in land use, would be 
a result of its listing and not because of critical habitat 
designation. We recognize that the market response to a critical 
habitat designation, due to the perception of an increased regulatory 
burden, may lower real estate values on lands within the designation. 
However, we expect this decrease in value to be temporary. Our draft 
and final economic analysis further discusses how we arrived at our 
conclusion regarding impacts to small entities.
    (18) Comment: Several commenters stated that we should have 
analyzed the cumulative effect of the critical habitat designation for 
the Riverside fairy shrimp, along with the effect of existing and 
proposed critical habitat for other species in the area.
    Our Response: The commenters appear to be using the term 
``cumulative impacts'' in the context of the National Environmental 
Policy Act. This is not appropriate in analyzing the effects of a 
regulation designating critical habitat for a listed species. We are 
required to consider only the effect of the proposed government action, 
which in this case is the designation of critical habitat for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp. The appropriate baseline to use in this 
analysis is the regulatory environment without this regulation. Against 
this baseline, we attempt to identify and measure the incremental costs 
and benefits associated with this designation of critical habitat. 
Because the Riverside fairy shrimp is a federally protected species, 
any effects the listing has on the regulated community is considered 
part of the baseline scenario, which remains unaffected by our critical 
habitat designation. Existing and proposed critical habitat 
designations for other species in the area will be part of separate 
rulemakings, and consequently, their economic effects will be 
considered separately.
    (19) Comment: The draft economic analysis failed to consider the 
effect critical habitat designation would have on the demand for new 
housing, and the economic analysis ignores the impact of the 
designation on California's critical housing shortage.
    Our Response: We are aware that some of the land that we have 
proposed as critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp faces 
significant development pressure. Development activities can have a 
significant effect on the land and the species dependent on the habitat 
being developed. We also recognize that many large-scale development 
projects are subject to some type of Federal nexus before work actually 
begins. As a result, we expect that future consultations will, in part, 
include planned and future real estate development.
    However, we believe that these resulting consultations will not 
take place solely with respect to critical habitat issues. While it is 
true that development activities can adversely affect designated 
critical habitat, we believe that our future consultations regarding 
new housing development will take place because such actions have the 
potential to adversely affect a federally listed species. We believe 
that such planned projects would require a section 7 consultation 
regardless of the critical habitat designation. Again, as we have 
previously mentioned, section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
consult with us whenever actions they fund, authorize, or carry out may 
affect a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat.
    We also recognize that, in some instances, the designation of 
critical habitat could result in a distorted real estate market because 
participants may believe that land within critical habitat designation 
is subject to additional constraints. This is not the case because 
critical habitat designation for the Riverside fairy shrimp is not 
adding any significant additional protection, nor impacting landowners 
significantly beyond that associated with the listing of the species as 
endangered under the Act. As a result, we believe that any resulting 
distortion will be temporary and have a relatively insignificant effect 
on the real estate market as it should become readily apparent to 
market participants that critical habitat for the Riverside fairy 
shrimp is not imposing any significant additional constraints on 
landowner activities beyond those currently associated with the 
listing.
    (20) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the Service 
failed to quantify section 7 consultation costs on projects when 
designating critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp.
    Our Response: In the draft economic analysis, which was made 
available to the public on February 28, 2001 (66 FR 12754), there is a 
section that specifically discusses the cost estimates of completing 
section 7 consultations. These costs are developed through a review of 
consultation files, and estimating the level of effort of the Service, 
the action agency, and the applicant during both formal and informal 
consultations. Costs associated with these consultations include 
preparation of a biological assessment as well as the costs of the 
consultation itself. Also, please refer to our response to Comment 23.

[[Page 29399]]

