Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:
Federal Register: February 8, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 26)
Rules and Regulations
Page 6847-6925
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DOCID:fr08fe11-9
Page 6847
Vol. 76
Tuesday,
No. 26
February 8, 2011
Part II
Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Revised Critical
Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-Leaved Brodiaea); Final Rule
Page 6848
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0073; MO 92210-0-0009
RIN 1018-AW54
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Revised
Critical Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-Leaved Brodiaea)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are designating revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia (thread-leaved brodiaea) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
Approximately 2,947 acres (ac) (1,193 hectares (ha)) in 10 units are being designated as revised critical habitat for B. filifolia in Los
Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties,
California.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on March 10, 2011.
ADDRESSES: The final rule, final economic analysis, and map of revised critical habitat will be available on the Internet at http:// www.regulations. gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0073. Supporting documentation we used in preparing this final rule will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760- 431-9440; facsimile 760-431-5901.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
We intend to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia under the Endangered Species Act (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), in this final rule. For information on the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of B. filifolia, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54975), the designation of critical habitat for B. filifolia published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2005 (70 FR 73820), the proposed revised designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2009
(74 FR 64930), and the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft economic analysis (DEA) published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2010 (75 FR 42054). Additionally, more information on this species can be found in the five-year review for B. filifolia signed on August 13, 2009, which is available on our Web site at: http//:www.fws.gov/
Carlsbad.
New Information on Species' Description, Life History, Ecology,
Habitat, and Geographic Range and Status
We received no new information pertaining to the description, life history, ecology, habitat, geographic range, or status of Brodiaea filifolia following the 2009 proposed revised critical habitat designation (74 FR 64930).
Previous Federal Actions
We published our final designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia on December 13, 2005 (70 FR 73820). The Center for Biological
Diversity filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on December 19, 2007, challenging our designation of critical habitat for B. filifolia and Navarretia fossalis (Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and
Wildlife, et al., Case No. 07-CV-02379-W-NLS). In a settlement agreement dated July 25, 2008, we agreed to reconsider the critical habitat designation for B. filifolia. The settlement stipulated that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) shall submit a proposed revised critical habitat designation for B. filifolia to the Federal
Register by December 1, 2009, and submit a final revised critical habitat designation to the Federal Register by December 1, 2010. The proposed revised critical habitat designation was published in the
Federal Register on December 8, 2009 (74 FR 64930). On November 19, 2010, the U.S. District Court granted a motion to modify the settlement agreement to extend to January 31, 2011, submittal of a final revised critical habitat designation to the Federal Register.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Revised Rule and the Previous
Critical Habitat Designation
Summary of Changes From the 2005 Critical Habitat Rule
The areas identified in this rule constitute a revision from the areas we designated as critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia on
December 13, 2005 (70 FR 73820). In cases where we have new information or information that was not available for the previous designation, we made changes to the critical habitat for B. filifolia to ensure that this rule reflects the best scientific data available.
In the 2005 rule, we excluded subunits under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act within the planning boundaries for the Villages of La Costa Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP). The Villages of La Costa HCP is now included within (considered part of) the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management
Plan (Carlsbad HMP) under the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan
(MHCP); therefore, all revised critical habitat that overlaps with the
Villages of La Costa HCP was analyzed under section 4(b)(2) of the Act as part of the Carlsbad HMP discussion. These areas have again been excluded from this revised designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
(see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
In the 2005 rule, we identified areas covered by HCPs that provided protections for Brodiaea filifolia, and excluded those areas because we concluded they did not require special management considerations or protection. We are not using this approach in this rule. In this rule, we identified areas covered by HCPs that are conserved and managed and have weighed the benefits of exclusion against the benefits of including these areas in the revised critical habitat designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
This rule uses a new economic analysis to identify and estimate the potential economic effects resulting from implementation of conservation actions associated with the revised critical habitat. The analysis is based on estimated incremental impacts associated with critical habitat.
We made changes to the primary constituent elements (PCEs) and our criteria used to identify critical habitat. We incorporated information related to the taxonomy of the species including the change in plant family for Brodiaea filifolia. We redefined the boundaries of each subunit proposed as revised critical habitat to more accurately reflect the areas that include the features that
Page 6849
are essential to the conservation of B. filifolia, and we analyzed new distribution data (in the 2009 proposed revised critical habitat rule) that has become available to us following the 2005 designation. Table 1 shows the progression of each subunit of critical habitat from the 2005 final critical habitat designation to this final revised critical habitat designation. Table 2 includes name changes that we made for some of the subunits where the old names were ambiguous or do not reflect the current name used to refer to these areas; although the names of these units changed, the locations of these units have not changed. Following Tables 2 and 3, we provide a detailed description of each change made in this revised rule and point to new information that precipitated the change.
Table 1--Changes Between the December 13, 2005, Final Critical Habitat Designation for Brodiaea filifolia, the
December 8, 2009, Proposed Revised Critical Habitat Designation, and This Final Revised Critical Habitat
Designation *
Unit/Subunit No. and name **
2005 fCH
2009 prCH
2011 frCH
Unit 1: Los Angeles County: 1a. Glendora.................... 96 ac (39 ha)........... 67 ac (27 ha).......... 67 ac (27 ha). 1b. San Dimas................... 198 ac (80 ha).......... 138 ac (56 ha)......... 138 ac (56 ha).
Unit 2: San Bernardino County: 2. Arrowhead Hot Springs........ Not designated, wrong
61 ac (25 ha).......... 61 ac (25 ha). location.
Unit 3: Central Orange County: 3. Aliso Canyon................. Not designated, did not 113 ac (46 ha)......... 11 ac (4 ha); partially meet the definition of
excluded under section critical habitat.
4(b)(2).
Unit 4: Southern Orange County: 4a. Arroyo Trabuco.............. Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A. meet the definition of critical habitat. 4b. Caspers Wilderness Park..... Excluded under section 205 ac (83 ha)......... 12 ac (5 ha); partially 4(b)(2).
excluded under section 4(b)(2). 4c. Ca[ntilde]ada Gobernadora/
Excluded under section 133 ac (54 ha)......... 133 ac (54 ha).
Chiquita Ridgeline.
4(b)(2). 4d. Prima Deschecha............. Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A. meet the definition of critical habitat. 4e. Forster Ranch............... Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A. meet the definition of critical habitat. 4f. Talega/Segunda Deshecha..... Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A. meet the definition of critical habitat. 4g. Cristianitos Canyon......... Excluded under section 587 ac (238 ha)........ 587 ac (238 ha). 4(b)(2). 4h. Cristianitos Canyon South... Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A. meet the definition of critical habitat. 4i. Blind Canyon................ Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A. meet the definition of critical habitat.
Unit 5: Northern San Diego County: 5a. Miller Mountain............. Not designated, mostly
Not proposed, only
N/A. hybrid plants.
Brodiaea santarosae present. 5b. Devil Canyon................ 249 ac (101 ha)......... 274 ac (111 ha)........ 274 ac (111 ha).
Unit 6: Oceanside: 6a. Alta Creek.................. Not designated, did not 72 ac (29 ha).......... 72 ac (29 ha). meet the definition of critical habitat. 6b. Mesa Drive.................. Excluded under section 17 ac (7 ha)........... 17 ac (7 ha). 4(b)(2). 6c. Mission View/Sierra Ridge... Not designated, did not 12 ac (5 ha)........... 12 ac (5 ha). meet the definition of critical habitat. 6d. Taylor/Darwin............... Excluded under section 35 ac (14 ha).......... 35 ac (14 ha). 4(b)(2). 6e. Arbor Creek/Colucci......... N/A..................... 94 ac (38 ha).......... 94 ac (38 ha).
Unit 7: Carlsbad 7a. Letterbox Canyon............ Excluded under section 57 ac (23 ha).......... 43 ac (17 ha); 4(b)(2).
partially excluded under section 4(b)(2); 2 ac (1 ha) removed-- do not meet the definition of critical habitat. 7b. Rancho Carrillo............. Not designated, did not 37 ac (15 ha).......... 37 ac (15 ha). meet the definition of critical habitat.
Page 6850
7c. Calavera Hills Village H.... Excluded under section 71 ac (29 ha).......... 26 ac (11 ha); 4(b)(2).
partially excluded under section 4(b)(2). 7d. Villages of La Costa (Rancho Excluded under section 98 ac (40 ha).......... Excluded under section
La Costa).
4(b)(2).
4(b)(2).
Carlsbad Oaks............... Excluded under section
Not proposed, does not N/A. 4(b)(2).
meet the definition of critical habitat.
Carlsbad Highlands.......... Excluded under section
Not proposed, does not N/A. 4(b)(2).
meet the definition of critical habitat.
Poinsettia.................. Excluded under section
Not proposed, does not N/A. 4(b)(2).
meet the definition of critical habitat.
Unit 8: San Marcos and Vista: 8a. Rancho Santa Fe Road North.. Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A. meet the definition of critical habitat. 8b. Rancho Santalina/Loma Alta.. Not included under
47 ac (19 ha).......... 47 ac (19 ha). section 3(5)(A). 8c. Grand Avenue................ Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A. meet the definition of critical habitat. 8d. Upham....................... 54 ac (22 ha)........... 54 ac (22 ha).......... 54 ac (22 ha). 8e. Linda Vista................. Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A. meet the definition of critical habitat. 8f. Oleander/San Marcos
N/A..................... 7 ac (3 ha)............ 7 ac (3 ha).
Elementary.
Unit 9: 9. Double LL Ranch.............. Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A. meet the definition of critical habitat.
Unit 10: 10. Highland Valley............. Not designated; could
N/A.................... N/A. not verify occurrence.
Unit 11: Western Riverside County: 11a. San Jacinto Wildlife Area.. Excluded under section 401 ac (162 ha)........ 401 ac (162 ha). 4(b)(2). 11b. San Jacinto Avenue/Dawson
Excluded under section 117 ac (47 ha)......... 117 ac (47 ha).
Road.
4(b)(2). 11c. Case Road.................. Excluded under section 180 ac (73 ha)......... 180 ac (73 ha). 4(b)(2). 11d. Railroad Canyon............ Excluded under section 257 ac (104 ha)........ 257 ac (104 ha). 4(b)(2). 11e. Upper Salt Creek (Stowe
Excluded under section 145 ac (59 ha)......... 145 ac (59 ha).
Pool).
4(b)(2). 11f. Santa Rosa Plateau--Mesa de Excluded under section 234 ac (95 ha)......... 13 ac (5 ha); partially
Colorado.
4(b)(2).
excluded under section 4(b)(2).
Santa Rosa Plateau--Tenaja
Excluded under section
Not proposed; only
N/A.
Rd.
4(b)(2).
Brodiaea santarosae present. 11g. Santa Rosa Plateau--South
Excluded under section 117 ac (47 ha)......... Excluded under section of Tenaja Rd.
4(b)(2).
4(b)(2). 11h. Santa Rosa Plateau--North
Excluded under section 44 ac (18 ha).......... Excluded under section of Tenaja Rd.
4(b)(2).
4(b)(2).
East of Tenaja Guard Station Excluded under section
Not proposed, does not N/A. 4(b)(2).
meet the definition of critical habitat.
N. End Redondo Mesa......... Excluded under section
Not proposed, does not N/A. 4(b)(2).
meet the definition of critical habitat.
Corona (north).............. Not designated, could
N/A.................... N/A. not verify occurrence.
Corona (south).............. Not designated, could
N/A.................... N/A. not verify occurrence.
Moreno Valley............... Not designated, could
N/A.................... N/A. not verify occurrence.
Unit 12: San Diego County:
Page 6851
12. Artesian Trails............. N/A..................... 109 ac (44 ha)......... 105 ac (43 ha); partially excluded under section 4(b)(2).
TOTAL FOR NON-MILITARY LANDS........ 597 ac (242 ha)......... 3,786 ac (1,532 ha).... 2,945 ac (1,193 ha).
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton:
Cristianitos Canyon Pendleton....... N/A..................... 4(a)(3) exemption...... 4(a)(3) exemption.
Bravo One........................... 4(a)(3) exemption....... 4(a)(3) exemption...... 4(a)(3) exemption.
Bravo Two South..................... N/A..................... 4(a)(3) exemption...... 4(a)(3) exemption.
Alpha One/Bravo Three............... 4(a)(3) exemption....... Does not meet the
N/A. definition of critical habitat.
Basilone/San Mateo Junction......... N/A..................... 4(a)(3) exemption...... 4(a)(3) exemption.
Camp Horno.......................... 4(a)(3) exemption....... 4(a)(3) exemption...... 4(a)(3) exemption.
SE Horno Summit..................... 4(a)(3) exemption....... Does not meet the
N/A. definition of critical habitat.
Kilo One............................ 4(a)(3) exemption....... Does not meet the
N/A. definition of critical habitat.
Pilgrim Creek....................... N/A..................... 4(a)(3) exemption...... 4(a)(3) exemption.
South White Beach................... N/A..................... 4(a)(3) exemption...... 4(a)(3) exemption.
TOTAL FOR MILITARY LANDS***
0 ac (0 ha)............. 0 ac (0 ha)............ 0 ac (0 ha).
TOTALS
597 ac (242 ha)......... 3,786 ac (1,532 ha).... 2,947 ac (1,193 ha).
* This table does not include all locations that are occupied by Brodiaea filifolia. It includes only those locations that have met the definition of critical habitat in this or one of the past proposed or final critical habitat rules for B. filifolia.
** Values in this table and the following text may not sum due to rounding.
*** Military Lands are exempt from this rule under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Table 2--Name Changes From the 2005 Final Critical Habitat Designation for Brodiaea filifolia to This Final
Revised Critical Habitat Designation
Subunit No.
Previous name
Current name
Reason for change
6c............................... Oceanside East/Mission
Mission View/Sierra
Not the eastern most
Ave.
Ridge.
occurrence in
Oceanside. 7a............................... Fox-Miller............... Letterbox Canyon........ Includes more properties than just Fox-Miller. 7c............................... Calavera Heights......... Calavera Hills Village H New name is more specific. 11b.............................. San Jacinto Floodplain... San Jacinto Avenue/
New name is more
Dawson Road.
specific. 11c.............................. Case Road Area........... Case Road............... New name is more specific.
