Federal Register, Volume 78 Issue 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013) 2013 Federal Register, 78 FR 46862-46889; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46862-46889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18583]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ57

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for the Ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia)
under the Endangered Species Act (Act). In total, approximately 2,011
acres (814 hectares) in Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra Counties in
northeastern California and Washoe and Douglas Counties in northwestern
Nevada fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat
designation. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the
Act's protections to this species' critical habitat. The effect of this
regulation is to designate critical habitat for Ivesia webberi under
the Act.

DATES: Comment submission: We will accept comments received or
postmarked on or before October 1, 2013. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the
address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by September 16, 2013.
Public meeting: We will hold a public meeting on this proposed rule
on August 22, 2013, in Reno, NV, from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. People needing
reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the
public hearing should contact Jeannie Stafford, Nevada Fish and
Wildlife Office, as soon as possible (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may submit a
comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Information Requested section below for more information).
Public meeting: The public meeting will be held at the U.S.
Department of the Interior Building, Great Basin Conference Room, 1340
Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502.
Details of units: The coordinates or plot points or both from which
the maps are generated are included in the administrative record for
this critical habitat designation and are available at (http://www.fws.gov/nevada/), www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-
0080, and at the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information
that we may develop for this critical habitat designation will also be
available at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office
set out above and at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340
Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502, by telephone 775-861-
6300, or by facsimile 775-861-6301. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act,
any species that is determined to be endangered or threatened requires
critical habitat to be designated, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable. Designations and revisions of critical habitat can be
completed only by issuing a rule.
This rule consists of: A proposed rule for designation of critical
habitat for Ivesia webberi. This rule proposes designation of critical
habitat necessary for the conservation of the species. Under this rule,
we are proposing to designate a total of 2,011 acres (ac) (814 hectares
(ha)) for Ivesia webberi within Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra Counties in
northeastern California and Washoe and Douglas Counties in northwestern
Nevada. We are proposing to list Ivesia webberi as a threatened species
in a separate rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, any
species that is determined to be a threatened or endangered species
shall, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, have habitat
designated that is considered to be critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions
to critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data
after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security
impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area
as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical
habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh
the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat,
unless he determines, based on the best scientific data available, that
the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in
the extinction of the species.
We are preparing an economic analysis of the proposed designation
of critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we are
preparing an analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed critical
habitat designation and related factors. We will announce the
availability of the draft economic analysis as soon as it is completed,
at which time we will seek additional public review and comment.
We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our listing proposal is based on
scientifically sound data and analyses. We have invited these peer
reviewers to comment on our specific assumptions and

[[Page 46863]]

conclusions in this listing proposal. Because we will consider all
comments and information received during the comment period, our final
determinations may differ from this proposal.

Information Requested

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) including whether there are threats to the species from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be
prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Ivesia webberi habitat,
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and
why,
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change, and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to facilitate management of critical
habitat by private, State, or Federal landowners. For example, could
altering the configuration of critical habitat unit boundaries
facilitate management of critical habitat?
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families,
and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these
impacts.
(6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(7) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
(8) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the Ivesia webberi and proposed critical habitat.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES section.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. You may request
at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such
as your street address, phone number, or email address from public
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Previous Federal Actions

Please see the proposed listing rule published elsewhere in today's
Federal Register for a complete history of previous Federal actions. We
identified Ivesia webberi as a candidate in the June 13, 2002,
Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR, 67 FR 40657). Ivesia webberi was
included in all subsequent annual CNORs. On May 11, 2004, we received a
petition to list a total of 225 plant and animal species from the list
of candidate species, including I. webberi. Because we previously found
the species was warranted for proposed listing, no further action was
taken on the petition. When it was first identified as a candidate in
2002 (67 FR 40657), we assigned I. webberi a listing priority number
(LPN) of 5, reflecting a species with threats that were considered high
in magnitude but nonimminent; the LPN remained at 5 in all subsequent
CNORs.

Critical Habitat

Background

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of

[[Page 46864]]

the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or
recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical and biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are those
specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide
for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area presently occupied by a species only when a
designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure
the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of
the best available information at the time of designation will not
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that
the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of
the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity,
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species, or
(2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to
the species.
There is currently no imminent threat of take attributed to
collection or vandalism for Ivesia webberi, and identification and
mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such
threat. In the absence of finding that the designation of critical
habitat would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits
to a critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted.
Here, the potential benefits of designation include: (1) Triggering
consultation under section 7 of the Act in new areas for actions in
which there may be a Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur
because, for example, it is or has become unoccupied or the occupancy
is in question; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most
essential features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to
State or county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing
people from causing inadvertent harm to the species. Therefore, because
we have determined that the designation of critical habitat will not
likely increase the degree of threat to the species and may provide
some measure of benefit, we find that designation of critical habitat
is prudent for I. webberi.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for Ivesia
webberi is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state
that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the
following situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.

[[Page 46865]]

When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where these species
are located. This and other information represent the best scientific
data available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical
habitat is determinable for the Ivesia webberi.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as
critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require
special management considerations or protection. These include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for Ivesia webberi from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and
life history as described below. Additional information can be found in
the proposed listing rule published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register and in the Ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia) Species Report
(Service 2013, pp. 1-46) available at http://www.regulations.gov (in
the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080, which is the docket number
for this rulemaking). Little is known about the habitat specificity and
characteristics for I. webberi. Therefore, the physical and biological
factors for I. webberi are based on our assessment of the ecosystem
settings in which the species is most frequently detected. We have
determined that the following physical or biological features are
essential for I. webberi (see ``Habitat'' section in the Species Report
(Service 2013, pp. 6-7)):

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

Plant Community and Competitive Ability--Ivesia webberi is
primarily associated with Artemisia arbuscula Nutt. (low sagebrush) and
other perennial, rock garden-type plants such as: Antennaria dimorpha
(low pussytoes), Balsamorhiza hookeri (Hooker's balsamroot), Elymus
elymoides (squirreltail), Erigeron bloomeri (scabland fleabane),
Lewisia rediviva (bitter root), Poa secunda (Sandburg bluegrass), and
Viola beckwithii (Beckwith's violet) (Witham 2000, p. 17; Morefield
2004, 2005, unpubl. survey; Howle and Henault 2009, unpubl. survey; BLM
2011, 2012a, unpubl. survey; Howle and Chardon 2011a, 2011b, 2011c,
unpubl. survey). Overall, this plant community is open and sparsely
vegetated and relatively short-statured, with I. webberi often
dominating or co-dominating where it occurs (Witham 2000, p. 17).
Because Ivesia webberi is found in an open, sparsely vegetated
plant community, it is likely a poor competitor. Nonnative, invasive
plant species such as Bromus tectorum L. (cheatgrass), Taeniatherum
caput-medusae (medusahead), and Poa bulbosa (bulbous bluegrass) form
dense stands of vegetation that compete with native plant species, such
as I. webberi, for the physical space needed to establish individuals
and recruit new seedlings. This competition for space is compounded as
dead or dying nonnative vegetation accumulates, eventually forming a
dense thatch that obscures the soil crevices used by native species as
seed accumulation and seedling recruitment sites (Davies 2008, pp. 110-
111; Gonzalez et al. 2008, entire; Mazzola et al. 2011, pp. 514-515;
Pierson et al. 2011, entire). Consequently, nonnative species deter
recruitment and population expansion of I. webberi, as well as the
entire Artemisia arbuscula-perennial bunchgrass-forb community with
which I. webberi is associated. Therefore, we consider open, sparsely
vegetated assemblages of A. arbuscula and other perennial grass and
forb rock garden species to be a physical or biological feature for I.
webberi.
Elevation--Known populations of Ivesia webberi occur between 4,475
and 6,237 feet (ft) (1,364 and 1,901 meters (m)) in elevation (Steele
and Roe 1996, unpubl. survey; Witham 2000, p.16; Howle and Henault
2009, unpubl. survey). Because plants are not currently known to occur
outside of this elevation band, we have identified this elevation range
as a physical or biological feature for I. webberi.
Topography, Slope, and Aspect--Ivesia webberi occurs on flats,
benches, or terraces that are generally above or adjacent to large
valleys. These sites vary from slightly concave to slightly convex or
gently sloped (0-15[deg]) and occur on all aspects (Witham 2000, p.
16). Because plants have not been identified outside these landscape
features or on slopes greater than 15[deg], we have identified slightly
concave, convex, and gently sloped (0-15[deg]) landscapes to be
physical and biological features for I. webberi.