    (21) Comment: Some commenters were concerned that, while we 
discussed impacts that are more appropriately attributable to the 
listing of the Riverside fairy shrimp than to the proposed designation 
of critical habitat, we did not include the baseline costs attributable 
to the listing or provide quantified estimates of the costs associated 
with the listing.
    Our Response: The Act is clear that the listing decision be based 
solely on the best available scientific and commercial data available 
(section 4(b) of the Act). Congress also made it clear in the 
Conference Report accompanying the 1982 amendments to the Act that 
``economic considerations have no relevance to determinations regarding 
the status of species * * *.'' If we were to consider the economic 
impacts of listing in the critical habitat designation analysis, it 
would lead to confusion, because the designation analysis is meant to 
determine whether areas should be excluded from the designation of 
critical habitat based solely upon the costs and benefits of the 
designation, and not upon the costs and benefits of the species' 
listing. Our economic analyses address how our actions may affect 
current or planned activities and practices; they do not address 
impacts associated with previous Federal actions, which includes the 
listing of the Riverside fairy shrimp as an endangered species.
    (22) Comment: The assumption that future section 7 consultations 
would not be subject to regulatory uncertainty and legal challenge, and 
that the designation of critical habitat will cause no impacts above 
and beyond those caused by listing of the species is faulty, legally 
indefensible, and contrary to the Act. ``Adverse modification'' and 
``jeopardy'' are different, will result in different impacts, and 
should be analyzed as such in the economic analysis.
    Our Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that 
``jeopardy'' and ``adverse modification'' represent different 
standards. Section 7 prohibits actions funded, authorized, or carried 
out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the continued existence of a 
listed species or destroying or adversely modifying the listed species' 
critical habitat. Actions likely to ``jeopardize the continued 
existence'' of a species are those that would appreciably reduce the 
likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species. 
Actions likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the value of 
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of the listed 
species. Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental 
effect on both survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the 
similarity of these definitions, actions likely to result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would almost 
always result in jeopardy to the species concerned.
    (23) Comment: Many commenters expressed concern that the draft 
economic analysis failed to quantify the effects of proposed critical 
habitat designation.
    Our Response: We were only able to identify the types of impacts 
likely to occur as a result of the proposed critical habitat 
designation. These impacts include new consultations, reinitiation of 
consultations, and perhaps the need for additional time for completion 
of ongoing consultations to address critical habitat concerns, as 
required under section 7 of the Act. In some of these cases, it is 
possible that we might suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives to 
the proposed activity that triggered the consultation, which would also 
be an impact. Also associated with consultations is the length of time 
required to carry out consultations, which may result in opportunity 
costs associated with project delays.
    In the case of proposed critical habitat for the Riverside fairy 
shrimp, we have designated habitat that is within the geographic range 
occupied by the species. As a result, impacts are not likely to be 
significant because Federal agencies are already required to consult 
with us on activities taking place on lands that have the potential to 
adversely affect the Riverside fairy shrimp.
    We also recognize that in some instances, the designation of 
critical habitat could result in a distorted real estate market because 
participants may incorrectly perceive that land within critical habitat 
designation is subject to additional constraints. In truth, this is not 
the case because critical habitat designation for the Riverside fairy 
shrimp is not adding any significant additional protection, nor 
resulting in significant impacts to landowners beyond those associated 
with the listing of the species as endangered under the Act. As a 
result, we believe that any resulting distortion will be temporary and 
have a relatively insignificant effect on the real estate market, as it 
should become readily apparent to market participants that critical 
habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp is not imposing any significant 
additional constraints on landowner activities beyond those currently 
associated with the listing.
    (24) Comment: Some commenters felt that the economic analysis is 
flawed because it is based on the premise that we have proposed 
designating only occupied habitat as critical habitat.
    Our Response: The determination of whether or not proposed critical 
habitat is within the geographic range occupied by the Riverside fairy 
shrimp is part of the biological decision-making process and lies 
beyond the scope of an economic analysis. Please refer to our response 
to Comment 16 and the Methods section of this rulemaking for a 
discussion of the decision-making process.
    (25) Comment: One commenter was concerned because our economic 
analysis failed to consider the impact of critical habitat on 
implementation of the Southern California Association of Governments 
and the San Diego Association of Governments regional transportation 
plans.
    Our Response: Because we have determined that the lands designated 
as critical habitat are within the geographic range occupied by the 
Riverside fairy shrimp, this designation does not present any 
significant additional regulatory burdens upon regional transportation 
projects beyond those attributable to the listing of the Riverside 
fairy shrimp as a federally endangered species. Consequently, we do not 
believe that the designation of critical habitat for the fairy shrimp 
adds any significant additional economic burden within critical habitat 
boundaries.
    (26) Comment: One commenter suggested that we failed to consider 
the impacts of the final designation of critical habitat for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp on regional air quality plans in Southern 
California.
    Our Response: We did not take into consideration potential impacts 
from the proposed critical habitat designation on regional air quality 
plans. In order to do so, we would first have to: (1) Establish the 
potential incremental impacts resulting from critical habitat, (2) 
establish the percentage of these potential impacts that could affect 
regional air quality plans, and then (3) attempt to quantify the 
economic impacts resulting from the potential incremental impacts to 
air quality that are attributable to critical habitat. Because we 
believe that incremental impacts resulting from critical habitat are 
not significant, therefore not resulting in an additional significant 
regulatory or economic burden above and beyond that attributable to the 
listing of the species, we do not believe that the designation of 
critical habitat would have a significant effect on regional air 
quality planning.