Summary of Changes From the 2009 Proposed Revised Critical Habitat Rule
The most significant changes between the December 2009 proposed revision and this final revised rule are outlined in Table 1 above and include:
(1) In the proposed revised rule, we considered lands covered by the Southern Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan/Master
Streambed Alteration Agreement/Habitat Conservation Plan, now known as the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP, for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We have now analyzed each of the areas considered for exclusion under the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP, and have determined that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion for approximately 192 ac (78 ha) of proposed revised critical habitat in Subunit 4b that are covered by the Orange County Southern
Subregion HCP and are conserved and managed. We also determined that exclusion of these areas will not result in extinction of the species.
Therefore, we are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude these lands from this revised critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. For a complete discussion of the benefits of inclusion and exclusion, see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act section below.
(2) In the proposed revised rule, we considered lands covered by the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) under the San Diego Multiple
Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We have now analyzed each of the areas considered for exclusion under the Carlsbad HMP, and have determined that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion for approximately 156 ac (63 ha) of proposed revised critical habitat in Subunits 7a, 7c, and 7d that are covered by the Carlsbad HMP under the MHCP and are conserved and managed. We also determined that exclusion of these areas will not result in extinction of the species. Therefore, we are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude these lands from this revised critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
For a complete discussion of the benefits of inclusion and exclusion, see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.
(3) We have determined that 2 ac (1 ha) of land in Subunit 7a do not meet the definition of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia because they do not contain habitat suitable for the species. We are therefore not including these areas in the revised critical habitat designation.
(4) In the proposed revised rule, we considered lands within the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(Western Riverside County MSHCP) planning area for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We have now analyzed each of the areas considered for exclusion
Page 6852
under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, and have determined that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion for approximately 381 ac (154 ha) of proposed revised critical habitat in
Subunits 11g, 11h, and a portion of Subunit 11f that are covered by the
Western Riverside County MSHCP and are conserved and managed. We also determined that exclusion of these lands will not result in extinction of the species. Therefore, we are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude these lands from this revised critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. For a complete discussion of the benefits of inclusion and exclusion, see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.
(5) In the proposed revised rule, we considered lands covered by the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We have now analyzed each of the areas considered for exclusion under the MSCP, and have determined that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion for approximately 4 ac (2 ha) of proposed revised critical habitat in Unit 12 that are under the County of San Diego Subarea Plan and are conserved and managed. We also determined that exclusion of these lands will not result in extinction of the species. Therefore, we are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude these lands from this revised critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. For a complete discussion of the benefits of inclusion and exclusion, see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.
(6) A number of comments we received suggested editorial changes and technical corrections to sections of the rule pertaining to the
Background and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections of the proposed revised rule. These changes were recommended to improve clarity, include additional information, and correct minor errors. They have been incorporated into this final rule, where appropriate.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) 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:
(
-
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 the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management, such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding, or authorizing activities that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires consultation on Federal actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by private landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the landowner's obligation is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing must contain physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species, and be included only if those features may require special management considerations or protection. The physical and biological features are the primary constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species
(i.e., areas on which are found the PCEs laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the conservation of the species). Under the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed as critical habitat only when we determine that those areas are essential for the conservation of the species and that designation limited to the geographical area occupied at the time of listing 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 and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (44 U.S.C. 3516), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific and commercial data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial 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, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge. Substantive comments received in response to proposed critical habitat designations are also considered.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic
Page 6853
implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah et al. 2005, p. 4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial areas in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying
(Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 11; Cayan et al. 2009, p. xi). Additionally, the southwestern region of the country is predicted to become drier and hotter overall (Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12424; Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). Climate change may also affect the duration and frequency of drought and these climatic changes may become even more dramatic and intense (Graham 1997).
Documentation of climate-related changes that have already occurred in
California (Croke et al. 1998, pp. 2128, 2130; Brashears et al. 2005, p. 15144), and future drought predictions for California (e.g., Field et al. 1999, pp. 8-10; Lenihen et al. 2003, p. 1667; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Brashears et al. 2005, p. 15144; Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181) and North America (IPCC 2007, p. 9) indicate prolonged drought and other climate-related changes will continue in the foreseeable future.
We anticipate these changes could affect a number of native plants, including Brodiaea filifolia habitat and occurrences. For example, if the amount and timing of precipitation or the average temperature increases in southern California, the following four changes may affect the long-term viability of B. filifolia occurrences in their current habitat configuration:
(1) Drier conditions may result in a lower germination rate and smaller population sizes;
(2) A shift in the timing of annual rainfall may favor nonnative species that impact the quality of habitat for this species;
(3) Warmer temperatures may affect the timing of pollinator life- cycles causing pollinators to become out-of-sync with timing of flowering B. filifolia; and
(4) Drier conditions may result in increased fire frequency, making the ecosystems in which B. filifolia currently grows more vulnerable to the threats of subsequent erosion and nonnative or native plant invasion.
At this time, we are unable to identify the specific ways that climate change may impact Brodiaea filifolia; therefore, we are unable to determine if any additional areas may be appropriate to include in this revised critical habitat designation. Additionally, we recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not promote the recovery of the species.
Areas that support occurrences of the species, but are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions we and other Federal agencies implement under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. In these areas, the species is also subject to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available at the time of the agency action.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, HCPs, or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Primary Constituent Elements
Physical and 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 occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species that may require special management considerations or protection. We consider the physical or biological features to be the
PCEs laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the conservation of the species. The PCEs include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.
We derive the PCEs required for Brodiaea filifolia from its biological needs. The areas included in our revised critical habitat for B. filifolia contain the appropriate soils and associated vegetation at suitable elevations, and adjacent areas necessary to maintain associated physical processes such as a suitable hydrological regime. The areas provide suitable habitat, water, minerals, and other physiological needs for reproduction and growth of B. filifolia, as well as habitat that supports pollinators of B. filifolia. The PCEs and the resulting physical and biological features essential to the conservation of B. filifolia are derived from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described in the Background section of the proposed revised rule (74 FR 64930; December 8, 2009), the previous critical habitat rule (70 FR 73820; December 13, 2005), and in the final listing rule (63 FR 54975; October 13, 1998).
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Habitats that provide space for growth and persistence of Brodiaea filifolia include areas: (1) With combinations of appropriate elevation and clay or clay-associated soils, on mesas or low to moderate slopes that support open native or annual grasslands within open coastal sage scrub or coastal sage scrub-chaparral communities; (2) in floodplains or in association with vernal pool or playa complexes that support various grassland, scrub, or riparian herb communities; (3) on soils derived from olivine basalt lava flows on mesas and slopes that support vernal pools within grassland, oak woodland, or savannah communities; or (4) on sandy loam soils derived from basalt and granodiorite parent material with deposits of cobbles and boulders supporting intermittent seeps, and open marsh communities. Despite the wide range of habitats where B. filifolia occurs, this species occupies a specific niche of habitat that is moderately wet to occasionally wet.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
All members of the genus Brodiaea require full sun and many tend to occur on only one or a few soil series (Niehaus 1971, pp. 26-27).
Brodiaea filifolia occurs on several formally named soil series, but most (if not all) of these are primarily clay soils with varying amounts of sand and silt. In this rule, we listed all the mapped soils that
Page 6854
overlap with the distribution of B. filifolia. Sometimes clay soils occur as inclusions within other soil series; as such, we have named those other soil series in this rule. Another reason that there are many differently named soil series is because this species occurs in five counties, each of which has uniquely named soils. In some areas in northern San Diego County and southwestern Riverside County, the species is identified with mapped soils with no known clay component; however, closer study and sight specific sampling may show these soils contain clay in the specific areas supporting B. filifolia. Despite this issue and the diversity in named soil series, B. filifolia is considered a clay soils endemic.
In San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties, occurrences of
Brodiaea filifolia are highly correlated with specific clay soil series such as, but not limited to: Alo, Altamont, Auld, and Diablo or clay lens inclusions in a matrix of loamy soils such as Fallbrook,
Huerhuero, and Las Flores series (63 FR 54975, p. 54978; CNDDB 2009, pp. 1-76; Service Geographic Information System (GIS) data 2009; USDA 1994). These soils generally occur on mesas and hillsides with gentle to moderate slopes, or in association with vernal pools. These soils are generally vegetated with open native or nonnative grassland, open coastal sage scrub, or open coastal sage scrub-chaparral communities.
In San Bernardino County, the species is associated with Etsel family-
Rock outcrop-Springdale and Tujunga-Urban land-Hanford soils (Service 2009a, Service GIS data). These soils are generally vegetated with open native and nonnative grassland, open coastal sage scrub, or open coastal sage scrub-chaparral communities.
In western Riverside County, the species is often found on alkaline silty-clay soil series such as, but not limited to, Domino,
Grangeville, Waukena, and Willows underlain by a clay subsoil or caliche (a hardened gray deposit of calcium carbonate). These soils generally occur in low-lying areas and floodplains or are associated with vernal pool or playa complexes. These soils are generally vegetated with open native and nonnative grassland, alkali grassland, or alkali scrub communities. Also in western Riverside County, the species is found on clay loam soils underlain by heavy clays derived from basalt lava flows (i.e., Murrieta series on the Santa Rosa
Plateau) (Bramlet 1993, p. 1; CNDDB 2009, pp. 1-76; Service 2009a,
Service GIS data). These soils generally occur on mesas and gentle to moderate slopes or are associated with basalt vernal pools. These soils are vegetated with open native or nonnative grassland or oak woodland savannah communities.
In some areas in northern San Diego County and southwestern
Riverside County, the species is found on sandy loam soils derived from basalt and granodiorite parent materials; deposits of gravel, cobble, and boulders; or hydrologically fractured, weathered granite in intermittent streams and seeps. These soils and deposits are generally vegetated by open riparian and freshwater marsh communities associated with intermittent drainages, floodplains, and seeps. These soils facilitate the natural process of seed dispersal and germination, cormlet disposition or movement to an appropriate soil depth, and corm persistence through seedling and adult phases of flowering and fruit set.
Habitats That Are Protected From Disturbance or Are Representative of the Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the
Species
The conservation of Brodiaea filifolia is dependent on several factors including, but not limited to, maintenance of areas of sufficient size and configuration to sustain natural ecosystem components, functions, and processes (such as full sun exposure, natural fire and hydrologic regimes, adequate biotic balance to prevent excessive herbivory); protection of existing substrate continuity and structure, connectivity among groups of plants of this species within geographic proximity to facilitate gene flow among the sites through pollinator activity and seed dispersal; and sufficient adjacent suitable habitat for vegetative reproduction and population expansion.
A natural, generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure, perhaps lightly impacted, but not permanently altered by anthropogenic land use activities (such as deep, repetitive discing, or grading), and associated physical processes such as a natural hydrological regime is necessary to provide water, minerals, and other physiological needs for
Brodiaea filifolia. A natural hydrological regime includes seasonal hydration followed by drying out of the substrate to promote growth of plants and new corms for the following season. These conditions are also necessary for the normal development of seedlings and young vegetative cormlets.
Habitat for Pollinators of Brodiaea filifolia
Cross-pollination is essential for the survival and recovery of
Brodiaea filifolia because this species is self-incompatible and it cannot sexually reproduce without the aid of insect pollinators. A variety of insects are known to cross-pollinate Brodiaea species, including tumbling flower beetles (Mordellidae, Coleoptera) and sweat bees (Halictidae, Hymenoptera; Niehaus 1971, p. 27). Bell and Rey
(1991, p. 3) report that native bees observed pollinating B. filifolia on the Santa Rosa Plateau in Riverside County include Bombus californicus (Apidae, Hymenoptera), Hoplitus sp. (Megachilidae,
Hymenoptera), Osmia sp. (Megachilidae, Hymenoptera), and an unidentified Anthophorid (digger-bee). Anthophoridae and Halictidae are important pollinators of B. filifolia, as shown at a study site in
Orange County (Glenn Lukos Associates 2004, p. 3). Supporting and maintaining pollinators and pollinator habitat is essential to the conservation of B. filifolia because this species cannot set viable seed without cross-pollination.
Of primary concern to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia are solitary bees (such as sweat bees (Hoplitus sp. and Osmia sp.)) because these are the pollinators that have the most specific habitat requirements (such as nesting requirements) and are impacted by fragmentation and reduced diversity of natural habitats at a small scale (Gathmann and Tscharntke 2002, p. 757; Steffan-Dewenter 2003, p. 1041; Shepherd 2009, pers. comm.). Due to the focused foraging habits of solitary bees, we believe that these insects may be the most important to the successful reproduction of B. filifolia. To sustain an active pollinator community for B. filifolia, alternative pollen or food source plants may be necessary for the persistence of these insects when B. filifolia is not in flower. It is also necessary for nest sites for pollinators to be located within flying distance of B. filifolia occurrences.
Bombus spp. (bumblebees) may also be important to the pollination of Brodiaea filifolia, however, these insects may be able to travel greater distances and cross fragmented landscapes to pollinate B. filifolia. In a study of experimental isolation and pollen dispersal of
Delphinium nuttallianum (Nuttall's larkspur), Schulke and Waser (2001, pp. 242-243) report that adequate pollen loads were dispersed by bumblebees within control populations and in isolated experimental
``populations'' from 164 to 1,312 feet (ft) (50 to 400 meters (m)) from the control populations. One of several pollinator taxa effective at 1,312 ft (400 m) was Bombus californicus (Schulke and Waser 2001, pp. 240-243), which was also one of four bee species observed
Page 6855
pollinating B. filifolia by Bell and Rey (1991, p. 2). Studies by
Steffan-Dewenter and Tscharntke (2000, p. 293) demonstrated that it is possible for bees to forage as far as 4,920 ft (1,500 m) from a colony, and at least one study suggests that bumblebees may forage many kilometers away (Sudgen 1985, p. 308). Bumblebees may be effective at transferring pollen between occurrences of B. filifolia because they are larger and have been found pollinating plants at distances of 1,312 to 4,920 ft (400 to 1,500 m). However, the visits and focused effort of bumblebees may be less frequent than ground-nesting bees.