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements

Soils--Populations of Ivesia webberi occur on a variety of soil
series types, including, but not limited to: Reno--a fine, smectitic,
mesic Abruptic Xeric Argidurid; Xman--a clayey, smectitic, mesic,
shallow Xeric Haplargids; Aldi--a clayey, smectitic, frigid Lithic
Ultic Argixerolls; and Barshaad--a fine, smectitic, mesic Aridic
Palexeroll (USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service) 2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2012a, 2012b). The majority
of soils in which I. webberi occurs have an argillic (i.e., clay)
horizon within 19.7 inches (in) (50 centimeters (cm)) of the soil
surface (USDA NRCS 2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2012a, 2012b). An argillic
horizon is defined as a subsurface horizon with a significantly higher
percentage of clay than the overlying soil material (Soil Survey Staff
2010, p. 30). The clay content (percent by weight) of an argillic
horizon must be 1.2 times the clay content of an overlying horizon
(Soil Survey Staff 1999, p. 31). Agrillic horizons are illuvial,
meaning they form below the soil surface, but may be exposed at the
surface later due to erosion. Typically there is little or no evidence
of illuvial clay movement in soils on young landscapes; therefore, soil
scientists have concluded that the formation of an argillic horizon
required at least a few thousand years (Soil Survey Staff 1999, p. 29).
This argillic horizon represents a time-landscape relationship that can
be locally and regionally important because its presence indicates that
the geomorphic surface has been relatively stable for a long period of
time (Soil Survey Staff 1999, p. 31).
The shallow, clay soils in which Ivesia webberi inhabits are very
rocky on the surface and tend to be wet in the spring, but dry out as
the season progresses (Zamudio 1999, p. 1). The high clay content in
the soils creates a

[[Page 46866]]

shrink-swell behavior as the soils wet and dry, which helps to
``heave'' rocks in the soil profile to the surface and creates the
rocky surface ``pavement'' (Zamudio 1999, p. 1). The unique soils and
hydrology of I. webberi sites may exclude competition from other
species (Zamudio 1999, p. 1; Witham 2000, p. 16). The shrink-swell of
the clay zone, which extends into the subsoil, favors perennials with
deep taproots or annuals with shallow roots that can complete their
life cycle before the surface soil dries out (Zamudio 1999, p. 1;
Witham 2000, pp. 16, 20). The root systems of tap-rooted perennial
forbs are suited to soil with clay subsoils because the roots branch
profusely under the crown, spread laterally, and penetrate the clay B
horizon along vertical cleavage planes (Hugie et al. 1964, p. 200). The
roots are flattened, but unbroken by shrink-swell activity (Hugie et
al. 1964, p. 200). Early maturing plants, such as I. webberi,
presumably prefer soils with these heavy clay horizons because of the
abundant spring moisture, which essentially saturates the surface
horizons with water. Based on the information above, we consider soil
with an argillic horizon characterized by shrink-swell behavior to
represent a physical or biological feature for I. webberi.
Water--Ivesia webberi is restricted to sites with soils that are
vernally moist (Zamudio 1999a, p. 1; Witham 2000, p. 16). From this
finding, we infer that sufficient winter and spring moisture not only
contributes to the physical properties of the substrate in which I.
webberi occurs (i.e., the shrink-swell pattern that contributes to the
formation of soil crevices), but also triggers biological responses in
I. webberi, in the form of stimulating germination, growth, flowering,
and seed production. Moisture retention is influenced by site
topography as well as soil properties. Therefore, we consider soils
that are vernally moist as a physical or biological feature for I.
webberi.
Light--Although little is known regarding the light requirements of
Ivesia webberi, inferences are possible from the plant species and the
plant community from which I. webberi is associated (described under
the ``Space--Plant Community and Competitive Ability'' section above,
and the ``Habitat'' section of the Species Report (Service 2013, pp. 6-
7). Generally speaking, co-occurring plant species are short-statured;
when assembled into an Artemisia arbuscula-perennial bunchgrass-forb
community, plants tend to occur widely spaced with intervening patches
of rocky, open ground. These factors suggest that I. webberi is not
shade-tolerant. Therefore, we assume that I. webberi is able to
persist, at least in part, due to a lack of light competition with
taller plants.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring

Reproduction--Ivesia webberi is a perennial plant species that is
not rhizomatous or otherwise clonal. Therefore, like other Ivesia
species, reproduction in I. webberi is presumed to occur primarily via
sexual means (i.e., seed production and seedling recruitment). As with
most plant species, I. webberi does not require separate sites for
breeding, rearing, and reproduction other than the locations in which
parent plants occur and any area necessary for pollinators and seed
dispersal. Seeds of I. webberi are relatively large and unlikely to be
dispersed by wind or animal vectors; upon maturation of the
inflorescence and fruit, seeds are likely to fall to the ground in the
immediate vicinity of parent plants (Witham 2000, p. 20). Depressions
and crevices in soil frequently serve as seed accumulation or seedling
establishment sites in arid ecosystems because they trap seeds and
often have higher soil water due to trapped snow and accumulated
precipitation (Reichman 1984, pp. 9-10; Eckert et al. 1986, pp. 417-
420). The cracks of the shrink-swell clay soils which typify I. webberi
habitat are thought to trap seeds and retain them on-site, and may
serve to protect seeds from desiccation from sunlight or wind. Although
the long-term viability of these seeds is unknown, I. webberi seeds
held within these crevices may accumulate and function as a seedbank
for I. webberi reproduction. Thus, the physical and biological feature
of soil with an argillic horizon and shrink-swell behavior identified
above under the ``Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other
Nutritional or Physiological Requirements'' section also has an
important reproduction function for I. webberi.
Pollination--Pollinators specific to Ivesia webberi have not been
identified. However, most Ivesia species reproduce from seed with
insect-mediated pollination occurring between flowers of the same or
different plants (Witham 2000, p. 20). Floral visitors have been
observed frequenting the flowers of I. aperta var. canina, which co-
occurs with I. webberi at one population (USFWS 5; J. Johnson, unpubl.
photos 2007). Although these floral visitors can only represent
presumed pollinators because they were not observed to be carrying
pollen, they represent the best available information regarding
possible pollinators of I. webberi. Since no single pollinator or group
of pollinators is known for I. webberi, we are not able to define
habitat requirements for I. webberi in terms of the distances that
particular orders, genera, or species of insect pollinators are known
to travel.
Successful transfer of pollen among Ivesia webberi populations,
therefore, may be inhibited if populations are separated by distances
greater than pollinators can travel, or if a pollinator's nesting
habitat or behavior is negatively affected (BLM 2012b, p. 2). Some bees
such as bumblebees and other social species are able to fly extremely
long distances. However, evidence suggests that their habitat does not
need to remain contiguous, but it is more important that the protected
habitat is large enough to maintain floral diversity to attract these
pollinators (BLM 2012b, p. 18). By contrast, most solitary bees remain
close to their nest, thus foraging distance tends to be 1,640 ft (500
m) or less (BLM 2012b, p.19). Conservation strategies that strive to
maintain not just I. webberi, but the range of associated native plant
species (many of which are also insect-pollinated) would therefore
serve to attract a wide array of insect pollinators, both social and
solitary, that may also serve as pollinators of I. webberi (BLM 2012b,
pp. 5-6, 19). Because annual, nonnative, invasive grasses (such as
Bromus tectorum) are wind-pollinated, they offer no reward for
pollinators; as such nonnative species become established, pollinators
are likely to become deterred from visiting areas occupied by I.
webberi. Therefore, we consider an area of sufficient size with an
intact assemblage of native plant species to provide for pollinator
foraging and nesting habitat to be a physical or biological feature for
I. webberi.

Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the Historical
Geographical and Ecological Distributions of the Species

The long-term conservation of Ivesia webberi is dependent on
several factors, including, but not limited to: Maintenance of areas
necessary to sustain natural ecosystem components, functions, and
processes (such as light and intact soil hydrology); and sufficient
adjacent suitable habitat for vegetative reproduction, population
expansion, and pollination.
Disturbance--Soils with a high content of shrink-swell clays, such
as those where Ivesia webberi is found, often create an unstable soil
environment to which this species is presumably adapted (Belnap 2001,
p.

[[Page 46867]]

183). These micro-scale disturbances are of light to moderate
intensity; we are unaware of information to indicate that I. webberi
has evolved with or is tolerant of moderate to heavy, landscape-scale
disturbances. Moderate to heavy soil disturbances such as off-highway
vehicle (OHV) use, road corridors, residential or commercial
development, and livestock grazing can impact the species and its
seedbank through habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation due to
soil compaction and altered soil hydrology (Witham 2000, Appendix 1, p.
1; Bergstrom 2009, pp. 25-26).
Climate change projections in the Great Basin, where Ivesia webberi
occurs, include increasing temperatures (Chambers and Pellant 2008, p.
29; Finch 2012, p. 4), earlier spring snow runoff (Stewart et al. 2005,
p. 1152), declines in snowpack (Knowles et al. 2006, p. 4557; Mote et
al. 2005, entire), and increased frequencies of drought and fire
(Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1181-1184; Littell et al. 2009, pp. 1014-1019;
Abatzoglou and Kolden 2011, pp. 474-475). Nonnative, invasive plant
species and modified fire regimes are already impacting the quality and
composition of the Artemisia arbuscula-perennial bunchgrass--forb plant
community where I. webberi occurs (BLM 2012c). We anticipate that
climate-related changes expected across the Great Basin, such as
altered precipitation and temperature patterns, will accelerate the
pace and spatial extent of nonnative plant infestations and altered
fire regimes. These patterns of climate change may also decrease
survivorship of I. webberi by causing physiological stress, altering
phenology, and reducing recruitment events and seedling establishment.
Managing for appropriate disturbance regimes (in terms of the type
or intensity of disturbance) is difficult, because sources of
disturbance are numerous and our ability to predict the effects of
multiple, interacting disturbance regimes upon species and their
habitats is limited. In this document, we use qualitative terms, but
specifically solicit further input on methods or mechanisms to better
quantify or describe these measures (see Information Requested
section). For the reasons discussed above, we identify areas not
subject to moderate to heavy, landscape-scale disturbances, such as
impacts from vehicles driven off established roads or trails,
development, livestock grazing, and frequent wildfire, to be a physical
or biological feature for I. webberi.
Primary Constituent Elements for Ivesia webberi
According to 50 CFR 424.12(b), we are required to identify the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Ivesia
webberi in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the
features' primary constituent elements. We consider primary constituent
elements to be those specific elements of the physical or biological
features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are
essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
elements specific to Ivesia webberi are:
(i) Suitable Soils and Hydrology:
a. Vernally moist soils with an argillic horizon that shrink and
swell upon drying and wetting; these soil conditions are characteristic
of known Ivesia webberi populations and are likely important in the
maintenance of the seedbank and population recruitment.
a. Suitable soils that can include (but are not limited to): Reno--
a fine, smectitic, mesic Abruptic Xeric Argidurid; Xman--a clayey,
smectitic, mesic, shallow Xeric Haplargids; Aldi--a clayey, smectitic,
frigid Lithic Ultic Argixerolls; and Barshaad--a fine, smectitic, mesic
Aridic Palexeroll; and
(ii) Topography:
a. Flats, benches, or terraces that are generally above or adjacent
to large valleys. Occupied sites vary from slightly concave to slightly
convex or gently sloped (0-15[deg]) and occur on all aspects; and
(iii) Elevation:
a. Elevations between 4,475 and 6,237 feet (ft) (1,364 and 1,901
meters (m)); and
(iv) Characterized by a plant community that contains:
a. Open to sparely vegetated areas composed of generally short-
statured associated plant species.
b. Presence of appropriate associated species that can include (but
are not limited to): Antennaria dimorpha, Artemisia arbuscula,
Balsamorhiza hookeri, Elymus elymoides, Erigeron bloomeri, Lewisia
rediviva, Poa secunda, and Viola beckwithii.
c. An intact assemblage of appropriate associated species to
attract the floral visitors that may be acting as pollinators of Ivesia
webberi.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. All areas proposed for designation as critical habitat
contain features that will require some level of management to address
the current and future threats. In all units, special management will
be required to ensure that the habitat is able to provide for the
growth and reproduction of the species.
A detailed discussion of threats to Ivesia webberi and its habitat
can be found in the Ivesia webberi Species Report (Service 2013, pp. 1-
46). The features essential to the conservation of I. webberi (plant
community and competitive ability, and suitable topography, elevation,
soils, and hydrology required for the persistence of adults as well as
successful reproduction of such individuals and the formation of a
seedbank) may require special management considerations or protection
to reduce threats. The current range of I. webberi is subject to human-
caused modifications from the introduction and spread of nonnative
invasive species including Bromus tectorum, Poa bulbosa, and
Taeniatherum caput-medusae; modified wildfire regime; increased access
and fragmentation of habitat by new roads and OHVs; agricultural,
residential, and commercial development; and soil and seedbank
disturbance by livestock (Service 2013, pp. 22-32).
Special management considerations or protection are required within
critical habitat areas to address these threats. Management activities
that could ameliorate these threats include (but are not limited to):
Treatment of nonnative, invasive plant species; minimization of OHV
access and placement of new roads away from the species and its
habitat; regulations or agreements to minimize the effects of
development in areas where the species resides; minimization of
livestock use or other disturbances that disturb the soil or seeds; and
minimization of habitat fragmentation. Where the species occurs on
private lands, protection and management could be enhanced by various
forms of land acquisition from willing sellers, ranging from the
purchase of conservation easements to fee title acquisition. These
activities would protect the primary constituent