[[Page 29400]]

Issue 4: Other Relevant Issues

    (27) Comment: One commenter wanted to know if the Riverside fairy 
shrimp is actually the same species as the San Diego fairy shrimp, and 
whether there is a commonality of habitat.
    Our Response: We may have inadvertently caused some confusion about 
the taxonomy of fairy shrimp in southern California by two errors on 
page 57137 of the proposed rule (65 FR 57136). We misidentified San 
Diego fairy shrimp as Streptocephalus sandiegonensis, instead of the 
correct Branchinecta sandiegonensis. We also mistakenly stated that the 
Riverside fairy shrimp is closely related to the San Diego fairy 
shrimp. We apologize for the errors. Although the two organisms belong 
to the same scientific order, they are not closely related, but are 
members of different genera and families.
    Additionally, in general terms of habitat, the Riverside fairy 
shrimp inhabits pools, ponds, and depressions that are deeper than the 
basins that support the endangered San Diego fairy shrimp.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Based on a review of public comments received on the proposed 
determination of critical habitat and economic analysis for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp, we reevaluated our proposed designation of 
critical habitat for this species. These changes include the following: 
(1) The removal of subunit 2H in southern Orange County from the 
designation because the vernal pool had previously been destroyed by 
the construction of Antonio Parkway; (2) corrections to area designated 
by land ownership (Table 1) based on the use of updated GIS land 
ownership coverages; (3) removal of Miramar (proposed Critical Habitat 
Unit 5) from critical habitat designation due to an existing, finalized 
INRMP; (4) removal of the training areas on Camp Pendleton from the 
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act; (5) changing the name of 
proposed Critical Habitat Unit 6 to Critical Habitat Unit 5 for this 
final designation.
    During the comment period for the proposed determination of 
critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp, we received comments 
from the Marine Corps requesting the removal of Marine Corps Air 
Station Miramar from the designation because they believed their final 
INRMP adequately protected and managed for the Riverside fairy shrimp. 
We have evaluated this plan and determined that the conservation 
management measures and protections afforded the Riverside fairy shrimp 
are sufficient to ensure its conservation on this base (see discussion 
under the Exclusions Under section 3(5)(A) Definition section of this 
rule and in response to Comment 10). Therefore, we have not included 
Miramar in this final determination of critical habitat for Riverside 
fairy shrimp.
    We also determined that it is appropriate to exclude the training 
areas on Camp Pendleton from this critical habitat designation. Under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we weighed the benefits of excluding Camp 
Pendleton land against the benefits of designating these areas and 
concluded that the benefits of excluding the areas outweigh the 
benefits of including them. The main benefit of this exclusion is 
ensuring that the mission-critical military training activities can 
continue without interruption at Camp Pendleton while formal 
consultation on upland activities at the base is being completed. The 
acreage being designated as critical habitat for the Riverside fairy 
shrimp on Camp Pendleton has been reduced from 2,295 ha (5,670 ac) to 
312 ha (770 ac). The areas designated include pool complexes at the 
Wire Mountain Housing Area, within the Cockleburr Sensitive Area, and 
on lands leased to the State of California and included within San 
Onofre State Park. Refer to the Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) 
section and response to Comment 10 for a more complete discussion of 
this issue.

Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data 
available, and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of 
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas 
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such 
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical 
habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such 
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species.
    Economic effects caused by listing the Riverside fairy shrimp as an 
endangered species, and by other statutes, are the baseline against 
which the effects of critical habitat designation are evaluated. The 
economic analysis must then examine the incremental economic and 
conservation effects and benefits of the critical habitat designation. 
Economic effects are measured as changes in national income, regional 
jobs, and household income. An analysis of the economic effects of 
Riverside fairy shrimp critical habitat designation was prepared 
(Industrial Economics, Incorporated 2001) and made available for public 
review (February 28 through March 30, 2001; 66 FR 12754). The final 
analysis, which reviewed and incorporated public comments, concluded 
that no significant additional economic impacts are anticipated from 
the critical habitat designation above and beyond those already 
attributable to the listing of the Riverside fairy shrimp as an 
endangered species. The most likely economic effects of critical 
habitat designation are on activities funded, authorized, or carried 
out by a Federal agency. The analysis examined the effects of the 
proposed designation on: (1) Re-initiation of section 7 consultations, 
(2) length of time in which section 7 consultations are completed, and 
(3) new consultations resulting from the determination. Because areas 
proposed for critical habitat are primarily within the geographic range 
occupied by the Riverside fairy shrimp, activities that may affect 
critical habitat may also affect the species, and would thus be subject 
to consultation whether or not critical habitat is designated. In those 
limited cases where activities occur on designated critical habitat 
where Riverside fairy shrimp and other listed species are not found at 
the time of the action, section 7 consultation with the Service may be 
necessary for actions funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal 
agencies.
    We believe that any project that would adversely modify or destroy 
critical habitat would also jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species, and that reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid 
jeopardizing the species would also avoid adverse modification of 
critical habitat. Thus, no significant additional regulatory burden or 
associated significant additional costs would accrue because of 
critical habitat above and beyond those attributable to the listing of 
the Riverside fairy shrimp. Our economic analysis does recognize that 
there may be costs from delays associated with reinitiating completed 
consultations after the critical habitat designation is made final. 
There may also be economic effects due to the reaction of the real 
estate market to critical habitat designation, as real estate values 
may be lowered due to perceived increase in the regulatory burden. We 
believe these impacts will be short-term, however.
    In summary, our economic analysis concludes that no, or minimal, 
significant incremental costs are anticipated as a result of the 
designation of critical habitat. This estimate is based on the existing 
consultation history with

[[Page 29401]]

the Corps on projects that may affect vernal pools and increased public 
awareness regarding the actual impacts of critical habitat designation 
on land values.
    A copy of the final economic analysis and a description of the 
exclusion process with supporting documents are included in our 
administrative record and may be obtained by contacting our Carlsbad 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule 
is a significant regulatory action and has been reviewed by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB).
    (a) This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a 
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities. The Riverside fairy shrimp was listed as an 
endangered species in 1993. In fiscal years 1997 through 1999, we 
conducted seven formal section 7 consultations with other Federal 
agencies to ensure that their actions would not jeopardize the 
continued existence of the fairy shrimp.
    Under the Act, critical habitat may not be adversely modified by a 
Federal agency action; critical habitat does not impose any 
restrictions on non-Federal persons unless they are conducting 
activities funded or otherwise sponsored or permitted by a Federal 
agency (see Table 2 below). Section 7 requires Federal agencies to 
ensure that they do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed 
species. Based upon our experience with the species and its needs, we 
conclude that any Federal action or authorized action that could 
potentially cause an adverse modification of the designated critical 
habitat currently occupied by Riverside fairy shrimp would currently be 
considered as ``jeopardy'' under the Act. Accordingly, the designation 
of currently occupied areas as critical habitat does not have any 
incremental impacts on what actions may or may not be conducted by 
Federal agencies or non-Federal persons that receive Federal 
authorization or funding. Non-Federal persons that do not have a 
Federal ``sponsorship'' of their actions are not restricted by the 
designation of critical habitat (however, they continue to be bound by 
the provisions of the Act concerning ``take'' of the species). 
Additionally, designation of critical habitat in areas that are not 
known to be occupied by this species will also not likely result in an 
increased regulatory burden because the Corps of Engineers requires 
review of projects requiring permits in all vernal pools, whether it is 
known that Riverside fairy shrimp are present or not. In those limited 
cases where activities occur on designated critical habitat where 
Riverside fairy shrimp and other listed species are not found at the 
time of the action, additional section 7 consultation with the Service 
not previously required may be necessary for actions funded, 
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies.