Ground-nesting solitary bees appear to have limited dispersal and flight abilities (Thorp and Leong 1995, p. 7). Studies have shown that as areas are fragmented by development, remaining habitat areas have reduced pollinator diversity (Steffan-Dewenter 2003, p. 1041). If pollinators are eliminated from an occurrence, Brodiaea filifolia will no longer be able to reproduce sexually. Of the native bees that have been observed pollinating B. filifolia, solitary ground-nesting bees are the most sensitive to habitat disturbance and the most likely to be lost from an area. Sweat bees, Holitus, and Osmia (mason bees), fly approximately 900 to 1,500 ft (274 to 457 m), 600 to 900 ft (183 to 274 m), and 600 to 1,800 ft (183 to 549 m), respectively (Shepherd 2009, pers. comm.). Bombus californicus (family Apidae) and digger bees
(family Apidae) fly further, generally more than 2,640 ft (804 m)
(Shepherd 2009, pers. comm.). These flight distances are important in determining what habitat associated with B. filifolia occurrences provides habitat for this species' pollinators. Conserving habitat where these pollinators nest and forage will sustain an active pollinator community and provide for the cross-pollination of B. filifolia.
In our review of the data on pollinators of Brodiaea filifolia in the 2005 critical habitat rule, we determined that an 820-ft (250-m) area around each occurrence identified in the critical habitat would provide adequate space to support B. filifolia's pollinators. In the 2005 critical habitat rule, we based the 820-ft (250-m) distance on a conservative estimate for the mean routine flight distance for bees.
This distance represents an estimate of flight distance for pollinators that fly an average of less than 1,800 ft (549 m) (i.e., the maximum distance observed by known pollinators of B. filifolia except Bombus californicus). Research supports this distance, as studies looking at areas with a radius of 820 ft (250 m) have found that solitary bees forage at this scale and that if fragmentation occurs at this scale the presence of solitary bees will decrease (Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2002, pp. 1027-1029; Shepherd 2009, pers. comm.). Insects that travel greater distances than 1,800 ft (549 m) on average may also find habitat within 820 ft (250 m) of B. filifolia occurrences. It is also possible that insects flying greater than 1,800 ft (549 m) are flying in from greater distances (Bombus californicus and Anthophora) and are living in habitats that are not directly connected with areas supporting B. filifolia. Delineating a pollinator use area larger than 820 ft (250 m) around B. filifolia would capture habitat that may not directly contribute to the conservation of B. filifolia. Including habitat extending beyond the perimeters of mapped occurrences of B. filifolia by up to 820 ft (250 m) in the PCEs is necessary to support pollinator activity in critical habitat, support the sexual reproduction of B. filifolia, and provide for gene flow, pollen dispersal, and seed dispersal.
Primary Constituent Elements for Brodiaea filifolia
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to identify the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia and that may require special management considerations or protection. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species are those PCEs laid out in an appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement determined to be essential to the conservation of the species. All final revised critical habitat areas for B. filifolia are currently occupied, are within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, and contain sufficient PCEs to support at least one life history function of the species (see the Spatial Distribution and
Historical Range section of the proposed revised rule).
Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of Brodiaea filifolia, and the requirements of the habitat to sustain the life-history traits of the species, we determined that the
PCEs specific to B. filifolia are:
(1) PCE 1--Appropriate soil series at a range of elevations and in a variety of plant communities, specifically:
(
-
Clay soil series of various origins (such as Alo, Altamont,
Auld, or Diablo), clay lenses found as unmapped inclusions in other soils series, or loamy soils series underlain by a clay subsoil (such as Fallbrook, Huerhuero, or Las Flores) occurring between the elevations of 100 and 2,500 ft (30 and 762 m).
(B) Soils (such as Cieneba-rock outcrop complex and Ramona family-
Typic Xerothents soils) altered by hydrothermal activity occurring between the elevations of 1,000 and 2,500 ft (305 and 762 m).
(C) Silty loam soil series underlain by a clay subsoil or caliche that are generally poorly drained, moderately to strongly alkaline, granitic in origin (such as Domino, Grangeville, Traver, Waukena, or
Willows) occurring between the elevations of 600 and 1,800 ft (183 and 549 m).
(D) Clay loam soil series (such as Murrieta) underlain by heavy clay loams or clays derived from olivine basalt lava flows occurring between the elevations of 1,700 and 2,500 ft (518 and 762 m).
(E) Sandy loam soils derived from basalt and granodiorite parent materials; deposits of gravel, cobble, and boulders; or hydrologically fractured, weathered granite in intermittent streams and seeps occurring between 1,800 and 2,500 ft (549 and 762 m).
(2) PCE 2--Areas with a natural, generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure, not permanently altered by anthropogenic land use activities (such as deep, repetitive discing, or grading), extending out up to 820 ft (250 m) from mapped occurrences of Brodiaea filifolia to provide for space for individual population growth, and space for pollinators.
This revision to the previous critical habitat designation is designed for the conservation of those areas containing PCEs necessary to support the species' life history traits. All units/subunits of the revised critical habitat contain one of the specific soil components identified in PCE 1, which facilitate the natural process of seed dispersal and germination, cormlet disposition or movement to an appropriate soil depth, and corm persistence through seedling and adult phases of flowering and fruit set (see Habitat section of the proposed revised critical habitat rule for this species (74 FR 64932)), and have natural, generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure necessary to provide water, minerals, and other physiological needs for the species and support habitat for pollinators, which facilitate reproduction, as identified in PCE 2. These two factors are sufficient to support life-history traits of Brodiaea filifolia in the units/ subunits we designate as revised critical habitat. In general, we designate units/subunits based on the presence of the PCEs in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the conservation of the species. In the case of this designation, all of the units/subunits contain both of the PCEs.
Page 6856
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, we assess whether the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations or protection. In all units/subunits, special management considerations or protection of the essential features may be required to provide for the growth, reproduction, and sustained function of the habitat on which Brodiaea filifolia depends.
The lands designated as revised critical habitat represent our best assessment of the habitat that meets the definition of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia at this time. The essential physical or biological features within the areas designated as revised critical habitat may require some level of management to address current and future threats to B. filifolia, including the direct and indirect effects of habitat loss and degradation from urban development; the introduction of nonnative invasive plant species; recreational activities; discing and mowing for agricultural practices or fuel modification for fire management; dumping of manure and sewage sludge; and hybridization with other species of Brodiaea.
Loss and degradation of habitat from development was cited in the final listing rule as a primary cause for the decline of Brodiaea filifolia. Most of the populations of this species are located in San
Diego, Orange, and Riverside counties. These counties have had (and continue to have) increasing human populations and attendant housing pressure. Natural areas in these counties are frequently near or bounded by urbanized areas. Urban development removes the plant community components and associated clay soils identified in the PCEs, which eliminates or fragments the populations of B. filifolia. Grading, discing, and scraping areas in the preparation of areas for urbanization also directly alters the soil surface as well as subsurface soil layers to the degree that they will no longer support plant community types and pollinators associated with B. filifolia (PCE 2). Conservation and management of B. filifolia habitat and adjacent pollinator habitat is needed to address the threat of development.
Nonnative invasive plant species may alter the vegetation composition or physical structure identified in the PCEs to an extent that the area does not support Brodiaea filifolia or the plant community that it inhabits. Additionally, invasive species may compete with B. filifolia for space and resources by depleting water that would otherwise be available to B. filifolia. Management activities including
(but not limited to) nonnative plant removal and control are needed to reduce this threat.
Unauthorized recreational activities may impact the vegetation composition and soil structure that supports Brodiaea filifolia to an extent that the area will no longer have intact soil surfaces or the plant communities identified in the PCEs. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) activity is an example of this type of activity. Management activities such as (but not limited to) fencing or other barriers to unauthorized access, signage, and monitoring are needed to address this threat.
Some methods of mowing or discing for agricultural purposes or fuel modification for fire management may preclude the full and natural development of Brodiaea filifolia by adversely affecting the PCEs.
Mowing may preclude the successful reproduction of the plant, or alter the associated vegetation needed for pollinator activity (PCE 2).
Dumping of sewage sludge can cover plants as well as the soils they need. Additionally, this practice can alter the chemistry of the substrate and lead to alterations in the vegetation supported at the site (PCE 1). Management activities such as (but not limited to) fencing, signage, and education of landowners and land managers about the detrimental effects that mowing, discing, and dumping sewage have on B. filifolia and its habitat are needed to address this threat.
Manure dumping on private property along the San Jacinto River area is impacting habitat within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area. These impacts are occurring despite identification of these areas as important for the survival and recovery of Brodiaea filifolia in the
Western Riverside County MSHCP. Manure dumping is not a covered activity under the Western Riverside County MSHCP and was not discussed as an impact to B. filifolia in the Biological Opinion on the Western
Riverside County MSHCP (Service 2004b, pp. 378-386). As outlined in the
Western Riverside County MSHCP, we have been working with permittees to implement additional ordinances that will help to control activities
(such as manure dumping) that may impact the implementation of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP conservation objectives. To date, the
City of Hemet is the only Western Riverside County MSHCP permittee that has addressed the negative impacts that manure dumping has on species such as B. filifolia and Navarretia fossalis and their habitats through the enactment of Ordinance 1666 (i.e., the ordinance that prevents manure dumping activities and educates its citizens). We will continue to work with Riverside County and permittees of the Western Riverside
County MSHCP to address activities that may impact the species within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area.
The Service is aware of occurrences of some hybrids within the range of Brodiaea filifolia in Subunit 5b (Devil Canyon) in northwestern San Diego County (Chester et al. 2007, p. 193). The presumed parent taxa of these hybrids are considered to be B. filifolia and B. orcuttii because of the apparent morphological intermediacy of the individuals and proximity of their ranges. This is supported by the close relationship of the two species noted above. Although there are some hybrids of B. filifolia and B. orcuttii in this subunit, it is likely that a minimum of 850 plants are pure B. filifolia (Service 2009b, p. 15) (we consider occurrences that have between 850 and 3,000 flowering stems observed in multiple years to be stable and persistent because we expect these occurrences to have a sufficient amount of corms to sustain the occurrence for a number of years if the habitat remains unaltered (see Criteria Used section below)). Plants of hybrid origin have also been reported in Subunit 8d (Upham) in the City of San
Marcos (Chester et al. 2007, p. 191). Chester et al. (2007) only found a few hybrid specimens at this location, therefore it is likely that a minimum of 850 plants are pure B. filifolia. Hybridization could result in the loss of portions of B. filifolia occurrences if other Brodiaea species are transplanted adjacent to existing B. filifolia occurrences, or if existing B. filifolia occurrences are transplanted adjacent to other Brodiaea species and the two species are able to hybridize.
Informing biological resource managers of the existence of this threat will help to keep human-mediated hybridization from occurring.
In summary, we find that the areas we are designating as revised critical habitat contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia, and that these features may require special management considerations or protection. Special management considerations or protection may be required to eliminate, or reduce to negligible level, the threats affecting each unit/subunit and to preserve and
Page 6857
maintain the essential features that the revised critical habitat units/subunits provide to B. filifolia. Additional discussions of threats facing individual sites are provided in the individual unit/ subunit descriptions.
The designation of critical habitat does not imply that lands outside of critical habitat may not play an important role in the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia. In the future, and with changed circumstances, these lands may become essential to the conservation of
B. filifolia. Activities with a Federal nexus that may affect areas outside of revised critical habitat, such as development, agricultural activities, and road construction, are still subject to review under section 7 of the Act if they may affect B. filifolia because Federal agencies must consider both effects to the plant and effects to critical habitat independently. The prohibitions of section 9 of the
Act applicable to B. filifolia under 50 CFR 17.71 (e.g., the prohibition against reducing to possession or maliciously damaging or destroying listed plants on Federal lands) also continue to apply both inside and outside of designated critical habitat.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
We determined that all areas we are designating as final revised critical habitat are within the geographical area occupied by Brodiaea filifolia at the time of listing and are currently occupied (see the
Spatial Distribution and Historical Range section of the proposed revised critical habitat rule (74 FR 64929; December 8, 2009) for more information). We considered the areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, but are not designating any areas outside the geographical area occupied by B. filifolia at the time of listing because we determined that a subset of occupied lands within the species' historical range are adequate to ensure the conservation of B. filifolia. Occupied areas exist throughout this species' historical range, and through the conservation of a subset of occupied habitats (35 of 68 extant occurrences, see Table 1), we will be able to stabilize and conserve B. filifolia throughout its current and historical range. All units/subunits designated as revised critical habitat contain the PCEs in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the conservation of this species and support multiple life-history traits for B. filifolia.
As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we use the best scientific and commercial data available in determining areas that contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia. The data used for this revised critical habitat are summarized below. This rule reflects the best available scientific and commercial information and thus differs from our 2005 final critical habitat rule.
This section provides details of the process we used to delineate critical habitat. This final rule reflects a progression of conservation efforts for Brodiaea filifolia that is largely based on the past analysis of the areas identified as meeting the definition of critical habitat for B. filifolia as identified in the 2004 proposed critical habitat rule, the 2005 final critical habitat designation, and new information we obtained on the species' distribution since listing.
For some areas that were analyzed in 2005 but determined not to meet the definition of critical habitat, we received new distribution information for the proposed revised rule that resulted in determining that those areas do meet the definition of critical habitat. There are also some areas identified as meeting the definition of critical habitat in the 2005 critical habitat designation that we did not include in the proposed revised rule and this final revised critical habitat designation because we determined, based on a review of the best available information, that they do not meet the definition of critical habitat. The specific differences from the 2005 designation of critical habitat are summarized in the Summary of Changes from the
Proposed Revised Rule and the Previous Critical Habitat Designation section of this rule.
Species and plant communities that are protected across their ranges are expected to have lower likelihoods of extinction (Soule and
Simberloff 1986, p. 35; Scott et al. 2001, pp. 1297-1300). Genetic variation generally results from the effects of population isolation and adaptation to locally distinct environments (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, pp. 754-757; Hamrick and Godt 1996, pp. 291-295; Fraser 2000, pp. 49-51). We sought to include the range of ecological conditions in which Brodiaea filifolia is found to preserve the genetic variation that may reflect adaptation to local environmental conditions, as documented in other plant species (such as in Millar and Libby 1991, pp. 150, 152-155; or Hamrick and Godt 1996, pp. 299-301). A suite of locations that possess unique ecological characteristics will represent more of the environmental variability under which B. filifolia has evolved. Protecting these areas will promote the adaptation of the species to different environmental conditions and contribute to species recovery.
We also determined that habitat for pollinators is essential to the survival and recovery of this species because Brodiaea filifolia is self-incompatible (genetically similar individuals are not able to produce viable seeds). Sexual reproduction, facilitated through pollination, is necessary for the long-term conservation of this species.