[[Page 46868]]

elements for the species by preventing the loss of habitats and
individuals, protecting the plants habitat and soils from undesirable
patterns or levels of disturbance, and facilitating the management for
desirable conditions, including disturbance regimes.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify occupied areas at the time of listing that
contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If
after identifying currently occupied areas, a determination is made
that those areas are inadequate to ensure conservation of the species,
in accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(e), we then consider whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied--are essential for the conservation of
the species. We are not currently proposing to designate any areas
outside the geographical area presently occupied by the species because
its present range is sufficient to ensure the conservation of Ivesia
webberi.
We delineated the critical habitat unit boundaries for Ivesia
webberi using the following steps:
(1) In determining what areas were occupied by Ivesia webberi, we
used polygon data collected by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM 2011,
2012a, unpubl. survey), California Natural Diversity Database
(Schoolcraft 1992, 1998, unpubl. survey; Krumm and Clifton 1996,
unpubl. survey; Steele and Roe 1996, unpubl. survey), California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (Sustain Environmental Inc. 2009, p.
III-19), Nevada Natural Heritage Program (Witham 1991, entire; Witham
2000, entire; Morefield 2004, 2005, 2010a, 2010b, unpubl. survey;
Picciani 2006, unpubl. survey), U.S. Forest Service, (Duron 1990,
entire; Howle and Henault 2009, unpubl. survey; Howle and Chardon
2011a, 2011b, 2011c, unpubl. survey) and consulting firms (Wood Rogers
2007, Tables 2 and 3, pp. 5-6) to map specific locations of I. webberi
using ArcMap 10.1. These locations were classified into discrete
populations based on mapping standards devised by NatureServe and its
network of Natural Heritage Programs (NatureServe 2004, entire).
(2) We extended the boundaries of the polygon defining each
population or subpopulation by 1,640 ft (500 m) to provide for
sufficient pollinator habitat. This creates an area that is large
enough to maintain flora diversity that would protect nesting areas of
solitary pollinator species, while creating a large enough patch of
flora diversity to attract social, wide-ranging pollinator species (as
described above under the ``Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or
Rearing (or Development) of Offspring'' section; BLM 2012b, p. 19).
(3) We then removed areas not containing the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of I. webberi within the 1,640-
ft-wide (500-m-wide) area surrounding each population. We used a
habitat model to identify areas lacking physical or biological
features. The habitat model was developed by comparing occupied areas
and the known environmental variables of these areas, such as
elevation, slope, and soil type that we determined to be physical and
biological features for this species. The environmental variables with
the highest predictive ability influenced the habitat the model
identified. Finally, we used ESRI ArcGIS Imagery Basemap satellite
imagery to exclude forested areas within the areas the model selected
because this is not the vegetation type that is a physical and
biological feature for I. webberi.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
physical or biological features necessary for Ivesia webberi. The scale
of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such
developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is
finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would
affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical
habitat.
We are proposing for designation of critical habitat lands that we
have determined are occupied at the time of listing and contain
sufficient elements of physical or biological features to support life-
history processes essential for the conservation of the species.
Units are proposed for designation based on sufficient elements of
physical or biological features being present to support Ivesia webberi
life-history processes. Some units contained all of the identified
elements of physical or biological features and supported multiple
life-history processes. Some segments contained only some elements of
the physical or biological features necessary to support I. webberi's
particular use of that habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble
of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both
on which each map is based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0080, on our Internet
site http://www.fws.gov/nevada/, and at the field office responsible
for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

We are proposing 16 units as critical habitat for Ivesia webberi; 2
of these units have subunits. The critical habitat areas we describe
below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for I. webberi. The 18 areas we propose
as critical habitat are: (1) Sierra Valley, (2) Constantia, (3) East of
Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area (HJWA), Evans Canyon, (4) Hallelujah
Junction Wildife Area (WA), (5) subunit--Dog Valley Meadow and
subunit--Upper Dog Valley, (6) White Lake Overlook, (7) subunit--Mules
Ear Flat and subunit--Three Pine Flat and Jeffrey Pine Saddle, (8)
Ivesia Flat, (9) Stateline Road 1, (10) Stateline Road 2, (11) Hungry
Valley, (12) Black Springs, (13) Raleigh Heights, (14) Dutch Louie
Flat, (15) The Pines Powerline, and (16) Dante Mine Road. Table 1 lists
the proposed critical habitat units and subunits and the area of each.

[[Page 46869]]

Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Ivesia webberi
[Area estimates reflect all land within the critical habitat boundary]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State or local
Federally Government Privately Total area
CH Unit and subunit Population Unit or subunit name owned land owned land owned land acres
(USFWS) acres acres acres (hectares)
(hectares) (hectare) (hectares)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................ 1 Sierra Valley.................... 51 44 179 274
(21) (18) (73) (111)
2........................................ 2 Constantia....................... 155 ............... ............... 155
(63) (63)
3........................................ 3 East of HJWA, Evans Canyon....... 22 100 ............... 122
(9) (41) (49)
4........................................ 4 Hallelujah Junction WA........... ............... 69 ............... 69
(28) (28)
5:
5a................................... 5 Dog Valley Meadow................ 386 ............... ............... 386
(156) (156)
5b................................... 5 Upper Dog Valley................. 12 ............... 17 29
(5) (7) (12)
6........................................ 6 White Lake Overlook.............. 98 ............... 11 109
(40) (4) (44)
7:
7a................................... 7 Mules Ear Flat................... 31 ............... 34 65
(13) (14) (27)
7b................................... 7 Three Pine Flat; Jeffrey Pine 3 ............... 65 68
Saddle. (1) (26) (27)
8........................................ 8 Ivesia Flat...................... 62 ............... ............... 62
(25) (25)
9........................................ 9 Stateline Road 1................. 125 ............... 7 132
(50) (3) (53)
10....................................... 10 Stateline Road 2................. 65 ............... ............... 65
(26) (26)
11....................................... 11 Hungry Valley.................... 56 ............... ............... 56
(23) (23)
12....................................... 12 Black Springs.................... 116 ............... 24 140
(47) (10) (57)
13....................................... 13 Raleigh Heights.................. 163 ............... 14 177
(66) (6) (72)
14....................................... 14 Dutch Louie Flat................. 11 ............... 46 56
(4) (19) (23)
15....................................... 15 The Pines Powerline.............. ............... ............... 32 32
(13) (13)
16....................................... 16 Dante Mine Road.................. 10 ............... 4 14
(4) (2) (6)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................ ........... ................................. 1,365 214 432 2,011
(552) (86) (175) (814)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, below.