Table 2.--Impacts of Riverside Fairy Shrimp Listing and Critical Habitat
                               Designation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Additional
                                                           activities
                                Activities potentially     potentially
   Categories of activities       affected by species      affected by
                                   listing only \1\     critical habitat
                                                         designation \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Activities Potentially  Activities such as      None in occupied
 Affected \3\.                   those affecting         habitat. In
                                 waters of the United    unoccupied
                                 States by the Army      habitat
                                 Corps of Engineers      containing
                                 under section 404 of    vernal pools,
                                 the Clean Water Act;    additional
                                 road construction and   consultations
                                 maintenance, right-of-  are not
                                 way designation, and    anticipated
                                 regulation of           because the
                                 agricultural            Corps of
                                 activities;             Engineers
                                 regulation of airport   already
                                 improvement             initiates
                                 activities under        consultations
                                 Federal Aviation        in these areas.
                                 Administration
                                 jurisdiction;
                                 maintenance,
                                 management, and
                                 construction
                                 activities on Marine
                                 Corps Base Camp
                                 Pendleton and Marine
                                 Corps Air Station,
                                 Miramar and other
                                 applicable DOD lands;
                                 construction of roads
                                 and fences along the
                                 international border
                                 with Mexico and
                                 associated
                                 immigration
                                 enforcement
                                 activities by the
                                 Immigration and
                                 Naturalization
                                 Service; construction
                                 of communication
                                 sites licensed by the
                                 Federal
                                 Communications
                                 Commission; and
                                 activities funded by
                                 any Federal agency.
Private or other non-Federal    Activities such as      None in occupied
 Activities Potentially          removing or             habitat. In
 Affected \4\.                   destroying Riverside    unoccupied
                                 fairy shrimp habitat    habitat
                                 (as defined in the      containing
                                 primary constituent     vernal pools,
                                 elements discussion),   additional
                                 whether by              consultations
                                 mechanical, chemical,   are not
                                 or other means (e.g.,   anticipated
                                 grading, overgrazing,   because the
                                 construction, road      Corps of
                                 building, herbicide     Engineers
                                 application, etc.)      already
                                 and appreciably         initiates
                                 decreasing habitat      consultations
                                 value or quality        in these areas.
                                 through indirect
                                 effects (e.g., edge
                                 effects, invasion of
                                 exotic plants or
                                 animals, or
                                 fragmentation that
                                 require a Federal
                                 action (permit,
                                 authorization, or
                                 funding)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This column represents the activities potentially affected by
  listing the Riverside fairy shrimp as an endangered species (August 3,
  1993; 58 FR 41384) under the Endangered Species Act.
\2\ This column represents activities potentially affected by the
  critical habitat designation in addition to those activities
  potentially affected by listing the species.
\3\ Activities initiated by a Federal agency.
\4\ Activities initiated by a private or other non-Federal entity that
  may need Federal authorization or funding.

    (b) This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' 
actions. As discussed above, Federal agencies have been required to 
ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of 
the Riverside fairy shrimp since the listing in 1993. The prohibition 
against adverse modification of critical habitat is not expected to 
impose any significant restrictions in addition to those that currently 
exist in occupied areas of designated critical habitat. Because of the 
potential for impacts on other Federal agencies' activities, we will 
continue to review this final action for any inconsistencies with other 
Federal agencies' actions.
    (c) This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user 
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations

[[Page 29402]]