All critical habitat discussed in this final revised critical habitat designation is occupied by the species at the subunit level, meaning that each subunit contains at least one known occurrence of
Brodiaea filifolia. Occupied areas were determined from survey data and element occurrence data in the California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) (CNDDB 2009, pp. 1-76). Using GIS data in the areas identified as occupied by this species as a guide, we identified the areas that contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of B. filifolia. The essential features in each subunit are necessary for the conservation of the occurrence within the subunit, which contributes to the overall conservation of the species.
To map the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat, we identified areas that contain the PCEs in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the conservation of this species using the following criteria: (1) Areas supporting occurrences on rare or unique habitat within the species' range; (2) areas supporting the largest known occurrences of Brodiaea filifolia; or (3) areas supporting stable occurrences of B. filifolia that are likely to be persistent. These criteria are explained in greater detail below and a summary of our analysis of all current and past areas supporting B. filifolia is presented in Table 3.
We determined that the areas supporting 36 of the 68 extant occurrences meet the definition of critical habitat; of these 36 occurrences, 7 are on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (MCB Camp
Pendleton) and the areas are exempt from critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see Exemptions under Section 4(a)(3) of the Act section below). Of the 29 occurrences in areas proposed as revised critical habitat (74 FR 64930; December 8, 2009), four are in areas excluded from this final revised critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (Subunits 7d, 8f, 11g, and 11h), and eight are in areas partially excluded from this final revised critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (portions of
Subunits 6a, 6d,
Page 6858
7a, 7c, 8b, 11f, and Units 3 and 12) (see Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below). Areas containing the PCEs and that meet at least one of the above criteria are considered to contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species and, therefore, meet the definition of critical habitat.
Included in PCE 2 are areas up to 820 ft (250 m) from mapped occurrences of Brodiaea filifolia to provide adequate space to support the habitat and alternate food sources needed for pollinators of B. filifolia. The 820-ft (250-m) distance for determining the pollinator use area is based on a conservative estimate for the mean routine flight distance for ground-nesting solitary bees that pollinate B. filifolia. This distance is not meant to capture all habitat that is potentially used by pollinators, but it is meant to capture a sufficient area to allow for pollinators to nest, feed, and reproduce in habitat that is adjacent and connected to the areas where B. filifolia grows (see Habitat for Pollinators of Brodiaea filifolia section above for a more detailed explanation of pollinator requirements and our derivation of the 820-ft (250-m) distance used to determine the pollinator use area).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.000
Page 6859
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.001
Page 6860
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.002
Page 6861
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.003
Page 6862
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.004
Page 6863
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.005
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
We identified habitat containing the features essential to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia by using data from the following GIS databases: (1) Species occurrence information in Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties from the CNDDB and from survey reports; (2) vegetation data layers from Orange,
Riverside, and San Diego Counties and vegetation data layers from the
U.S. Forest Service's Cleveland National Forest (CNF) for Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties; and (3) Natural Resources Conservation
Service's Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) soil data layers for
Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, and State Soil Geographic
Database (STATSGO) soil data layers for Los Angeles and San Bernardino
Counties.
Criteria Used
If habitat areas met one or more of the following criteria, they were determined to meet the definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act.
(1) The first criterion is any area that supports an occurrence in rare or unique habitat within the species' range. We evaluated all occurrences of Brodiaea filifolia under this criterion, regardless of occurrence size. We identified four main factors that
Page 6864
constitute rare or unique habitat for B. filifolia:
(
-
-
Occurrences in habitat types that are uncommon such as grassland habitat that occurs intermixed with chaparral, grassland habitat that is associated with vernal pools, or large areas of native grassland;
(b) Occurrences on uncommon soil types such as clay soils that are altered by hydrothermal activity;
(c) Occurrences that grow along ephemeral drainages in seep-type habitats; and
(d) Occurrences that grow in gravel, cobbles, and small boulder substrate.
These four unique situations differ from the majority of occurrences of this species, which are found on clay soils intermixed with coastal sage scrub habitat. The conservation of Brodiaea filifolia occurring in these rare or unique situations will preserve the diversity of habitats where this species is found.
(2) The second criterion is any area that supports one of the largest known populations of Brodiaea filifolia. Occurrences of this species range from just a few plants to several thousand plants, while the majority of the known occurrences are under 3,000 plants (see the
Background section of the 2009 proposed revised critical habitat rule for a discussion on how occurrences of B. filifolia are grouped and counted). However, there are 13 occurrences that stand out as the largest, each having greater than 3,000 plants. Occurrences supporting large numbers of plants (3,000 or more) are noted in Table 1 and are found in the following areas:
(
-
Los Angeles County: Subunit 1b-San Dimas;
(b) Riverside County: Subunit 11c-Case Road, Subunit 11d-Railroad
Canyon, and Subunit 11f-Santa Rosa Plateau-Mesa de Colorado;
(c) Orange County: Unit 3-Aliso Canyon, and Subunit 4g-Cristianitos
Canyon; and
(d) San Diego County: Subunit 6d-Taylor/Darwin, Subunit 7a-
Letterbox Canyon, Subunit 7b-Rancho Carrillo, Subunit 7d-Rancho La
Costa, Subunit 8b-Rancho Santalina/Loma Alta, Subunit 8d-Upham, and
Subunit 8f-Oleander/San Marcos Elementary (See Table 1).
These large occurrences are present in habitat areas that contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of this species. These areas generally represent large contiguous blocks of intact habitat. The conservation of these large populations will increase the resilience of the species across its range and contribute to the overall recovery of this species.
(3) The third criterion is any area that supports an occurrence considered to be stable and persistent. We consider occurrences that have between 850 and 3,000 flowering stems that have been observed in multiple years to be stable and persistent because we expect these occurrences to have a sufficient number of corms to sustain the occurrence for a number of years if the habitat remains unaltered.
These areas contribute to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia by providing resilience for the species by decreasing the probability of the species becoming extinct, and by contributing to the genetic diversity of the species. The conservation of these areas helps B. filifolia to maintain its current geographic distribution, since these resilient occurrences are found throughout the range of the species.
This is particularly important for B. filifolia because this species relies on outcrossing for successful reproduction.
To determine if any additional areas met the third criterion, we looked at all occurrences with fewer than 850 flowering stalks to determine if any of these exhibited the same persistence and stability characteristics to provide similar conservation value as the other identified occurrences with greater than 850 flowering stalks (since the counts for an occurrence vary from year to year). We found that one occurrence with fewer than 850 flowering stalks (at the Arbor Creek/
Colucci site) exhibited characteristics of a stable, persistent occurrence (i.e., an occurrence of consistent size not substantially less than 850 flowering stalks); therefore, this occurrence fulfills the ecological role of sites we are interested in identifying through this criterion, even though the high count at this site is 620 flowering stalks.
Of the 68 occurrences of Brodiaea filifolia that we identified as being extant in our 5-year review for this species (Service 2009b), areas supporting 36 occurrences meet one or more of the 3 criteria outlined above. Seven of these areas are exempt from this critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see Exemptions
Under Section 4(a)(3) of the Act section), and the remaining 29 areas were proposed as revised critical habitat (74 FR 64930; December 8, 2009). Of these 29 areas, 14 fit into one of the 4 reasons that areas meet the ``rare or unique habitat'' criterion, 13 meet the ``largest occurrences'' criterion, and 13 meet the ``stable and persistent occurrences'' criterion. Of these 29 areas, 3 are excluded from this final revised critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (Subunits 7d, 11g, and 11h), and 5 are partially excluded from this final revised critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (portions of Subunits 7a, 7c, 11f, and Units 3 and 12) (see
Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
The habitat areas that meet one or more of the criteria represent the historical range of the species, and are adequate to provide for this species' conservation. Habitat areas and the occurrences they support that do not meet any of the three criteria may still be important to the conservation of this species, but without the conservation of the habitat areas and occurrences identified through this process, the recovery effort for this species may be impaired.
Other Factors Involved With Delineating Critical Habitat
Following the identification of areas supporting 36 occurrences of the 68 extant occurrences that met one of the 3 criteria listed above, we mapped the area that contained the PCEs at each occurrence including habitat extending beyond the perimeters of mapped occurrences of
Brodiaea filifolia by up to 820 ft (250 m) to provide adequate space to support the habitat and alternate food sources needed for pollinators of B. filifolia (see Habitat for Pollinators of Brodiaea filifolia section).
Areas that did not provide habitat for Brodiaea filifolia or potential pollinators were removed from the 820-ft (250-m) zone of mapped occurrences of B. filifolia, such as areas that were developed or severely altered by grading. Our mapping methodology captures the
PCEs in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the conservation of the species, and encompasses the range of environmental variability for this species.
When determining the final revised critical habitat boundaries for
Brodiaea filifolia, we made every effort to map precisely the areas that contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. However, we cannot guarantee that every fraction of revised critical habitat contains the PCEs due to the mapping scale that we use to draft critical habitat boundaries.
Additionally, we made every attempt to avoid including developed areas such as lands underlying buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack PCEs for B. filifolia. 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
Page 6865
such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this revised critical habitat are excluded by text in this rule and are not designated critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification, unless the specific actions may affect adjacent critical habitat.
Revised Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 2,947 ac (1,193 ha) in 10 units, subdivided into 23 subunits as revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia. The unit numbers in this rule correspond to those used in the 2004 proposed rule and the 2005 final rule; however, Units 9 and 10 were not proposed and Units 11 and 12 are new to this revised rule. Unit 11 represents lands in Riverside County excluded from the 2005 designation of critical habitat, and Unit 12 represents the Artesian Trails area in
San Diego County that is now partially included based on new occurrence data in this area. To minimize confusion with the previous proposal and designation we are not using Unit numbers 9 and 10 in this rule (see
Table 2 and Summary of Changes from the Proposed Revised Rule and the
Previous Critical Habitat Designation section).
The areas we describe below constitute our best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia. We determined these areas are within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing, and contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of B. filifolia that may require special management considerations or protection. We are not designating any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing because we determined that the lands we are designating as revised critical habitat are adequate to ensure conservation of B. filifolia. The lands designated as revised critical habitat represent a subset of the total lands occupied by B. filifolia. Table 4 identifies the approximate area of each designated critical habitat subunit by land ownership. These subunits, which generally correspond to the geographic area of the subunits delineated in the 2005 designation (see
Table 2 for a detailed comparison of this rule and the 2005 designation), replace the 2005 critical habitat designation for B. filifolia in 50 CFR 17.96(a).
Table 4--Area Estimates in Acres (ac) and Hectares (ha), and Land Ownership for Brodiaea filifolia Final Revised Critical Habitat
Ownership
Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total area **
Federal *
State government
Local government
Private
Unit 1: Los Angeles County 1a. Glendora............. 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 67 ac (27 ha)............ 67 ac (27 ha). 1b. San Dimas............ 13 ac (5 ha)......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 125 ac (51 ha)........... 138 ac (56 ha).
Unit 2: San Bernardino County 2. Arrowhead Hot Springs. 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 61 ac (25 ha)............ 61 ac (25 ha).
Unit 3: Central Orange County 3. Aliso Canyon.......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 11 ac (4 ha)............. 11 ac (4 ha).
Unit 4: Southern Orange
County 4b. Caspers Wilderness
0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 12 ac (5 ha)............. 12 ac (5 ha).
Park. 4c. Ca[ntilde]ada
0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 133 ac (54 ha)........... 133 ac (54 ha).
Gobernadora/Chiquita
Ridgeline. 4g. Cristianitos Canyon.. 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 587ac (238 ha)........... 587ac (238 ha).
Unit 5: Northern San Diego
County 5b. Devil Canyon......... 266 ac (108 ha)...... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 8 ac (3 ha).............. 274 ac (111ha).
Unit 6: Oceanside 6a. Alta Creek........... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 72 ac (29 ha)............ 72 ac (29 ha). 6b. Mesa Drive........... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 17 ac (7 ha)............. 17 ac (7 ha). 6c. Mission View/Sierra 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 12 ac (5 ha)............. 12 ac (5 ha).
Ridge. 6d. Taylor/Darwin........ 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 35 ac (14 ha)............ 35 ac (14 ha). 6e. Arbor Creek/Colucci.. 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 94 ac (38 ha)............ 94 ac (38 ha).
Unit 7: Carlsbad 7a. Letterbox Canyon..... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 1 ac (There is no guarantee that many of the MSHCP goals will be achieved.
Establishment of baseline populations, monitoring, and management take place only after the County of Riverside has acquired lands for conservation or when an environmental review is triggered for a specific development project.
There are no hard-line conservation goals. Criteria Areas are merely guidelines for where conservation will take place but do not assure that the most suitable habitat is set aside in an appropriate configuration.
The goals of the Western Riverside County MSHCP may be irrelevant to occurrences of B. filifolia along the San Jacinto River that could be extirpated or near extirpation before conservation triggers are activated within the HCP. If impacts continue at the current rate, there will be almost no B. filifolia habitat remaining along the San Jacinto River outside of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area within another 5 years.
There has been no effort to stop land use activities that are greatly reducing the viability of habitats, such as proposed flood control projects along the San Jacinto River.
The requirement that 90 percent of those portions of a property with long-term conservation value within the Criteria Area
Species Survey Area will be avoided until the species conservation objectives are met is (1) unachievable relative to historic baseline conditions because over 10 percent of the original habitat has been degraded or developed, and (2) ineffective relative to a baseline established after habitat has been degraded.
The current rate of acquiring land and implementing management on these lands is too slow to appreciably contribute to the stabilization and recovery of B. filifolia.
Contradicting designations and directives within the
Western Riverside County MSHCP undermine the effectiveness of proposed conservation measures.
The Western Riverside County MSHCP calls for 6,900 ac
(2,792 ha) of B. filifolia habitat to be set aside to provide adequate conservation and contribute to the recovery of the species. However, the Santa Rosa Plateau, which was likely expected to constitute a significant portion of this conservation area, can no longer contribute much acreage to the conservation area as only a small portion of the
Santa Rosa Plateau is occupied by B. filifolia.
Our Response: The Western Riverside County MSHCP has provided an opportunity for valuable partnerships to be established and conservation measures for Brodiaea filifolia to be
Page 6896
implemented. Although we are striving to maintain and improve our partnerships with the Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees, they do not restrict the Service from designating critical habitat on lands covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. In this revised critical habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia, in evaluating the partnership benefits contributed by the Western Riverside County MSHCP in the context of the current status the species and its habitat, we have not concluded that the benefits of excluding areas owned by or under the jurisdiction of Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees outweigh the benefits of including those lands in Subunits 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, and a portion of 11f that are not currently conserved and managed (see Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of
Inclusion--Western Riverside County MSHCP section above).