Unit 1: Sierra Valley

Unit 1 consists of 274 ac (111 ha) of Federal, State, and private
lands. This Unit is located near the junction of State Highway 49 and
County Highway A24 in Plumas County, California. Nineteen percent of
this Unit is on Federal lands managed by the BLM, 16 percent is on
California State land, and 65 percent is on private lands. This Unit is
currently occupied and is the most western occupied Unit within the
range of Ivesia webberi. The Sierra Valley Unit is important to the
recovery of I. webberi because it supports 44.8 ac (18.1 ha), or nearly
one-third (27.2 percent) of all habitat (165 ac (66.8 ha)) that is
occupied by I. webberi across the species' range. Threats to I. webberi
in this Unit include nonnative, invasive species, wildfire, OHV use,
roads, livestock grazing, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. While these lands currently have the physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of I. webberi,
because of a lack of cohesive management and protections, special
management will be required to maintain these features in this Unit.
These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special
Management Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 2: Constantia

Unit 2 consists of 155 ac (63 ha) of Federal land. This unit is
located east of U.S. Highway 395, southeast of the historic town of
Constantia, in Lassen County, California. One hundred percent of this
Unit is on Federal lands managed by the BLM. This Unit is currently
occupied and is the most northern occupied Unit within the range of
Ivesia webberi. The Constantia Unit is important to the recovery of I.
webberi primarily because it represents one of relatively few locations
within the Great Basin where the species is known to exist. Given the
increasing prevalence of both site-specific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and specifically within areas occupied

[[Page 46870]]

by I. webberi (Service 2013, entire), this location and most others
where the species occurs confer redundancy within the species'
distribution, thereby buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these threats or other less-
predicable stochastic events. Not a lot is known about the current
condition of I. webberi and its habitat at this site, however, wildfire
and any other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities are
threats to I. webberi in this Unit. While these lands currently have
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and protections,
special management will be required to maintain these features in this
Unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the
``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 3: East of Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area (HJWA)--Evans Canyon

Unit 3 consists of 122 ac (49 ha) of Federal and State lands. This
Unit is located east of U.S. Highway 395 on the border of HJWA in
Lassen County, California. Eighty-two percent of this Unit is on
California State land managed as the HJWA and 18 percent is on Federal
land managed by the BLM. This Unit is currently occupied and is
approximately 1.6 mi (2.6 km) away from Unit 4, which may allow for
social pollinator dispersal between these two Units. Additionally, this
is the only place where Ivesia webberi is found as a co-dominant in an
Artemisia tridentata Nutt. (big sagebrush) community instead of an
Artemisia arbuscula community. The perennial bunchgrass and forb
components of the Artemisia tridentata community found within this Unit
are the same as those occurring in locations where A. arbuscula is co-
dominant with I. webberi. The East of HJWA--Evans Canyon Unit is
important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents
one of relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the
species is known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both
site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this
region and specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service
2013, entire), this location and most others where the species occurs
confer redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering
the species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Wildfire and any
other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities are threats
to I. webberi in this Unit. While these lands currently have the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of I.
webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and protections,
special management will be required to maintain these features in this
Unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the
``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 4: Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area (HJWA)

Unit 4 consists of 69 ac (28 ha) of State lands. This Unit is
located west of U.S. Highway 395 within HJWA in Sierra County,
California. One hundred percent of this Unit is on California State
land managed as the HJWA. This Unit is currently occupied and is
approximately 1.6 mi (2.6 km) away from Unit 3, which may allow for
social pollinator dispersal between these Units. The HJWA Unit is
important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents
one of relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the
species is known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both
site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this
region and specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service
2013, entire), this location and most others where the species occurs
confer redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering
the species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Wildfire and any
other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities are threats
to I. webberi in this Unit. While these lands currently have the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of I.
webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and protections,
special management will be required to maintain these features in this
Unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the
``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 5: Subunit 5a--Dog Valley Meadow and Subunit 5b--Upper Dog Valley

Subunit 5a--Dog Valley Meadow
Subunit 5a consists of 386 ac (156 ha) of Federal lands. This
Subunit is located east of Long Valley Road in Dog Valley in Sierra
County, California. One hundred percent of this Subunit is on Federal
lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). This Unit is currently
occupied and is 0.5 mi (0.8 km) away from Subunit 5b, which may allow
for social pollinator dispersal between these Subunits. The Dog Valley
Meadow Unit is important to the recovery of Ivesia webberi because it
supports 71.58 ac (28.97 ha), or nearly half (43.5 percent) of all
habitat (165 ac (66.8 ha)) that is occupied by I. webberi across the
species' range and 100,000 plants, or approximately 2 to 10 percent
(i.e., dependent on which population estimate range is used for the
calculation) of individuals known to exist across the species' range
(Service 2013, pp. 15-16). Threats to I. webberi in this Subunit
include nonnative, invasive plant species, wildfire, OHV and other
recreational use, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this Subunit historically was
grazed, but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2013, p.
16). While these lands currently have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack
of cohesive management and protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in this Subunit. These threats
should be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management
Considerations or Protection'' section.
Subunit 5b--Upper Dog Valley
Subunit 5b consists of 29 ac (12 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This Subunit is located west of Long Valley Road and south of the Dog
Valley campground in Dog Valley in Sierra County, California. Forty-one
percent of this Subunit is on Federal lands managed by the USFS and 59
percent is on private lands. This Unit is currently occupied and is 0.5
mi (0.8 km) away from Subunit 5a, which may allow for social pollinator
dispersal between these Subunits. The Upper Dog Valley Subunit is
important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents
one of relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the
species is known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both
site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this
region and specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service
2013, entire), this location and most others where the species occurs
confer redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering
the species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I.
webberi in this Subunit include nonnative, invasive plant species,
wildfire, OHV use, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this Subunit historically

[[Page 46871]]

was grazed, but the grazing allotment is currently vacant (Service
2013, p. 16). While these lands currently have the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of I. webberi,
because of a lack of cohesive management and protections, special
management will be required to maintain these features in this Subunit.
These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special
Management Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 6: White Lake Overlook

Unit 6 consists of 109 ac (44 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This Unit is located north of Long Valley Road in Sierra County,
California. Ninety percent of this Unit is on Federal lands managed by
the USFS and 10 percent is on private lands. This Unit is currently
occupied and is 1 mi (1.6 km) or less away from Units 7 and 9, which
may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these Units. The
White Lake Overlook Unit is important to the recovery of Ivesia webberi
because it supports 13.56 ac (5.49 ha) or 8.2 percent of all habitat
(165 ac (66.8 ha)) that is occupied by I. webberi across the species
range. Threats to I. webberi in this Unit include wildfire and any
other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities. While these
lands currently have the physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special management will be required to
maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should be addressed
as detailed above in the ``Special Management Considerations or
Protection'' section.

Unit 7: Subunit 7a--Mules Ear Flat and Subunit 7b--Three Pine Flat and
Jeffrey Pine Saddle

Subunit 7a--Mules Ear Flat
Subunit 7a consists of 65 ac (27 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This Subunit is located west of the California-Nevada border and
southeast of Long Valley Road in Sierra County, California. Forty-eight
percent of this Subunit is on Federal land managed by the USFS, and 52
percent is on private lands. This Subunit is currently occupied and is
1 mi (1.6 km) or less away from Units 6 and 9, which may allow for
social pollinator dispersal between these Units. The Mules Ear Flat
Subunit is important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it
represents one of relatively few locations within the Great Basin where
the species is known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both
site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this
region and specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service
2013, entire), this location and most others where the species occurs
confer redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering
the species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I.
webberi in this Subunit include nonnative, invasive plant species,
wildfire, OHV use, roads, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this Subunit historically was
grazed, but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2013, p.
17). While these lands currently have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack
of cohesive management and protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should
be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management
Considerations or Protection'' section.
Subunit 7b--Three Pine Flat and Jeffrey Pine Saddle
Subunit 7b consists of 68 ac (27 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This Subunit is located east of the California-Nevada border in Washoe
County, Nevada. Four percent of this Subunit is on Federal lands
managed by the USFS, and 96 percent is on private lands. This Subunit
is currently occupied and is 1 mi (1.6 km) or less away from Units 6,
8, and 9, which may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these
Units. The Three Pine Flat and Jeffery Pine Saddle Subunit is important
to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents one of
relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the species is
known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both site-specific
and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 2013,
entire), this location and most others where the species occurs confer
redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering the
species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I.
webberi in this Subunit include nonnative, invasive plant species,
wildfire, OHV use, roads, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this Subunit historically was
grazed, but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2013, p.
17). While these lands currently have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack
of cohesive management and protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should
be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management
Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 8: Ivesia Flat