of their recipients. Federal agencies are currently required to ensure 
that their activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species, and, as discussed above, we do not anticipate that the adverse 
modification prohibition (resulting from critical habitat designation) 
will have any incremental effects in areas of occupied habitat. 
Designation of critical habitat in areas that are not known to be 
occupied by this species will also not likely result in a significant 
increased regulatory burden because the Corps of Engineers already 
requires review of projects involving vernal pools, whether it is known 
that Riverside fairy shrimp are present or not. In those limited cases 
where activities occur on designated critical habitat where Riverside 
fairy shrimp and other listed species are not found at the time of the 
action, section 7 consultation with us may be necessary for actions 
funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies.
    (d) OMB has determined that this rule may raise novel legal or 
policy issues and, as a result, this rule has undergone OMB review.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal 
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying 
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains 
our determination.
    We have examined this rule's potential effects on small entities as 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and have determined that 
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    As discussed in the economic analysis for this rulemaking and the 
preamble above, this rule is not expected to result in any significant 
restrictions in addition to those currently in existence for areas 
occupied by the Riverside fairy shrimp and designated as critical 
habitat. As indicated in Table 1 (see Critical Habitat Designation 
section), we designated critical habitat on property owned by Federal, 
State, and local governments and private property, and identified the 
types of Federal actions or authorized activities that are of potential 
concern (Table 2). If these activities sponsored by Federal agencies 
within the designated critical habitat areas are carried out by small 
entities (as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act) through 
contract, grant, permit, or other Federal authorization, as discussed 
above, these actions are currently required to comply with the listing 
protections of the Act, and the designation of critical habitat is not 
anticipated to have any significant additional effects on these 
activities in areas of critical habitat occupied by the species. 
Designation of critical habitat in areas that are not known to be 
occupied by this species will also not likely result in a significant 
increased regulatory burden since the Corps of Engineers already 
requires review of projects involving vernal pools because vernal pools 
typically contain listed species for which the Corps must consult with 
us under section 7. For actions on non-Federal property that do not 
have a Federal connection (such as funding or authorization), the 
current restrictions concerning take of the species remain in effect, 
and this rule will have no additional restrictions.
    Therefore, we are certifying that this final designation of 
critical habitat is not expected to have a significant adverse impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, no regulatory 
flexibility analysis is necessary.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (EO 13211) 
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, 
and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements 
of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As this final rule 
is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, 
or use, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement 
of Energy Effects is required.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.):
    (a) This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Small 
governments will be affected only to the extent that any programs 
having Federal funds, permits, or other authorized activities must 
ensure that their actions will not adversely affect the critical 
habitat. However, as discussed above, these actions are currently 
subject to equivalent restrictions through the listing protections of 
the species, and no further restrictions are anticipated in areas of 
occupied designated critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat 
in areas that are not known to be occupied by this species will also 
not likely result in an increased regulatory burden because the Corps 
of Engineers already requires review of projects involving vernal pools 
as vernal pools typically contain listed species for which the Corps of 
Engineers must consult with us under section 7. In those limited cases 
where activities occur on designated critical habitat where Riverside 
fairy shrimp and other listed species are not found at the time of the 
action, section 7 consultation with the Service may be necessary for 
actions funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies.
    (b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or 
greater in any year, that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of 
critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have 
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is 
not required. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat 
affects only Federal agency actions. The rule will not increase or 
decrease the current restrictions on private property concerning take 
of the Riverside fairy shrimp. Due to current public knowledge of the 
species' protection under the ESA, the prohibition against take of the 
species both within and outside of the designated areas, and the fact 
that critical habitat provides no incremental restrictions in areas of 
occupied critical habitat, we do not anticipate that property values 
will be affected by the critical habitat designation. Designation of 
critical habitat in areas that are not known to be occupied by this 
species will also not likely result in an increased regulatory burden 
because the Corps already requires review of projects involving vernal 
pools as vernal pools typically contain listed species for which the 
Corps must consult with us under section 7. In those limited cases 
where

[[Page 29403]]

activities occur on designated critical habitat where Riverside fairy 
shrimp and other listed species are not found at the time of the 
action, section 7 consultation with the Service may be necessary for 
actions funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies.
    Additionally, critical habitat designation does not preclude 
development of habitat conservation plans and issuance of incidental 
take permits. Landowners in areas that are included in the designated 
critical habitat will continue to have opportunity to utilize their 
property in ways consistent with the survival and recovery of the 
Riverside fairy shrimp.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we 
requested information from, and coordinated development of this 
critical habitat proposal with, appropriate State resource agencies in 
California. We will continue to coordinate any future designation of 
critical habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp with the appropriate 
State agencies. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently 
occupied by the Riverside fairy shrimp imposes no additional 
restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has little 
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities. 
The designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the 
areas essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly 
defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary 
to the survival of the species are specifically identified. While 
making this definition and identification does not alter where and what 
federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these local 
governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-
case section 7 consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order. We designate critical habitat in accordance with the 
provisions of the Act, and plan public hearings on the proposed 
designation during the comment period. The rule uses standard property 
descriptions and identifies the primary constituent elements within the 
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat 
needs of the Riverside fairy shrimp.

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

    This rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
for which OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act is required. 
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB 
Control Number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with 
regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of the Interior's requirement at and 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge 
our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that 
there are no Tribal lands essential for the conservation of the 
Riverside fairy shrimp because these lands do not support populations, 
nor do they provide essential habitat. Therefore, critical habitat for 
the Riverside fairy shrimp has not been designated on Tribal lands.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is 
available upon request from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see 
ADDRESSES section).