Comment 32: One peer reviewer stated that HCPs are required only to meet an extinction (i.e., jeopardy) standard, and because recovery is not a requirement of HCPs, Section 10/HCP requirements to avoid jeopardy could result in reducing a species to a minimal existence that contributes little to the overall biotic community, and could also leave a species at perpetual risk of extinction from a variety of factors, while technically not qualifying as a jeopardy.
Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewer's concerns regarding the long-term recovery of Brodiaea filifolia. Although not specifically stated by the peer reviewer, their comment indicates they believe that lands covered under an HCP should not be a basis for exclusion from a critical habitat designation because the plans do not protect a listed species to the level beyond that evaluated in a jeopardy analysis under section 7 of the Act. We do not agree that protections given to listed species under HCPs are necessarily limited to avoidance of jeopardy; we believe the protections afforded by each HCP for each species differ and need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, which is what we have done in our exclusion analysis. See the Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above for a detailed discussion.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be designated, and revised, 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. An area may be excluded from critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. Consequently, we may exercise our delegated discretion to exclude an area from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on economic impacts, impacts on national security, or other relevant impacts, such as preservation of conservation partnerships, if we determine the benefits of excluding an area from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including the area in critical habitat, provided the action of excluding the area will not result in the extinction of the species. We do not exclude areas based on the mere existence of management plans or other conservation measures. The existence of a plan may reduce the benefits of inclusion of an area in critical habitat to the extent the protections provided under the plan are redundant with conservation benefits of the critical habitat designation. In particular, we believe that the exclusion of lands may be justified when they are managed and conserved in perpetuity. Thus, in some cases the benefits of exclusion in the form of sustaining and encouraging partnerships that result in on the ground conservation of listed species may outweigh the incremental benefits of inclusion. See Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and Benefits of Excluding Lands with HCPs section for further discussion.
We found the benefits of excluding lands that are both conserved and managed under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the County of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, the Carlsbad HMP, and the Orange County South and Central-Coastal HCPs to be greater than the benefits of including these lands. See the Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above for a detailed discussion.
Comment 33: One peer reviewer stated that critical habitat is intended to provide for the conservation of the species (i.e., to go beyond just preventing extinction and achieve a status where the protections afforded by the Act are no longer necessary); and that critical habitat designations within the context of regional HCPs could assure that the intent of the Act is achieved and improve the opportunity for recovery. The peer reviewer stated that relinquishing an important tool for conservation (i.e., critical habitat) in cases where a Federal nexus would otherwise exist because of the HCP overlay is not wise if the overall strategic goal is to recover or stabilize an endangered species.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 32.
Comment 34: One peer reviewer stated that critical habitat is a tool that Federal agencies can use for conservation and by excluding lands within HCP boundaries other Federal agencies may miss opportunities to conserve species and their critical habitat.
Our Response: As a conservation tool, a critical habitat designation ensures that when actions with a Federal nexus may impact critical habitat, the Federal action agency consults with the Service to determine if the action will adversely modify critical habitat.
Critical habitat does not require a Federal agency to perform any additional conservation actions nor does it direct conservation actions. With regard to areas that are within the boundaries of an HCP, each exclusion is based on our determination that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of an area will not result in extinction of a species. For the areas that we are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from this final rule, we have evaluated the benefits of highlighting the importance of these areas for Federal agencies and the public, but found that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion for the areas we are excluding (see the
Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above for details).
Comment 35: One peer reviewer submitted numerous comments requesting additions to the text of the revised critical habitat rule regarding the life history, ecology, and habitat of Brodiaea filifolia:
More information should have been presented on the significance of the clonal populations, even if seed production is a rare occurrence.
More information on the population biology of monocots in this genus would be very helpful in determining the needs for habitat conservation.
Any known information on seed viability in this or related species of Brodiaea should also be presented. Seed viability should provide some information on the rate of successful out-crossing in known occurrences of this species.
The recorded localities of the two Brodiaea species on or near Santa Rosa Plateau need to be carefully reviewed to determine the actual remaining localities of Brodiaea filifolia found on the plateau or adjacent areas.
Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer that having more information on the species would be helpful. We
Page 6897
have based our determinations in this revised critical habitat designation on the best available information, and have addressed the need for further information in our five-year review of the species
(Service 2009a, pp. 35-36).
Comment 36: One peer reviewer stated that the description of
Brodiaea filifolia habitat should also include riparian habitats, specifically riparian herb communities.
Our Response: We thank the peer reviewer for this information, and have added this to the text of the final revised critical habitat rule.
Comment 37: One peer reviewer suggested that the text of the rule be expanded to note that all areas excluded from the revised critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act are found within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Criteria Area cells or CASSA survey areas.
Our Response: We are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude only those areas that are both conserved and managed from this revised designation. These areas are protected from development impacts.
Therefore, whether or not excluded areas under the Western Riverside
County MSHCP fall within the Criteria Area or CASSA survey areas is not relevant.
Comment 38: One peer reviewer submitted a number of comments recommending edits or changes to the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County MSHCP) section of the revised critical habitat rule to correct or clarify information presented in the proposed revised rule, or add information the peer reviewer felt was relevant but missing from the rule.
Our Response: The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County MSHCP) section of the final revised rule includes the changes and additional information suggested by the peer reviewer as appropriate.
Comment 39: One peer reviewer requested additional explanation detailing why Brodiaea filifolia occurrences in San Diego and Riverside counties have been excluded from this revised critical habitat designation when more protected occurrences of the species are needed to offset the loss of many ``secure'' B. filifolia locations on Santa
Rosa Plateau which were to be an important component of the recovery strategy for the species.
Our Response: Only units/subunits protected by conservation and management have been excluded from this revised critical habitat designation; the peer reviewer's issue is therefore moot. The
Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and Benefits of Excluding
Lands with HCPs sections of this revised critical habitat rule explain in detail our exclusion analyses and the outcomes thereof.
Comment 40: One peer reviewer expressed dissatisfaction with the
Service's practice of not publishing ``literature cited'' sections with the text of Federal Register rules or on-line following the publication of a rule in the Federal Register.
Our Response: Complete lists of all references cited in any Service rulemaking are made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov following publication of a rule. For rules written by the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, reference cited lists are also available upon request from the Field Supervisor of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the rule).
Comment 41: One peer reviewer pointed out that apparently some previous summaries of location information on Brodiaea filifolia prepared by Service staff (Roberts 1997, Roberts and Vanderwier 1997) were overlooked in the preparation of the proposed revised critical habitat rule. The peer reviewer believes that this material should have been used as the basis for the information in the text of the proposal and could have potentially eliminated some of the errors in the proposed revised rule. The peer reviewer added that other important updates provided to the Service by the California Native Plant Society
(CNPS) (Roberts 2002a and 2002b) were also not reviewed in the preparation of the proposed revised critical habitat rule.
Our Response: We do have copies of the references the peer reviewer referred to in his comment. We used information from these resources to complete the 5-year review for Brodiaea filifolia; much of the occurrence information in this revised critical habitat rule was derived from the 5-year review.
Public Comments
Comment 42: One commenter expressed agreement with the Service's proposed exclusion of all lands covered by the Western Riverside County
MSHCP from the revised critical habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia (Subunits 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, 11f, 11g, and 11h). The commenter stated that under provisions in section 6.9 of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP and section 14.10 of the Implementing Agreement for the Western Riverside County MSHCP, no critical habitat for
Brodiaea filifolia should be designated in the Western Riverside County
MSHCP plan area; that the proposed exclusion of lands covered by the
Western Riverside MSHCP was consistent with the United States District
Court's (E.D.Cal. Nov. 11, 2006) Case No. 05-629-WBS-KJMA, which upheld the Service's decision to exclude the Western Riverside County MSHCP from the designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species, finding that this exclusion was a reasonable exercise of the
Service's discretion; and that the Western Riverside County MSHCP already adequately provides for the survival and recovery of the species.
Our Response: With regard to the commenter's assertion that lands owned or under the jurisdiction of the Western Riverside County MSHCP should be excluded because the HCP provides adequate protection for the species, the adequacy of an HCP to protect a species and its essential habitat is one consideration taken into account in our evaluation under section 4(b)(2). Exclusion of an area from critical habitat is based on our determination that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of an area will not result in extinction of a species, which is a more complex analysis process. We have examined the protections afforded Brodiaea filifolia by the
Western Riverside County MSHCP during our exclusion analysis in this revised critical habitat designation for B. filifolia, and have not concluded that the benefits of excluding areas owned by or under the jurisdiction of Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees outweigh the benefits of including Subunits 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, and a portion of Subunit 11f that are not currently conserved and managed, and we are not exercising our delegated discretion to exclude these lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act in this final revised critical habitat rule.
Our determination not to exercise our delegated discretion to exclude areas from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act is committed to agency discretion by law and is not reviewable (see
Home Builders Ass'n of N. Cal. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 2006 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 80255 at *66 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2006); Cape Hatteras Access
Preservation Alliance et al. v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 2010 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 84515 ** 36-38 (D.D.C. August 17, 2010)). We did, however, determine that the benefits of excluding lands in areas owned by or under the jurisdiction of Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees that are conserved and managed (Subunits 11g, 11h, and a portion of
Subunit 11f) outweigh the
Page 6898
benefits of including those lands as revised critical habitat for B. filifolia (see Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of
Inclusion--Western Riverside County MSHCP section above).
With regard to the commenter's belief that critical habitat should not be designated in the Western Riverside County MSHCP Plan Area based on language in section 6.9 of the HCP and the associated Implementing
Agreement, section 14.10 of the Implementing Agreement does not preclude critical habitat designation within the plan area (Dudek &
Associates 2003b, p. 6-109; Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Authority et al., p. 51). Consistent with our commitment under the Implementing Agreement, and after public review and comment on the proposed revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia, we determined through our analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act that the maximum extent of allowable exclusions under the Western Riverside
County MSHCP is limited to the exclusion of lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP that are both conserved and managed (Subunits 11g, 11h, and a portion of Subunit 11f) (see Benefits of Exclusion--Western Riverside County
MSHCP section above for a detailed discussion of the exclusion analysis).
Comment 43: Two commenters stated that the Orange County Southern
Subregion Habitat Conservation Plan provides for the conservation and management of Brodiaea filifolia. One of the commenters requested that the Secretary exercise his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude the Orange County Southern Subregion Subarea 1 lands from the revised critical habitat designation for B. filifolia, and provided a number of reasons in support of a 4(b)(2) exclusion of the Orange
County Southern Subregion Subarea 1 lands.
Our Response: We may exercise our delegated discretion to exclude an area from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act if we conclude that the benefits of exclusion of the area outweigh the benefits of its designation. We do not exclude areas based on the mere existence of management plans or other conservation measures. The existence of a plan may reduce the benefits of inclusion of an area in critical habitat to the extent the protections provided under the plan are redundant with conservation benefits of the critical habitat designation. In particular, we believe that the exclusion of lands may be justified when they are managed and conserved in perpetuity. Thus, in some cases the benefits of exclusion in the form of sustaining and encouraging partnerships that result in on the ground conservation of listed species may outweigh the incremental benefits of inclusion.
However, in reviewing the specific circumstances of Brodiaea filifolia, we have not concluded that the partnership benefits of excluding lands covered by the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP, the Western
Riverside County MSHCP, the Carlsbad HMP, and the City and County of
San Diego MSCP Subarea Plans that are not currently conserved and managed outweigh the regulatory and educational benefits afforded under section 7 of the Act as a consequence of designating critical habitat in these areas (see Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above for details), and we are not exercising our delegated discretion to exclude these lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act in this final revised critical habitat rule. Our determination not to exercise our delegated discretion to exclude areas from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act is committed to agency discretion by law and is not reviewable (see Home Builders Ass'n of N. Cal. v. U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Serv., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80255 at *66 (E.D. Cal.
Nov. 2, 2006); Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance et al. v.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84515 ** 36-38
(D.D.C. August 17, 2010)).
Comment 44: Two commenters stated that the Service should have conducted the 4(b)(2) analysis in the proposed revised critical habitat rule and based its proposed revision on that analysis, because deferral of this analysis deprives the commenting public of information that is necessary to review and to provide meaningful comments on the proposed revised rule.
Our Response: Generally, it is our practice to include a discussion of areas we are considering for exclusion in proposed critical habitat rules in order to inform the commenting public of what areas may be excluded from the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and why, and allow the public opportunity to comment on potential exclusions prior to conducting a final exclusion analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Comment 45: Two commenters stated that the Service should exclude the proposed 241 Completion Project right-of-way from Subunit 4c of the revised critical habitat designation. One of the commenters also pointed out that the Service issued a biological opinion finding that the construction of the 241 Completion Project would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of Brodiaea filifolia.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 43. While the 241
Completion Project did not specifically factor into our exclusion analysis, it is within the plan boundaries of the Orange County
Southern Subregion HCP and our section 4(b)(2) analysis for the HCP covers this area.
Comment 46: One commenter expressed a belief that the proposed revised critical habitat rule for Brodiaea filifolia is flawed because it does not include all areas of occupied habitat. The commenter believes that at least 33 extant populations of B. filifolia that were present at the time of listing were arbitrarily dismissed from the proposed revised designation because they do not meet the criteria.
According to the commenter, at least one of these populations is at the edge of the species range, and may thus have unique genetic characteristics that can impart novel evolutionary potential that may be particularly important under climate change scenarios.
Our Response: All currently occupied and formerly occupied habitat
(including all extant CNDDB Element Occurrences) was considered for designation as revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia, and all occurrences were included in the proposed revised critical habitat unless they were known to have been extirpated, presumed to have been extirpated based on documented negative survey results, are not natural occurrences (transplants or plants moved from their natural location with fill soil), or did not meet the criteria used to identify critical habitat (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section above).
While we recognize that climate change is an important issue with potential effects to listed species and their habitats, we lack adequate information to make accurate predictions regarding its effects to B. filifolia at this time. However, the revised critical habitat subunits have been designed to capture the areas we believe to support the most stable and persistent populations, unique and rare habitat, and the largest populations of the species (see Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat section above). We believe these areas will be important to the conservation of B. filifolia under climate change scenarios.