Unit 8 consists of 62 ac (25 ha) of Federal land. This Unit is
located south of U.S. Highway 395 in Washoe County, NV. One hundred
percent of this Unit is on Federal land managed by the USFS. This Unit
is currently occupied and is 1 mi (1.6 km) away from Subunit 7b, which
may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these Units. The
Ivesia Flat Unit is important to the recovery of Ivesia webberi because
it supports 100,000 plants (Service 2013, p. 17), or approximately
between 2 and 10 percent (i.e., dependent on which population estimate
range is used for the calculation) of individuals known to exist across
the species' range. Threats to I. webberi in this Unit include
nonnative, invasive plant species, wildfire, OHV use, roads, and any
other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities.
Additionally, this Unit historically was grazed, but the grazing
allotment currently is vacant (Service 2013, p. 17). While these lands
currently have the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management
and protections, special management will be required to maintain these
features in this Unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed
above in the ``Special Management Considerations or Protection''
section.

Unit 9: Stateline Road 1

Unit 9 consists of 132 ac (53 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This Unit is located along the California-Nevada border in Sierra
County, California, and Washoe County, Nevada. Ninety-four percent of
this Unit is on Federal land managed by the USFS, and 6 percent is on
private lands. This Unit is currently occupied and is 1 mi (1.6 km) or
less away from Units 6, 7, and 10, which may allow for social
pollinator dispersal between these Units. The Stateline Road 1 Unit is
important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents
one of relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the
species is known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both
site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating

[[Page 46872]]

throughout this region and specifically within areas occupied by I.
webberi (Service 2013, entire), this location and most others where the
species occurs confer redundancy within the species' distribution,
thereby buffering the species against the risk of extirpation likely to
result from these threats or other less-predicable stochastic events.
Threats to I. webberi in this Unit include nonnative, invasive plant
species, wildfire, development, and any other forms of vegetation or
ground-disturbing activities. Additionally, this Unit historically was
grazed, but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2013, p.
18). While these lands currently have the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack
of cohesive management and protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should
be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management
Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 10: Stateline Road 2

Unit 10 consists of 65 ac (26 ha) of Federal land. This Unit is
located along the California-Nevada border in Sierra County,
California, and Washoe County, Nevada. One hundred percent of this Unit
is on Federal land managed by the USFS. This Unit is currently occupied
and is less than 1 mi (1.6 km) away from Unit 9, which may allow for
social pollinator dispersal between these Units. The Stateline Road 2
Unit is important to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it
represents one of relatively few locations within the Great Basin where
the species is known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both
site-specific and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this
region and specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service
2013, entire), this location and most others where the species occurs
confer redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering
the species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I.
webberi in this Unit include nonnative, invasive plant species,
wildfire, development, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this Unit historically was grazed,
but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2013, p. 18).
While these lands currently have the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of
cohesive management and protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should
be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management
Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 11: Hungry Valley

Unit 11 consists of 56 ac (23 ha) of Federal land. This Unit is
located west of Eagle Canyon Drive in Washoe County, Nevada. One
hundred percent of this Unit is on Federal land managed by the BLM.
This Unit is currently occupied and is the eastern most occupied Unit
within the range of Ivesia webberi. The Hungry Valley Unit is important
to the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents one of
relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the species is
known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both site-specific
and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 2013,
entire), this location and most others where the species occurs confer
redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering the
species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I.
webberi in this Unit include nonnative, invasive plant species,
wildfire, OHV use and other recreational use, roads, livestock grazing,
and any other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities.
While these lands currently have the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of
cohesive management and protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should
be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management
Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 12: Black Springs

Unit 12 consists of 140 ac (57 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This Unit is located northwest of North Virginia Street and south of
U.S. Highway 395 in Washoe County, Nevada. Eighty-three percent of this
Unit is on Federal land managed by the USFS, and 17 percent is on
private lands. This Unit is currently occupied and is approximately 1
mi (1.6 km) away from Unit 13, which may allow for social pollinator
dispersal between these Units. The Black Springs Unit is important to
the recovery of I. webberi primarily because it represents one of
relatively few locations within the Great Basin where the species is
known to exist. Given the increasing prevalence of both site-specific
and landscape-scale threats operating throughout this region and
specifically within areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 2013,
entire), this location and most others where the species occurs confer
redundancy within the species' distribution, thereby buffering the
species against the risk of extirpation likely to result from these
threats or other less-predicable stochastic events. Threats to I.
webberi in this Unit include nonnative, invasive plant species,
wildfire, OHV use, roads, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-
disturbing activities. Additionally, this Unit historically was grazed,
but the grazing allotment currently is vacant (Service 2013, p. 18).
While these lands currently have the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of
cohesive management and protections, special management will be
required to maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should
be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special Management
Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 13: Raleigh Heights

Unit 13 consists of 177 ac (72 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This Unit is located northwest of North Virginia Street and south of US
Highway 395 in Washoe County, Nevada. Ninety-two percent of this Unit
is on Federal land managed by the USFS, and 8 percent is on private
lands. This Unit is currently occupied and is approximately 1 mi (1.6
km) away from Unit 12, which may allow for social pollinator dispersal
between these Units. The Raleigh Heights Unit is important to the
recovery of Ivesia webberi because it supports between 100,000 to
4,000,000 plants (Service 2013, p. 19), or approximately 10 to 79.5
percent (i.e., dependent on which population estimate range is used for
the calculation) of individuals known to exist across the species
range. Threats to I. webberi in this Unit include nonnative, invasive
plant species, wildfire, OHV use, roads, and any other forms of
vegetation or ground-disturbing activities. While these lands currently
have the physical and biological features essential to the conservation
of I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and
protections, special management will be required to maintain these
features in this Unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed
above in the ``Special Management Considerations or Protection''
section.

[[Page 46873]]

Unit 14: Dutch Louie Flat

Unit 14 consists of 56 ac (23 ha) of Federal and private lands.
This Unit is located southwest of South McCarran Boulevard in Washoe
County, Nevada. Nineteen percent of this Unit is on Federal lands
managed by the USFS and 81 percent is on private lands. This Unit it
currently occupied and is approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) away from Unit
15, which may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these
Units. The Dutch Louie Flat Unit is important to the recovery of Ivesia
webberi because it supports between 600,000 to 693,795 plants (Service
2013, p. 19), or approximately 14 to 61 percent (i.e., dependent on
which population estimate range is used for the calculation) of
individuals known to exist across the species range. Threats to I.
webberi in this Unit include nonnative, invasive plant species,
wildfire, OHV and other recreational use, roads, development, and any
other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities. While these
lands currently have the physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of I. webberi, because of a lack of cohesive
management and protections, special management will be required to
maintain these features in this Unit. These threats should be addressed
as detailed above in the ``Special Management Considerations or
Protection'' section.