Author

    The primary authors of this document are the Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office staff (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Final Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons given in the preamble, we hereby amend 50 CFR part 
17 as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


    2. In Sec. 17.11(h) revise the entry for ``Fairy shrimp, 
Riverside'' under ``CRUSTACEANS'' to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
           Crustaceans
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Fairy shrimp, Riverside..........  Streptocephalus       U.S.A.(CA).........  Entire.............  E                       512     17.95(h)           NA
                                    woottoni.
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 29404]]


    3. In Sec. 17.95 add critical habitat for the Riverside fairy 
shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) under paragraph (h) in the same 
alphabetical order as this species occurs in Sec. 17.11(h), to read as 
follows:


Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) Crustaceans.
* * * * *

Riverside Fairy Shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni)

    1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Los Angeles, Orange, 
Riverside, San Diego, and Ventura counties, California, on the maps 
below.
    2. Critical habitat includes vernal pools, vernal pool complexes, 
and ephemeral ponds and depressions and their associated watersheds and 
hydrologic regime indicated on the maps below and in the legal 
descriptions.
    3. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements for the 
Riverside fairy shrimp are those habitat components that are essential 
for the primary biological needs of foraging, sheltering, reproduction, 
and dispersal. The primary constituent elements are found in those 
areas that support vernal pools or other ephemeral ponds and 
depressions, and their associated watersheds. The primary constituent 
elements are: small to large pools with moderate to deep depths that 
hold water for sufficient lengths of time necessary for incubation and 
reproduction, but not necessarily every year; entire watershed(s) and 
other hydrologic features that support pool basins and their related 
pool complexes; flat or gently sloping topography; and any soil type 
with a clay component and/or an impermeable surface or subsurface layer 
known to support vernal pool habitat. All designated critical habitat 
areas contain one or more of the primary constituent elements for 
Riverside fairy shrimp.
    4. Existing features and structures, such as buildings, roads, 
railroads, urban development, and other such developed features not 
containing primary constituent elements, are not considered critical 
habitat. Federal actions limited to these areas would not trigger a 
section 7 consultation, unless they affect the species and/or the 
primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.

    Note: Map follows:


BILLING CODE 4310-55-U

[[Page 29405]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY01.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Map Unit 1: Goleta and Transverse Management Area, Ventura and Los 
Angeles counties, California
    Unit 1a: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Mint Canyon, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 368000,3815000; 
368500,3815000; 368500,3814500; 368250,3814500; 368250,3813750; 
368000,3813750; 368000,3813500; 367250,3813500; 367250,3814250; 
367500,3814250; 367500,3814500; 367750,3814500; 367750,3814750; 
368000,3814750; 368000,3815000.
    Unit 1b: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Simi Valley West, the 
lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 329000,3793250: 
329500,3793250; 329500,3792750; 329000,3792750; 329000,3793250.

    Note: Maps follow:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-U

[[Page 29406]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY01.001


[[Page 29407]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY01.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 29408]]

Map Unit 2: Los Angeles Basin-Orange Management Area, Los Angeles and 
Orange counties, California
    Unit 2A: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Venice, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 366750,3757750; 
367250,3757750; 367250,3757250; 367500,3757250; 367500,3756250; 
367250,3756250; 367250,3756500; 367000,3756500; 367000,3757250; 
366750,3757250; 366750,3757750.
    Unit 2B: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Venice, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 367750,3755500; 
368000,3755500; 368000,3755250; 367750,3755250; 367750, 3755500.
    Unit 2C: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map El Toro, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 435750,3726750; 
436750,3726750; 436750,3726500; 436500,3726500; 436500,3726250; 
435750,3726250; 435750,3726750.
    Unit 2D: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map El Toro, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 440500,3725750; 
441000,3725750; 441000,3725000; 440500,3725000; 440500,3725750.
    Unit 2E: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Santiago Peak, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 442500,3727000; 
443750,3727000; 443750,3726000; 442250,3726000; 442250,3726500; 
442500,3726500; 442500,3727000.
    Unit 2F: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Santiago Peak and 
Canada Gobernadora, the lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates 
(E,N): 444500,3721000; 445000,3721000; 445000,3720000; 444000,3720000; 
444000,3720500; 444250,3720500; 444250,3720750; 444500,3720750; 
444500,3721000.
    Unit 2G: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Canada Gobernadora, the 
lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 442000,3713000; 
442500,3713000; 442500,3712500; 442750,3712500; 442750,3712000; 
442000,3712000; 442000,3713000.