Comment 47: One commenter expressed a belief that the Service failed to justify why the three criteria used to define revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia are the only criteria
Page 6899
used to identify habitat critical for the survival and recovery of the species. The commenter believes that the three criteria fail to incorporate the effect of global climate change on the persistence of
B. filifolia and that many more criteria are needed to identify essential plant habitat.
Our Response: We believe the three criteria used to define revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia were broad enough to result in the proposal of a wide range of occurrences of the species. As a result, we expect the revised designation will afford protections to the species that will enhance its overall stability and persistence as well as providing for conservation. Because we cannot predict what effects global climate change may have on B. filifolia, its habitat, or distribution of the species and its habitat, we are unable to craft criteria that specifically address this issue.
Comment 48: One commenter expressed a belief that the proposed revised rule is flawed because it does not include unoccupied habitat that the commenter considers essential to the recovery of the species.
The commenter further states that not including additional habitat that may not be occupied currently but was occupied in the recent past and where field conditions have not changed precludes the opportunity for species recovery in these areas, which the commenter considers essential.
Our Response: Critical habitat designation is a different process than development of recovery goals and objectives that are outlined in a recovery plan (which has not yet been developed for Brodiaea filifolia). A critical habitat designation is a regulatory action that defines specific areas that are essential to the conservation of the species in accordance with the statutory definition. A recovery plan
(and the associated recovery goals and objectives) is a guidance document developed in cooperation with partners, which provides a roadmap with detailed site-specific management actions to help conserve listed species and their ecosystems. Recovery plans provide important information about the species and the actions that are needed to bring about a species' recovery.
We believe we have, to the best of our ability and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, identified all habitat areas that are essential to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia. We recognize that the designation of revised critical habitat may not include all of the habitat that may eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of B. filifolia, and critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not contribute to recovery. Areas outside the revised critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions occurring in these areas may affect B. filifolia; these protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this species.
Comment 49: One commenter stated that species with designated critical habitat are more likely to be recovering than species that lack the designation, citing Taylor et al. 2005. This commenter believes that without critical habitat, Brodiaea filifolia has a reduced chance of persisting and recovering. This commenter goes on to state that the Service should consider and evaluate the recovery benefits of critical habitat designation in order to promulgate a legally valid critical habitat rule (which the commenter believes was not done in the proposed revised rule).
Our Response: Taylor et al. (2005) did not evaluate the effects of the conservation benefits provided by HCPs, long-term management plans, or INRMPs on the population trends of the species they evaluated in their study. We believe that the conservation benefits provided by critical habitat designation in areas we have included in the revised designation and by INRMPs, long-term management plans, and HCPs in areas exempted or excluded from the designation will provide the protection to Brodiaea filifolia anticipated by section 4 of the Act.
Please see the response to comment 49 regarding recovery benefits to the species.
Comment 50: One commenter expressed opposition to any exclusions from the proposed revised critical habitat of areas that may be covered by other management plans, HCPs or INRMPs, pursuant to section 3(5)(A) under the logic that they do not need ``special management'' or under section 4(b)(2). The commenter believes that all Brodiaea filifolia essential habitat needs special management because of the variety of direct and indirect impacts to the habitat. The commenter stated that areas that require special management considerations but which are covered or will be covered in the future by management plans or conservation plans should not be excluded pursuant to ESA section 3(5)(A) or 4(b)(2) from the protection that a designation of critical habitat provides. The commenter went on to state that, in Center for
Biological Diversity, et al. v. Norton, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1099 (D.
Az. 2003), the court found that the existence of a management plan, far from being a reason to exclude an area from critical habitat, is indisputable proof that the area qualifies as critical habitat. An additional comment states that the Service fails to conduct the required 4(b)(2) analysis of the benefits of exclusion versus inclusion of lands covered by the existing HCPs.
Our Response: The Service does not interpret the definition of critical habitat (section 3(5)(A) of the Act) to mean that areas receiving protection or management do not meet the definition of critical habitat. We agree with the commenter that prong one of the definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A) of the Act requires only that an area contain a physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the species that ``may require'' special management considerations or protection; it does not require an absolute finding that the area requires special management considerations or protection.
Prong two of the definition of critical habitat does not require a finding that special management considerations or protection may be required.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, exclusion of an area from critical habitat designation is based on our determination that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of the area will not result in extinction of a species, which is a complex analysis process. We found the benefits of exclusion of lands that are both conserved and managed under HCPs or long-term management plans to be greater than the benefits of including these lands in the revised critical habitat designation in large part because the associated HCPs and management plans afford protection to the excluded areas, and due to the benefits of preserving partnerships and encouraging development of additional HCPs and other conservation plans in the future. We believe we appropriately applied our exclusion analysis as required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act for existing HCPs.
For more information, see the Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act section for a detailed discussion.
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act states: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources
Page 6900
management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act
Improvement Act of 1997 (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.''
We determined that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP provide a benefit to the populations of Brodiaea filifolia and this species' habitat occurring on MCB Camp Pendleton (the only military lands on which the species is known to occur) (MCB Camp Pendleton 2007,
Section 4, pp. 51-76). The INRMP provides measures that promote the conservation of B. filifolia within the 1,531 ac (620 ha) of habitat that we believe contain the features essential to the conservation of
B. filifolia on MCB Camp Pendleton, which are subject to the INRMP, within the following areas: Cristianitos Canyon, Bravo One, Bravo Two
South, Basilone/San Mateo Junction, Camp Horno, Pilgrim Creek, and
South White Beach. As a result, we are not including these areas in this final revised critical habitat designation.
Comment 51: One commenter stated that whether habitat does or does not require special management is not determinative on whether or not that habitat is ``critical'' to a threatened or endangered species; what is determinative is whether or not the habitat is ``essential to the conservation of the species'' and special management of that habitat is possibly necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)). Thus, according to the commenter, the fact that a particular habitat does, in fact, require special management is demonstrative evidence that the habitat is ``critical.''
Our Response: We agree with the commenter that prong one of the definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A) of the Act requires only that an area contain a physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the species that ``may require'' special management considerations or protection; it does not require an absolute finding that the area requires special management considerations or protection.
Prong two of the definition of critical habitat does not require a finding that special management considerations or protection may be required. Please see the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat and
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act sections for a detailed discussion of the process followed to delineate critical habitat for this revised designation.
Comment 52: One commenter stated that any exclusion of critical habitat that relies on not yet adopted, preliminary and not publicly reviewed plans for conservation is unacceptable and provides only a highly speculative conservation benefit at best. The commenter does not believe that the proposed revised critical habitat rule demonstrates unequivocally that the benefits of excluding these areas from the revised critical habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia outweigh the benefits of including them in the designation.
Our Response: We did not exclude any habitat from this revised critical habitat designation that falls within the plan area of an HCP permit that has not yet been issued. Please see the Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section for a detailed discussion on our exclusion analyses of those areas we considered for exclusion in the proposed revised critical habitat designation (74 FR 64292).
Comment 53: One commenter recommended that the revised critical habitat designation carefully consider all of the existing conservation investments through mitigation of impacts to Brodiaea filifolia and support those investments so that they can succeed. The commenter expressed concern that withdrawing these lands from the revised critical habitat designation would undermine and devalue the previous conservation investments because the surrounding land would no longer be highly valued for conservation, which would lead to isolation and fragmentation of adjacent areas which would degrade the mitigation lands, and ultimately make irrelevant the mitigation.
Our Response: We have excluded only lands that are both conserved and managed from this revised designation. Some of these excluded areas include lands set aside as mitigation or as a result of consultations under section 7 of the Act to offset project impacts. We do not agree with the commenter's assertion that not designating revised critical habitat would decrease the perceived conservation value of mitigation areas because these lands are understood to have high conservation value due to their conserved status.
Comment 54: One commenter asserted that the Service needs to include all occupied and suitable unoccupied habitat in the revised final economic analysis (FEA) and final revised critical habitat rule, and not rely on the proposed revised critical habitat rule as the basis for the economic analysis.
Our Response: The purpose of the economic analysis is to identify and analyze the potential incremental economic impacts associated with the revised designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia.
Occupied areas not proposed as revised critical habitat are outside the scope of the Economic Analysis, as they are not expected to be impacted by the designation.
Comment 55: One commenter noted that Subunit 8f is in unincorporated San Diego County, not the City of San Marcos as indicated in the proposed revised critical habitat rule. It is within the County of San Diego MSCP North County Plan, but owned by the San
Marcos Unified School District. School districts are their own jurisdiction and not subject to the County plans and regulations. The commenter does not object to the designation of this area as critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia.
Our Response: We thank the commenter for this information and have incorporated it into the final revised critical habitat rule.
Comment 56: One commenter noted that Unit 12 is in a Minor
Amendment area of the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan; therefore, proposed projects require Service concurrence of proposed impacts and mitigation to move forward. Because Service concurrence is required, the commenter believes there will be no additional benefit from critical habitat. Approximately 28 ac (11 ha) of the southern portion of Unit 12 are Take Authorized and approximately 3.5 ac (1.4 ha) are hardline preserve. Mitigation for the Take Authorized area was coordinated with the Service prior to the approval of the Subarea Plan; therefore these areas should not be included in the revised critical habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia according to this commenter.
Our Response: We may exercise our delegated discretion to exclude an area from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act if we conclude that the benefits of exclusion of the area outweigh the benefits of its designation. We do not exclude areas based on the mere existence of management plans or other conservation measures. The existence of a plan may reduce the benefits of inclusion of an area in critical habitat to the extent the protections provided under the plan are redundant with conservation benefits of the critical habitat designation. In particular, we believe that the exclusion of lands may be justified when they are managed and conserved in perpetuity. Thus, in some cases the benefits of exclusion in the form of sustaining and encouraging partnerships that result in on the ground conservation of listed species may outweigh the incremental benefits of inclusion. Only a portion of the Minor Amendment area of the
Page 6901
County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan is both conserved and managed, and we have not concluded that the partnership benefits of excluding all lands within the Minor Amendment area under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act outweigh the benefits of including these areas in the final revised critical habitat designation. Based on the results of our exclusion analysis for proposed lands covered under the County of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan, we did determine that the benefits of exclusion outweighed the benefits of inclusion in the area already conserved and managed under the Artesian Trails Management Plan, and this is the only portion of the Minor Amendment area of the County of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan that has been excluded from this revised designation.
Comment 57: One commenter suggested we exclude the Metropolitan
Water District right-of-way from Unit 11a of the revised critical habitat designation. According to the commenter, the right-of-way includes the shoulders of Davis Road, which are highly disturbed and not suitable for sensitive plants. Alternatively, the commenter suggests we exclude all of Subunit 11a under 4(b)(2) of the Act because it is within the area covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
The commenter further expressed concern that the designation of revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia may delay, limit, or impede access needed to ensure safe and effective operation of critical infrastructure (Metropolitan Water District) facilities in Subunit 11a.
The commenter is concerned that maintenance activities in these areas could be delayed or prevented by additional permitting requirements of regulatory agencies due to the revised critical habitat designation.
Our Response: When determining the revised critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort to map precisely only the areas that contain the PCEs and provide for the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia. However, we cannot guarantee that every fraction of critical habitat contains the PCEs due to the mapping scale we use to draft critical habitat boundaries. We made every attempt to avoid including developed areas such as lands underlying buildings, paved areas, and other structures that lack PCEs for B. filifolia. The scale of maps prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed areas. Any developed structures and the land under them inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final revised critical habitat designation are excluded by text in this rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific actions may affect the species or PCEs in adjacent critical habitat.
Please see our response to Comment 42 for a discussion regarding our 4(b)(2) analysis for areas covered by the Western Riverside County
MSHCP. We are not exercising our delegated discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude Subunit 11a from this final revised critical habitat designation. Therefore, any Metropolitan Water
District activities that might impact lands in Subunit 11a outside of the Davis Road right-of-way will require consultation with the Service if there is a Federal nexus; this may result in project delays.
Comment 58: One commenter pointed out that Metropolitan Water
District purchased 74 ac (30 ha) of land and funded research to conserve and enhance populations of Brodiaea filifolia as part of the consultation under section 7 of the Act for the Inland Feeder Project
(Service 1999 (1-6-99-F-18)). The commenter stated that these lands should be excluded from the revised critical habitat designation for B. filifolia because they have been conferred to CDFG for inclusion into the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, and are protected and managed by CDFG as part of the wildlife area.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 42 for a discussion regarding our 4(b)(2) analysis for areas covered by the
Western Riverside County MSHCP. We are not exercising our delegated discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude lands within the
San Jacinto Wildlife Area from this final revised critical habitat designation. Therefore, any Metropolitan Water District activities that might impact lands in Subunit 11a outside of the Davis Road right-of- way will require consultation with the Service if there is a Federal nexus.
Comment 59: One commenter submitted several comments describing needed and planned research activities for the Devil's Canyon (Subunit 5b) occurrence of Brodiaea filifolia.
Our Response: We thank the commenter for this information. We will consider this information in our next 5-year review for this species.
Economic Analysis Comments
General Comments About Framework, Assumptions, and Economic Benefits
Comment 60: Two commenters stated the discount rate applied and the development projections should be reevaluated given current economic conditions. The next few years will have far lower economic activity than expected, and should be reevaluated given current economic conditions.
Our Response: The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requires Federal agencies to report results using discount rates of three and seven percent (see OMB, Circular A-4, 2003). The DEA relies on growth projections at the census tract level provided by the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG). These projections forecast growth over a 20-year period; however, they generally do not provide information about the percent of this growth occurring in intermediate time periods. It is possible that, given current economic conditions, development activity will be slower in the early part of this timeframe and more aggressive during the latter half. However, lacking specific data on which to base assumptions about a variable growth rate, we assume linear growth between 2010 and 2030. A note has been added to
Exhibit 3-13 of the FEA to draw attention to this assumption (IEc 2010, p 3-20).
Comment 61: One commenter stated that as a result of decreased development and associated construction spending, it appears that there may not be funding available for many of the conservation efforts included in the HCPs. Therefore, the DEA's assumptions regarding the implementation of conservation measures under the HCPs and the availability of funds to carry out these measures are flawed.