Unit 15: The Pines Powerline

Unit 15 consists of 32 ac (13 ha) of private lands. This Unit is
located southwest of South McCarran Boulevard in Washoe County, Nevada.
One hundred percent of this Unit is on private lands. This Unit is
currently occupied and is approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) away from Unit
14, which may allow for social pollinator dispersal between these
Units. The Pines Powerline Unit is important to the recovery of I.
webberi primarily because it represents one of relatively few locations
within the Great Basin where the species is known to exist. Given the
increasing prevalence of both site-specific and landscape-scale threats
operating throughout this region and specifically within areas occupied
by I. webberi (Service 2013, entire), this location and most others
where the species occurs confer redundancy within the species'
distribution, thereby buffering the species against the risk of
extirpation likely to result from these threats or other less-
predicable stochastic events. Threats to I. webberi in this Unit
include nonnative, invasive plant species, wildfire, OHV and other
recreational use, roads, development, and any other forms of vegetation
or ground-disturbing activities. While these lands currently have the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of I.
webberi, because of a lack of cohesive management and protections,
special management will be required to maintain these features in this
Unit. These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the
``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section.

Unit 16: Dante Mine Road

Unit 16 consists of 14 ac (6 ha) of Federal and private lands. This
Unit is located east of US Highway 395 in Douglas County, Nevada.
Seventy-three percent of this Unit is on Federal land managed by the
BLM, and 27 percent is on private lands. This Unit is currently
occupied and is the most southern occupied Unit within the range of
Ivesia webberi. The Dante Mine Road Unit is important to the recovery
of I. webberi primarily because it represents one of relatively few
locations within the Great Basin where the species is known to exist.
Given the increasing prevalence of both site-specific and landscape-
scale threats operating throughout this region and specifically within
areas occupied by I. webberi (Service 2013, entire), this location and
most others where the species occurs confer redundancy within the
species' distribution, thereby buffering the species against the risk
of extirpation likely to result from these threats or other less-
predicable stochastic events. Threats to I. webberi in this Unit
include nonnative, invasive plant species, wildfire, roads,
development, and any other forms of vegetation or ground-disturbing
activities. While these lands currently have the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of I. webberi,
because of a lack of cohesive management and protections, special
management will be required to maintain these features in this Unit.
These threats should be addressed as detailed above in the ``Special
Management Considerations or Protection'' section.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
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. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we

[[Page 46874]]

provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define
``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as
alternative actions identified during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying 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 we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi. As discussed
above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-history needs of
the species and provide for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for the Ivesia webberi. These activities include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Actions that would lead to the destruction or alteration of
plants, their seedbank, or their habitat; or actions that destroy or
result in continual or excessive disturbance of the clay soils where
Ivesia webberi is found. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to: Activities associated with road construction and
maintenance; excessive OHV use; activies associated with commercial and
residential development including roads and associated infrastructure;
utility corridors or infrastructure; and excessive livestock grazing.
These activities could lead to the loss of individuals, reduce plant
numbers by prohibiting recruitment, remove the seedbank, fragment the
habitat, introduce nonnative, invasive species, and alter the soil such
that important shrink and swell processes no longer occur.
(2) Actions that would result in the loss of pollinators or their
habitat, such that reproduction could be diminished. Such activities
could include, but are not limited to: Destroying ground nesting
habitat; habitat fragmentation that prohibits pollinator movement from
one area to the next; spraying pesticides that would kill pollinators;
and eliminating other plant species on which pollinators are reliant on
for floral resources (this could include the replacement of native forb
species with nonnative, invasive annual grasses, which do not provide
floral resources for pollinators). These activities could result in
reduced reproduction, fruit production, and recruitment in Ivesia
webberi.
(3) Actions that would result in excessive plant competition at
Ivesia webberi populations. These activities could include, but are not
limited to, using highly competitive species in restoration efforts or
creating disturbances that allow nonnative, invasive species such as
Bromus tectorum, Poa bulbosa, and Taeniatherum caput-medusae. These
activities could cause I. webberi to be outcompeted and subsequently
either lost or reduced in numbers of individuals.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat
any lands or other geographic areas owned or controlled by the
Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to
an integrated natural resources management plan [INRMP] prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.'' There are no
Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP within the proposed
critical habitat designation.

Exclusions

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.

[[Page 46875]]

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors. Many of the units, as proposed, include private lands. Federal
lands with special use permits for development, grazing permits, and
recreational uses are also included. State parcels are included where
hunting or recreational activities occur. These areas and activities
will be evaluated in a draft economic analysis.
During the development of a final designation, we will consider
economic impacts based on information in our economic analysis, public
comments, and other new information, and areas may be excluded from the
final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and
our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands where a national security impact might exist. In preparing this
proposal, we have determined that the lands within the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Ivesia webberi are not owned or
managed by the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland
Security, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security.
Consequently, the Secretary is not intending to exercise his discretion
to exclude any areas from the final designation based on impacts on
national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans for Ivesia webberi, and the
proposed designation does not include any tribal lands or trust
resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or
HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the
Secretary does not intend to exercise his discretion to exclude any
areas from the final designation based on other relevant impacts.

Peer Review

In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers to comment
during this public comment period.
We will consider all comments and information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.

Public Hearings

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include such businesses as manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer
than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100
employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in
annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than
$27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less
than $11.5 million in annual business, and forestry and logging
operations with fewer than 500 employees and annual business less than
$7 million. To determine whether small entities may be affected, we
will consider the types of activities that might trigger regulatory
impacts under this designation as well as types of project
modifications that may result. In general, the term ``significant
economic impact'' is meant

[[Page 46876]]

to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Importantly, the incremental impacts of a rule must be both
significant and substantial to prevent certification of the rule under
the RFA and to require the preparation of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis. If a substantial number of small entities are
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation, but the per-
entity economic impact is not significant, the Service may certify.
Likewise, if the per-entity economic impact is likely to be
significant, but the number of affected entities is not substantial,
the Service may also certify.
Under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions,
Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking only on those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself, and not the potential impacts to indirectly affected
entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat
protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires
Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried by the Agency is not likely to
adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal action
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Under these circumstances, our position is that
only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this
designation. Therefore, because Federal agencies are not small
entities, the Service may certify that the proposed critical habitat
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
We acknowledge, however, that in some cases, third-party proponents
of the action subject to permitting or funding may participate in a
section 7 consultation, and thus may be indirectly affected. We believe
it is good policy to assess these impacts if we have sufficient data
before us to complete the necessary analysis, whether or not this
analysis is strictly required by the RFA. While this regulation does
not directly regulate these entities, in our draft economic analysis we
will conduct a brief evaluation of the potential number of third
parties participating in consultations on an annual basis in order to
ensure a more complete examination of the incremental effects of this
proposed rule in the context of the RFA.
In conclusion, we believe that, based on our interpretation of
directly regulated entities under the RFA and relevant case law, this
designation of critical habitat will directly regulate only Federal
agencies, which are not by definition small business entities. And as
such, we certify that, if promulgated, this designation of critical
habitat would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required. However, though not necessarily
required by the RFA, in our draft economic analysis for this proposal,
we will consider and evaluate the potential effects to third parties
that may be involved with consultations with Federal action agencies
related to this action.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. We do not expect the designation of this proposed
critical habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution,
or use because of the small area of proposed critical habitat (total
area of 2,011 ac (814 ha)) and lack of known significant energy
supplies within the proposed critical habitat. Therefore, this action
is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects
is required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct
our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as
warranted.