    Note: Maps for Units 2A through 2G follow:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY01.003


[[Page 29409]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY01.004


[[Page 29410]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY01.005


[[Page 29411]]


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Map Unit 3: Riverside Management Area, Riverside County, California
    Unit 3A: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Murrieta, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 478750,3718500; 
479500,3718500; 479500,3717750; 478750,3717750; 478750,3718500.
    Unit 3B: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Wildomar and Murrieta, 
the lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 
476250,3711500; 477000,3711500; 477000,3711250; 477250,3711250; 
477250,3710750; 478000,3710750; 478000,3710500; 478250,3710500; 
478250,3710250; 478500,3710250; 478500,3710000; 478750,3710000; 
478750,3709750; 479250,3709750; 479250,3709500; 479500,3709500; 
479500,3709250; 479250,3709250; 479250,3709000; 479500,3709000; 
479500,3708500; 479250,3708500; 479250,3708250; 479000,3708250; 
479000,3708500; 478750,3708500; 478750,3708750; 478250,3708750; 
478250,3709000; 477500,3709000; 477500,3709250; 476750,3709250; 
476750,3709000; 476500,3709000; 476500,3708500; 475750,3708500; 
475750,3708000; 475000,3708000; 475000,3707000; 474000,3707000; 
474000,3706750; 472000,3706750; 472000,3708250; 472500,3708250; 
472500,3708500; 472750,3708500; 472750,3709250; 473000,3709250; 
473000,3710500; 473250,3710500; 473250,3710750; 474000,3710750; 
474000,3710500; 474250,3710500; 474250,3710250; 474500,3710250; 
474500,3710000; 474750,3710000; 474750,3709750; 475000,3709750; 
475000,3710000; 475500,3710000; 475500,3710250; 475750,3710250; 
475750,3711250; 476250,3711250; 476250,3711500. Excluding lands bounded 
by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 475000,3709500; 475000,3709000; 
475250,3709000; 475250,3709250; 475500,3709250; 475500,3709500; 
475000,3709500 and lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates 
(E,N): 473500,3709000; 473500,3708750; 474250,3708750; 474250,3709000; 
473500,3709000.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U

    Note: Map follows:

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY01.006
    
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 29412]]

Map Unit 4: San Diego: North Coastal Mesa Management Area, San Diego, 
California
    Unit 4A: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map San Clemente, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 446250,3701000; 
446500,3701000; 446500,3699500; 445750,3699500; 445750,3700000; 
446000,3700000; 446000,3700750; 446250,3700750; 446250,3701000.
    Unit 4B: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Las Pulgas Canyon, the 
lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 446250,3701000; 
446500,3701000; 446500,3699500; 445750,3699500; 445750, 3700000; 
446000,3700000; 446000,3700750; 446250,3700750; 446250,3701000, 
excluding the Pacific Ocean.
    Unit 4C: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Las Pulgas Canyon, the 
lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 460000,3680000; 
460250,3680000; 460250,3679750; 460500,3679750; 460500,3679000; 
459500,3679000; 459500,3679250; 459250,3679250; 459250,3679750; 
460000,3679750; 460000,3680000, excluding the Pacific Ocean.
    Unit 4D: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Oceanside and San Luis 
Rey, the lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 
464250,3677000; 465250,3677000; 465250,3676750; 465750,3676750; 
465750,3675750; 465500,3675750; 465500,3675500; 465000,3675500; 
465000,3675750; 464750,3675750; 464750,3676250; 465000,3676250; 
465000,3676500; 464250,3676500; 464250,3677000.
    Unit 4E: From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Encinitas, the lands 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 470250,3663500; 
470750,3663500; 470750,3662500; 470500,3662500; 470500,3662750; 
470250,3662750; 470250,3663500.

    Note: Maps for Units 4A through 4E follow:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY01.007


[[Page 29413]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY01.008

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 29414]]

    Map Unit 5: San Diego: South Coastal Management Area, San Diego 
County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Otay Mesa, the 
lands bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E,N): 509250,3603000; 
510000,3603000; 510000,3602250; 509500,3602250; 509500,3602000; 
509250,3602000; 509250,3603000.

    Note: Map follows:

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY01.009
    

    Dated: May 22, 2001.
Joseph E. Doddridge,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 01-13337 Filed 5-23-01; 4:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C