Our Response: The DEA does not evaluate the broader goals of the regional HCPs and whether they will be achieved. The costs of implementing the HCPs outside of proposed revised critical habitat are not estimated. Rather, the DEA identifies development that is likely to occur over the next 20 years based on data obtained from regional planning agencies and uses the conservation and mitigation requirements defined in the HCPs as proxies for the best estimate of the outcome of future section 7 consultations. Specifically, the DEA assumes that 95 percent of critical habitat acres overlapping a development project must be preserved and salvaging
Page 6902
and transplantation of plants occurs on the remaining 5 percent. We agree that if a developer does not have the funds to carry out these measures, then the project is unlikely to move forward. However, the loss in land value that occurs as a result of these requirements is real, regardless of whether the individual projects actually take place.
Comment 62: One commenter stated that the DEA does not clearly define how it estimates potential cost associated with time delays, regulatory uncertainty, and stigma.
Our Response: Chapter 2 defines these categories of cost for the purposes of the analysis (IEc 2010, pp. 2-1-2-22). Data are not readily available to quantify potential impacts from regulatory uncertainty and stigma, thus they are discussed qualitatively.
Comment 63: One commenter stated that because all units within the proposed revised critical habitat are currently occupied by Brodiaea filifolia, no additional expenses would be incurred during section 7 consultation to address adverse modification of critical habitat.
Our Response: As is described in Chapter 2, new consultations taking place after critical habitat designation must include additional analysis and text to address whether the action will adversely modify critical habitat (IEc 2010, pp. 2-12-2-14). The Service, relevant action agencies, and third party participants in section 7 consultations have provided information for this and other economic analyses of critical habitat designation estimating the additional regulatory and administrative burdens imposed by this requirement.
These costs are incremental because absent designation, no requirement to evaluate, comment on, or address the potential for adverse modification exists.
Comment 64: One commenter stated that including the cost of considering additional land for pollinators as an incremental cost of the designation is inappropriate because the Service must consider pollinators in consultations for impacts to the species regardless of designation of critical habitat.
Our Response: This assumption is explained in detail in the incremental effects memorandum from the Service provided in Appendix D
(IEc 2010, p. D-1). It represents the professional judgment of Service staff and represents the best available information.
Comment 65: One commenter stated that no data are presented to justify the assumption that in areas greater than 50 ft (15 m) of a known Brodiaea filifolia occurrence, 20 percent of the time the action agency would not have been aware of the need to consult on potential effects to B. filifolia. Furthermore, relying upon this assumption to assign all costs associated with these consultations to the designation of critical habitat is not accurate. The commenter argues that these consultations should be required under the listing of the species and thus should be considered a baseline cost.
Our Response: The incremental effects memorandum provided in
Appendix D justifies this assumption (IEc 2010, p. D-1). The Service relies upon consultation data for the San Diego fairy shrimp to determine the number of consultations which would not have occurred absent critical habitat. The Service states that ``similar to [Brodiaea filifolia], impacts to lands adjacent to the habitat physically occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp (i.e., the local watershed that surrounds a vernal pool) were not necessarily addressed through consultation with the Service prior to critical habitat designation''
(Service 2010, in litt.). The Service determines that the designation of critical habitat for the fairy shrimp resulted in a 20 percent increase in the number of consultations and believes that it may see a comparable increase in the number of consultations for B. filifolia after the designation of revised critical habitat. This behavioral change is directly attributable to the designation of revised critical habitat; thus we count the costs of this new behavior as incremental.
This assumption represents the professional judgment of Service staff and represents the best available information.
Comment 66: Two commenters stated that the administrative costs of consultation used in the analysis are underestimated. One commenter suggested that based on personal experience, the cost for technical assistance varies from $5,000 to $10,000 and can be more if outside legal counsel is necessary. Similarly, the costs for preparing a biological assessment are also underestimated; a more accurate figure would be $10,000 to $25,000. Another commenter suggested that the cost of preparing a biological assessment for a new consultation considering only adverse modification should be 5-10 times higher than the amount given in Exhibit 2-3 ($4,200). Additionally, the commenter believes that third party costs of consultation are substantially underestimated.
Our Response: We have reviewed the cost estimates presented by the commenters and find that they fall within acceptable range limits identified through discussions with other project proponents and as a result, have adjusted the FEA to reflect this new information on administrative costs associated with the designation. The FEA uses an administrative cost of preparing a biological assessment of $25,000; this estimate reflects the high-end estimate provided by one commenter and falls within the range provided by another commenter. The FEA uses an administrative cost to third parties of $10,000 for all types of consultation. It should be noted that a cost of $250,000 for a programmatic consultation and CEQA review of the Inland Feeder Project is used in place of the costs provided in Exhibit 2-3; because a cost estimate specific to the project was provided by the stakeholder (IEc 2010, p. 2-15).
Comment 67: One commenter stated that the Service's methodological approach of separately estimating incremental impacts of the designation relative to existing baseline protections omits substantial economic impacts resulting from the proposed rule.
Our Response: The identification and estimation of incremental impacts is consistent with direction provided by OMB to Federal agencies for the estimation of the costs and benefits of Federal regulations (see OMB, Circular A-4, 2003). It is also consistent with several recent court decisions, including Cape Hatteras Access
Preservation Alliance v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 344 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C.) and Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of
Land Management, 422 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Those decisions found that estimation of incremental impacts stemming solely from the designation is proper.
Comment 68: One commenter stated that the Service's framework ignores indirect and cumulative effects of the designation of critical habitat. The measurement of these types of impacts is required under another Federal environmental law, the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
Our Response: Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, and OMB's Circular A-4, which provides direction to Federal agencies on the implementation of Executive Order 12866, represent the framework used to estimate the costs and benefits of regulations promulgated by all Federal agencies. They do not require the estimation of indirect or cumulative impacts. Furthermore, section 4(b)(2) of the
ESA is silent on the definition of ``economic impacts'' to be considered prior to the designation of critical habitat. Thus, the
Service relies on the well-established and universally followed principles laid out in Circular A-4.
Page 6903
Also 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 as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. See
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) section below.
Comment 69: One commenter stated that the DEA does not consider added environmental reviews by other regulatory agencies that could trigger more complex permits and more mitigation measures. Nor did it assess the costs of consultation under section 10 of the Act.
Our Response: Chapter 2 of the DEA explains that critical habitat designation may provide new information to a community about the sensitive ecological nature of a geographic region, potentially triggering additional economic impacts under State or local laws, such as CEQA (IEc 2010, pp. 2-1-2-22). Where appropriate the DEA includes costs associated with CEQA review. We are not aware of any new HCPs likely to be prepared under section 10 of the Act to cover Brodiaea filifolia. The HCPs currently in place were developed prior to the designation of critical habitat for B. filifolia and thus are outside of the scope of this analysis. Additionally, HCPs are usually not prepared for plant species because there is no prohibition against take of plants. In general, plant species will be covered by an HCP only if a listed animal species is present in the area.
Comment 70: One commenter stated that the DEA should consider cumulative effects (defined as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7)) of the revised critical habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia and other existing or pending critical habitat designations in Southern California. The commenter stated NEPA and its implementing regulations require Federal agencies to evaluate these cumulative impacts.
Our Response: 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 as defined by NEPA in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act, including the economic analyses performed as part of the critical habitat designation process.
We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). The Ninth
Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld this position (Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Comment 71: One commenter stated that the DEA fails to include consideration of all the benefits resulting from the designation, such as the positive impact on property values in the surrounding community due to the designation and non-development of open space; protection of clean water and clean air; preservation of natural habitat for other species which may alleviate the need for listing species in the future; and maintaining a mosaic of habitat types that native species use as movement corridors in arid southern California. The commenter asserts that these benefits should be assessed and quantified where possible or otherwise included in a detailed qualitative analysis.
Our Response: As described in Chapter 6 of the DEA, the purpose of critical habitat is to support the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia
(IEc 2010, pp. 6-1-6-4). The data required to estimate and value in monetary terms the incremental changes in the probability of conservation resulting from the designation are not available.
Depending on the project modifications ultimately implemented as a result of the regulation, other ancillary benefits that are not the stated objective of critical habitat (such as increasing the value of homes adjacent to preserved habitat or preserving habitat for other non-listed species) may occur. These benefits are discussed qualitatively. The DEA includes a discussion of the potential benefits to property values as well as the overall benefit to ecosystem health that is shared by other, coexisting species. The FEA has been revised to include discussion of the new ancillary benefit categories referenced in the comment (see Exhibit 6-1 of the FEA) (IEc 2010, p. 6- 4).
Impacts to Residential and Commercial Development Activities
Comment 72: One commenter stated that the DEA's assertion that the areas proposed for designation covered by the Orange County Southern
Subregion HCP are within lands mapped as Reserves and Open Space Areas is incorrect. The commenter calculates that the proposed revised critical habitat designation covers 43.8 ac (17.7 ha) of land designated for development in Planning Area 2. This land falls within
Subunit 4c.
Our Response: Chapter 3 of the DEA states that 90 ac (36 ha) out of a total 133 ac (54 ha) in Subunit 4c is or will be conserved under the
Orange County Southern Subregion HCP (see Exhibit 3-2) (IEc 2010, p. 3- 4). This leaves 43 ac (17 ha) of land that is not within lands mapped as Reserves and Open Space. The text on page 2-18 has been revised to clarify that only a portion of the land covered by the Orange County
Southern Subregion HCP is within lands mapped as Reserves and Open
Space (IEc 2010, p. 2-18).
Comment 73: One commenter stated that acres of private developable land attributable to Subunit 4c should be 43.8 ac (17.7 ha), not 18.53 ac (7.49 ha) set forth in Exhibit 3-3.
Our Response: The DEA characterizes potentially developable land as that where development is not currently restricted (e.g., lands not conserved under an HCP) that has been categorized as ``vacant'' by SCAG or SANDAG. The FEA has been revised to reflect the information about potentially developable land in Subunit 4c provided by this comment.
The FEA considers 25.01 ac (10.12 ha) categorized as ``non-irrigated cropland and improved pastureland'' as potentially developable land in addition to the 18.53 ac (7.49 ha) of vacant land. Exhibit 3-3 has been revised to reflect this new information and the economic impact estimates in the FEA have been revised accordingly (IEc 2010, p. 3-6).
Impacts to Transportation, Utility, and Flood Control Activities
Comment 74: One commenter stated that the DEA should include an evaluation of the impacts of designating revised critical habitat on the 241 Completion Project and all other transportation projects including project delays, the economic impact of designing, refining, and negotiating a preferred alternative to avoid Brodiaea filifolia critical habitat, costs associated with mitigation measures, and impacts arising from reduction in housing supply.
Our Response: The FEA evaluates potential economic impacts of this revised critical habitat designation on all known transportation projects within the areas proposed as revised critical habitat.
Regarding the 241 Completion Project, we have become aware that the proposed project does not meet the requirements of the Coastal Zone
Management Act and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) has denied a permit for this project as currently planned based on concerns related to a portion of the project located outside of revised critical habitat. Based on the
Page 6904
CCC's concerns, it appears that no viable project alternatives exist at this time and the proposed project as currently designed cannot move forward without project modification. Because the issues related to the
CCC's permit denial concern areas not proposed as revised critical habitat, we consider these costs to be baseline and have identified these costs in the FEA (see 241 Completion Project in the FEA) (IEc 2010, p. 4-3). All other impacts on known transportation projects as a result of the designation are identified in Chapter 4 of the FEA (IEc 2010, pp. 4-1-4-3).
Comment 75: One commenter stated that designation of revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia may result in increased economic burden to the Metropolitan Water District in Subunit 11a due to increased number of consultations with permitting agencies including consultations under section 10 of the Act where there is no Federal nexus (technically referred to as issuing an incidental take permit; the term `consultation' refers to the process under section 7 of the
Act, not under section 10 of the Act), increased environmental compliance costs for mitigation and CEQA documentation, and increased time and cost to obtain permits for maintenance operations.
Our Response: The FEA evaluated potential economic impacts of this revised critical habitat designation on all landowners and project proponents within the designated area. Regarding Metropolitan Water
District activities, the FEA assumes that a programmatic consultation resulting entirely from the designation of revised critical habitat and
CEQA review will occur in 2011. The FEA estimated the incremental costs to Metropolitan Water District to be $250,000. Additionally, according to the FEA, any project modifications that are requested as a result of the consultation are also considered incremental costs of the designation. However, because specific project modifications likely to be requested were not known at the time the FEA was completed, project modification costs have not been quantified for this project. Also, note that if there is no Federal nexus, issuing an incidental take permit under section 10 of the Act is not required for plant species.
Comment 76: One commenter stated that during consultation for the
Inland Feeder project in Subunit 11A additional mitigation requirements may be imposed increasing the cost of compliance with the Act.
Our Response: The DEA includes the costs of a programmatic consultation resulting entirely from the designation of revised critical habitat and CEQA review for this project. Because this consultation would not have occurred absent critical habitat, any project modification costs would be considered incremental impacts of the designation. At this time we do not know specific project modifications that may be requested and thus cannot estimate potential costs. A qualitative discussion of the potential for additional project modification costs has been added to Chapter 4.
Comment 77: One commenter stated that the DEA should have included transportation projects in the regional and interregional transportation plans prepared for regional and Federal transportation planning and Federal air quality conformity such as the Regional
Transportation Plans and Regional Transportation Improvement Plans.
Our Response: The SCAG and SANDAG Regional Transportation Plans and
Regional Transportation Improvement Plans have been reviewed for the
FEA. This review identified two projects that may occur within Subunit 11c: the widening of Case Road between Goetz Road and I-215 and construction of a two-lane arterial and two-lane grade separation on
Ellis Avenue. These projects are identified as ``financially constrained projects'' that are subject to available funding. Because these projects are not yet funded and are, therefore, uncertain they will not be included in this analysis. A footnote to this effect has been added to Chapter 4 of the FEA.
Comment 78: One commenter stated that the DEA improperly and in violation of the requirement to use the ``best scientific data available'' excludes the 241 Completion Project from consideration of economic impacts resulting from the proposed rule. The commenter states that: the Service's conclusion that no viable alternatives exist for the 241 Completion Project is outside of the scope of the agency's expertise; new information alone is not a trigger for re-initiation of consultation; and the Service cannot determine at this time whether the 2008 biological opinion is no longer valid.
Our Response: As is described in the text box on page ES-11 and in
Chapter 4 of the DEA the Service believes that no viable alternative exists for this project (IEc 2010, pp. ES-11, 4-2). The Service maintains that the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency would need to engage in additional consultation under section 7 of the
Act for a redesigned project.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not significant and has not reviewed this proposed rule under
Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
(1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.