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.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
With Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it 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 and, as such, a Small Government Agency Plan
is not required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we
conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment if
appropriate.

[[Page 46877]]

Takings--Executive Order 12630

In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference With Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), this rule is not anticipated to have significant takings
implications. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat
affects only Federal actions. Critical habitat designation does not
affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or
permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation
programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that
do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. Due to current
public knowledge of the species protections and the prohibition against
take of the species both within and outside of the proposed areas, we
do not anticipate that property values will be affected by the critical
habitat designation. However, we have not yet completed the economic
analysis for this proposed rule. Once the economic analysis is
available, we will review and revise this preliminary assessment as
warranted, and prepare a Takings Implication Assessment.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we request
information from, and coordinated development of this proposed critical
habitat designation with, appropriate State resource agencies in
California and Nevada. From a federalism perspective, the designation
of critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of
Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties with respect to
critical habitat, either for States and local governments, or for
anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have substantial direct
effects either on the States, or on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or on the distribution of powers
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The
designation may have some benefit to these governments because the
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the
species are more clearly defined, and the physical and biological
features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species
are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist
these local governments in long-range planning (because these local
governments no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species,
the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. The designated areas of
critical habitat are presented on maps, and the rule provides several
options for the interested public to obtain more detailed location
information, if desired.

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

This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of
information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

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 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes.
We have determined that there are no tribal lands occupied by
Ivesia webberi at the time of listing that contain the features
essential for conservation of the species, and no tribal lands that are
unoccupied by the I. webberi that are essential for the conservation of
the species. Therefore, we are not proposing to designate critical
habitat for I. webberi on tribal lands.

Clarity of the Rule

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly

[[Page 46878]]

written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where
you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

The primary authors of this proposed rulemaking are the staff
members of the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245; unless
otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec. 17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for ``Ivesia
webberi (Webber's ivesia),'' in alphabetical order under Family
Rosaceae, to read as follows:

Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.

(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Rosaceae: Ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Plumas, Lassen, and
Sierra Counties, California, and Washoe and Douglas Counties, Nevada,
on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Ivesia
webberi consist of four components:
(i) Plant community.
(A) Open to sparsely vegetated areas composed of generally short-
statured associated plant species.
(B) Presence of appropriate associated species that can include
(but are not limited to): Antennaria dimorpha, Artemisia arbuscula,
Balsamorhiza hookeri, Elymus elymoides, Erigeron bloomeri, Lewisia
rediviva, Poa secunda, and Viola beckwithii.
(C) An intact assemblage of appropriate associated species to
attract the floral visitors that may be acting as pollinators of Ivesia
webberi.
(ii) Topography.
Flats, benches, or terraces that are generally above or adjacent to
large valleys. Occupied sites vary from slightly concave to slightly
convex or gently sloped (0-15[deg]) and occur on all aspects.
(iii) Elevation.
Elevations between 4,475 and 6,237 ft (1,364 and 1,901 m).
(iv) Suitable soils and hydrology.
(A) Vernally moist soils with an argillic horizon that shrink and
swell upon drying and wetting; these soil conditions are characteristic
of known Ivesia webberi populations and are likely important in the
maintenance of the seedbank and population recruitment.
(B) Suitable soils that can include (but are not limited to):
Reno--a fine, smectitic, mesic Abruptic Xeric Argidurid; Xman--a
clayey, smectitic, mesic, shallow Xeric Haplargids; Aldi--a clayey,
smectitic, frigid Lithic Ultic Argixerolls; and Barshaad--a fine,
smectitic, mesic Aridic Palexeroll.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
[INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created on the base of both satellite imagery (ESRI ArcGIS Imagery
Basemap) as well as USGS geospatial quadrangle maps and were mapped
using NAD 83 Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), zone 11N coordinates.
The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory
text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are
available to the public at the Service's internet site, (http://www.fws.gov/nevada/), http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2013-0080 and at the field office responsible for this designation.
You may obtain field office location information by contacting one of
the Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50
CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 46879]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.028

(6) Unit 1, Sierra Valley: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi,
Plumas County, California.
(i) Unit 1 includes 274 ac (111 ha).
(ii) Note: A map of Unit 1 follows:

[[Page 46880]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.029

(7) Unit 2, Constantia: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, Lassen
County, California.
(i) Unit 2 includes 155 ac (63 ha).
(ii) Note: A map of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 46881]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.030

(8) Unit 3, East of HJWA--Evans Canyon and Unit 4, Hallelujah
Junction WA: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, Lassen and Sierra
Counties, California.
(i) Unit 3 includes 122 ac (49 ha) and Unit 4 includes 69 ac (28
ha).
(ii) Note: A map of Units 3 and 4 follows:

[[Page 46882]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.031

(9) Unit 5, Subunit 5a, Dog Valley Meadow; and Subunit 5b, Upper
Dog Valley: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, Sierra County,
California.
(i) Subunit 5a includes 386 ac (156 ha) and Subunit 5b includes 29
ac (12 ha). Combined, Unit 5 includes 415 ac (168 ha).
(ii) Note: A map of Unit 5 (Subunits 5a and 5b) follows:

[[Page 46883]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.032

(10) Unit 6, White Lake Overlook, Sierra County, California; Unit
7, Subunit 7a, Mules Ear Flat, Sierra County, California; Unit 7,
Subunit 7b, Three Pine Flat and Jeffery Pine Saddle, Washoe County,
Nevada; Unit 8, Ivesia Flat, Washoe County, Nevada; Unit 9, Stateline
Road 1, Washoe County, Nevada; and Unit 10, Stateline Road 2, Washoe
County, Nevada: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, Sierra County,
California, and Washoe County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 6 includes 109 ac (44 ha), Subunit 7a includes 65 ac (27
ha), Subunit 7b includes 68 ac (27 ha), Unit 8 includes 62 ac (25 ha),
Unit 9 includes 132 ac (53 ha), and Unit 10 includes 65 ac (26 ha).
(ii) Note: A map of Units 6 through 10 follows:

[[Page 46884]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.033

(11) Unit 11, Hungry Valley: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi,
Washoe County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 11 includes 56 ac (23 ha).
(ii) Note: A map of Unit 11 follows:

[[Page 46885]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.034

(12) Unit 12, Black Springs and Unit 13, Raleigh Heights: Critical
habitat for Ivesia webberi, Washoe County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 12 includes 140 ac (57 ha) and Unit 13 includes 177 ac (72
ha).
(ii) Note: A map of Units 12 and 13 follows:

[[Page 46886]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.035

(13) Unit 14, Dutch Louie Flat and Unit 15, The Pines Powerline:
Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi, Washoe County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 14 includes 56 ac (23 ha) and Unit 15 includes 32 ac (13
ha).
(ii) Note: A map of Units 14 and 15 follows:

[[Page 46887]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.036

(14) Unit 16, Dante Mine Road: Critical habitat for Ivesia webberi,
Douglas County, Nevada.
(i) Unit 16 includes 14 ac (6 ha).
(ii) Note: A map of Unit 16 follows:

[[Page 46888]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU13.037

* * * * *

Dated: July 23, 2013.
Rachel Jacobsen,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-18583 Filed 8-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C