Comment on FR Doc # 2010-15251

The species are characterized thoroughly, as far as we know them. It appears that the best available scientific information was used in this assessment, and an objective analysis was performed. I noted only a couple of typos/small errors/ or areas that were not clear: 1) On page 35733, in the middle of the page, there are a few sentences about projected temperature increases over the coming decades of 32-39 degrees F. I think this must be 3.2 to 3.9 degrees? 2) On page 35734 and again on 35735, the number 84 is reported as a low total annual count for Phacelia submutica. I think the low total count should be zero because, as far as I know, in some years, especially in dry years, the plants do not express themselves above ground at all. I agree with the determinations to list these species. All of the species are known from very narrow global ranges, and the land uses in these areas are heavy. I found the descriptions and analyses of the species to be accurate and adequate. The assumptions and definitions for suitable habitat are logical. There were no significant oversights, omissions, or inconsistencies, and the conclusions are well supported. The proposed rule is well documented with literature citations, and scientific uncertainties are fairly and clearly articulated.