(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions), as described below. However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In this final rule, we are certifying that the revised critical habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
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 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
Page 6905
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 agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered 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 to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the designation of revised critical habitat for
Brodiaea filifolia would significantly affect a substantial number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities, such as residential and commercial development. We apply the ``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not explicitly define
``substantial number'' or ``significant economic impact.''
Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area. In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat affects only activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect Brodiaea filifolia. Federal agencies also must consult with us if their activities may affect critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic impact on small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities (see Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard section).
In our final economic analysis of the revised critical habitat designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the revised designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia. The analysis is based on the estimated impacts associated with the rulemaking as described in sections 3 through 5 of the analysis and evaluates the potential for economic impacts related to:
Commercial and residential development; transportation, utility, and flood control; and public and conservancy lands management (IEc 2010, p. 1-5). The FEA estimates the total incremental impacts associated with development as a whole to be $280,000 to $384,000 over the 20-year timeframe of the FEA. The FEA identifies incremental impacts to small entities to occur only due to residential and commercial development
(IEc 2010, p. A-4). The other categories of projects either will have no impacts (transportation, utility, and flood control; management of public and conservation lands) or are Federal, State, or public entities not considered small or exceed the criteria for small business status (IEc 2010, p. A-4). Of the approximately 1,025 ac (415 ha) of land considered developable in the designation, only 132 ac (53 ha) have been forecasted to be developed over the next 20-year timeframe
(IEc 2010, p. A-5). The FEA equates this acreage to 23 projects, with one developer per project (IEc 2010, p. A-6). The FEA summarizes that less than one new project is likely to occur annually that may be affected by the designation of revised critical habitat resulting in total annualized incremental impacts to small entities of $24,700 to
$33,900 (IEc 2010, p. 3-19). The FEA assumes all developers are considered small; this estimate may overstate impacts if not all of the developers are small. Please refer to our final economic analysis of the revised critical habitat designation for B. filifolia for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
In summary, we considered whether this designation would result in a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. The total number of small businesses impacted annually by the designation is estimated to be fewer than one, with an annualized impact of approximately $24,700 to $33,900. This impact is less than 10 percent of the total incremental impact identified for development activities. Based on the above reasoning and currently available information, we concluded this rule would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for transportation, development, and flood control impacts as identified in the FEA (IEc 2010, p. A-1-A-6). Therefore, we are certifying that the designation of revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 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. First, it excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' Second, 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. ``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.''
Critical habitat designation 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. Designation of critical habitat may indirectly impact non-
Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
Page 6906
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 on to State governments.
(2) As discussed in the FEA of the proposed designation of revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia, we do not believe that this rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it would 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 FEA concludes incremental impacts may occur due to administrative costs of section 7 consultations for development activities; however, these are not expected to affect small governments. Incremental impacts stemming from various species conservation and development control activities are expected to be borne by the Federal Government, California Department of
Transportation, CDFG, Riverside County, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and City of Perris, which are not considered small governments. Consequently, we do not believe that the revised critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency
Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we analyzed the potential takings implications of designating revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia in a takings implications assessment. 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. The designation of revised critical habitat for B. filifolia does not pose significant takings implications for the above reasons.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we requested information from, and coordinated development of this proposed revised critical habitat designation with, appropriate State resource agencies in California. 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 PCEs 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), it has been 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 designated critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the PCEs within the designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of Brodiaea filifolia.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This 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 (NEPA) (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 as defined by 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), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we have a 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 determined that there are no tribal lands occupied at the time of listing that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species, nor are there any unoccupied tribal lands that are essential for the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia. Therefore, critical habitat for B. filifolia is not being designated on tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory action under consideration. The economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the economic analysis, energy-related
Page 6907
impacts associated with Brodiaea filifolia conservation activities within revised critical habitat are not expected. As such, the designation of revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is available on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009- 0073 and upon request from the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
Author(s)
The primary author of this notice is the staff from the Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED] 0 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 0 2. In Sec. 17.12(h), revise the entry for ``Brodiaea filifolia
(thread-leaved brodiaea)'' under family Themidaceae to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
Species
Historic range
Family
Status
When listed
Critical
Special rules
Scientific name
Common name
habitat
* * * * * * *
FLOWERING PLANTS
* * * * * * *
Brodiaea filifolia............. Thread-leaved
U.S.A. (CA)...... Themidaceae...... T................
650
17.96(
-
NA brodiaea.
* * * * * * *
0 3. Amend Sec. 17.96(a) by: 0 a. Removing the entry for ``Brodiaea filifolia (thread-leaved brodiaea)'' under Family Liliaceae; and 0 b. Adding a new entry for ``Brodiaea filifolia (thread-leaved brodiaea)'' under Family Themidaceae in alphabetic order by family name to read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(
-
Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Themidaceae: Brodiaea filifolia (thread-leaved brodiaea)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties, California, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements (PCE) for
Brodiaea filifolia consist of two components:
(i) PCE 1--Appropriate soil series at a range of elevations and in a variety of plant communities, specifically:
(
-
Clay soil series of various origins (such as Alo, Altamont,
Auld, or Diablo), clay lenses found as unmapped inclusions in other soils series, or loamy soils series underlain by a clay subsoil (such as Fallbrook, Huerhuero, or Las Flores) occurring between the elevations of 100 and 2,500 ft (30 and 762 m).
(B) Soils (such as Cieneba-rock outcrop complex and Ramona family-
Typic Xerothents soils) altered by hydrothermal activity occurring between the elevations of 1,000 and 2,500 ft (305 and 762 m).
(C) Silty loam soil series underlain by a clay subsoil or caliche that are generally poorly drained, moderately to strongly alkaline, granitic in origin (such as Domino, Grangeville, Traver, Waukena, or
Willows) occurring between the elevations of 600 and 1,800 ft (183 and 549 m).
(D) Clay loam soil series (such as Murrieta) underlain by heavy clay loams or clays derived from olivine basalt lava flows occurring between the elevations of 1,700 and 2,500 ft (518 and 762 m).
(E) Sandy loam soils derived from basalt and granodiorite parent materials; deposits of gravel, cobble, and boulders; or hydrologically fractured, weathered granite in intermittent streams and seeps occurring between 1,800 and 2,500 ft (549 and 762 m).
(ii) PCE 2--Areas with a natural, generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure, not permanently altered by anthropogenic land use activities (such as deep, repetitive discing, or grading), extending out up to 820 ft (250 m) from mapped occurrences of Brodiaea filifolia to provide for space for individual population growth, and space for pollinators.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures existing on the effective date of this rule and not containing one or more of the primary constituent elements, such as buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the land on which such structures are located.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were created using a base of U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' quadrangle maps.
Critical habitat units were then mapped using Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) zone 11, North American Datum (NAD) 1983 coordinates.
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for Brodiaea filifolia (thread-leaved brodiaea) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Page 6908
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.006
(6) Unit 1: Los Angeles County. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map
Glendora, Los Angeles County, California.
(i) Subunit 1a: Glendora. Land bounded by the following Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 422408, 3779882; 422462, 3779764; 422424, 3779771; 422405, 3779809; 422356, 3779811; 422323, 3779723; 422353, 3779662; 422391, 3779567; 422397, 3779509; 422224, 3779417; 422051, 3779401; 422039, 3779437; 422008, 3779452; 421977, 3779480; 421925, 3779519; 421920, 3779598; 421883, 3779624; 421826, 3779599; 421803, 3779670; 421860, 3779684; 421896, 3779720; 421919, 3779713; 421945, 3779727; 421896, 3779760; 421809, 3779730; 421815, 3779760; 421829, 3779825; 421899, 3779920; 422002, 3779999; 422139, 3780025; 422294, 3779985; thence returning to 422408, 3779882.
(ii) Subunit 1b: San Dimas. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 425325, 3778572; 425359, 3778490; 425367, 3778364; 425315, 3778234; 425284, 3778164; 425246, 3778076; 425149, 3777990; 425092, 3777884; 425044, 3777802; 424905, 3777719; 424787, 3777708; 424656, 3777764; 424662, 3777823; 424647, 3777849; 424590, 3777886;
Page 6909
424590, 3777928; 424597, 3778011; 424571, 3777991; 424529, 3777914; 424515, 3777936; 424506, 3778028; 424518, 3778113; 424537, 3778181; 424582, 3778271; 424644, 3778345; 424667, 3778401; 424676, 3778492; 424719, 3778597; 424795, 3778660; 424826, 3778640; 424843, 3778626; 424851, 3778608; 424889, 3778602; 424920, 3778616; 424940, 3778637; 424968, 3778629; 424993, 3778622; 424973, 3778619; 424951, 3778602; 424961, 3778582; 424985, 3778568; 424985, 3778557; 424964, 3778557; 424936, 3778546; 424928, 3778529; 424953, 3778490; 424979, 3778462; 424990, 3778449; 424984, 3778438; 424930, 3778435; 424896, 3778429; 424896, 3778402; 424908, 3778387; 424931, 3778378; 424945, 3778359; 425004, 3778379; 425004, 3778413; 425016, 3778438; 425027, 3778427; 425044, 3778433; 425072, 3778426; 425076, 3778399; 425064, 3778387; 425066, 3778358; 425087, 3778364; 425112, 3778384; 425097, 3778407; 425089, 3778424; 425098, 3778441; 425095, 3778477; 425095, 3778509; 425067, 3778508; 425052, 3778572; 425058, 3778633; 425038, 3778671; 424916, 3778705; 424914, 3778733; 425001, 3778749; 425169, 3778727; 425271, 3778648; thence returning to 425325, 3778572.
(iii) Note: Map of Unit 1, Los Angeles County, follows:
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.007
(7) Unit 2: San Bernardino County. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map San Bernardino North, San Bernardino County, California.
(i) Arrowhead Hot Springs. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83
Page 6910
coordinates (E, N): 475756, 3783146; 475763, 3783104; 475808, 3783104; 475830, 3783096; 475842, 3783067; 475744, 3783060; 475761, 3783023; 475827, 3783025; 475863, 3783021; 475876, 3782965; 475854, 3782962; 475836, 3782958; 475800, 3782956; 475773, 3782962; 475744, 3782971; 475721, 3782983; 475709, 3783006; 475684, 3783005; 475682, 3782992; 475686, 3782947; 475711, 3782920; 475716, 3782905; 475709, 3782895; 475705, 3782874; 475681, 3782844; 475668, 3782829; 475666, 3782807; 475682, 3782791; 475714, 3782768; 475748, 3782753; 475784, 3782755; 475820, 3782787; 475838, 3782735; 475827, 3782707; 475801, 3782677; 475790, 3782677; 475744, 3782680; 475705, 3782677; 475677, 3782696; 475654, 3782661; 475660, 3782581; 475612, 3782573; 475545, 3782573; 475482, 3782592; 475504, 3782635; 475472, 3782646; 475440, 3782672; 475403, 3782667; 475358, 3782674; 475324, 3782715; 475290, 3782821; 475289, 3782917; 475311, 3783037; 475380, 3783142; 475483, 3783208; 475584, 3783230; 475689, 3783208; 475767, 3783164; 475773, 3783155; thence returning to 475756, 3783146.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2, San Bernardino County, follows:
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.008
Page 6911
(8) Unit 3: Central Orange County. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, California.
(i) Aliso Canyon. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 432560, 3711875; 432501, 3711891; 432471, 3711899; 432436, 3711909; 432389, 3711922; 432289, 3711950; 432288, 3712146; 432371, 3712127; 432467, 3712061; 432539, 3711960; thence returning to 432560, 3711875.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 3, Central Orange County, follows:
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.009
Page 6912
(9) Unit 4: Southern Orange County. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Ca[ntilde]ada Gobernadora, Orange County, California.
(i) Subunit 4b: Caspers Wilderness Park. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 446657, 3715594; 446679, 3715660; 446777, 3715754; 446787, 3715756; 446802, 3715670; 446787, 3715650; 446749, 3715599; thence returning to 446657, 3715594. Continue to 446672, 3715282; 446635, 3715383; 446634, 3715424; 446664, 3715452; 446750, 3715379; 446725, 3715324; thence returning to 446672, 3715282.
Continue to 447195, 3715710; 446853, 3715710; 446834, 3715765; 446831, 3715772; 446952, 3715811; 447141, 3715767; thence returning to 447195, 3715710.
(ii) Subunit 4c: Ca[ntilde]ada Gobernadora/Chiquita Ridgeline. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 444988, 3710736; 444822, 3710714; 444688, 3710749; 444620, 3710811; 444555, 3710909; 444525, 3711030; 444549, 3711176; 444622, 3711280; 444769, 3711366; 444952, 3711370; 445174, 3711382; 445357, 3711387; 445494, 3711375; 445509, 3711195; 445478, 3710975; 445371, 3710832; 445127, 3710778; thence returning to 444988, 3710736.
(iii) Subunit 4g: Cristianitos Canyon. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 448505, 3704899; 448619, 3704865; 448693, 3704908; 448753, 3704920; 448807, 3704923; 448869, 3704911; 448913, 3704891; 448985, 3704826; 449023, 3704752; 449034, 3704695; 449095, 3704664; 449153, 3704605; 449187, 3704527; 449193, 3704439; 449172, 3704362; 449116, 3704286; 449051, 3704239; 448973, 3704215; 448885, 3704225; 448831, 3704215; 448781, 3704219; 448727, 3704235; 448660, 3704282; 448631, 3704315; 448603, 3704363; 448423, 3704282; 448272, 3704282; 448162, 3704323; 448074, 3704378; 448026, 3704460; 448012, 3704611; 448012, 3704741; 448012, 3704830; 448012, 3704912; 447930, 3705117; 447800, 3705206; 447704, 3705275; 447635, 3705535; 447717, 3705816; 447724, 3706014; 447635, 3706076; 447505, 3706199; 447444, 3706336; 447519, 3706480; 447684, 3706606; 447615, 3706809; 447498, 3707014; 447615, 3707206; 447724, 3707603; 447950, 3707795; 448176, 3707567; 448204, 3707309; 448128, 3706809; 448073, 3706701; 448057, 3706368; 448033, 3706154; 448231, 3706001; 448430, 3705877; 448512, 3705802; 448594, 3705631; 448525, 3705487; thence returning to 448505, 3704899.
(iv) Note: Map of Unit 4, Southern Orange County, follows:
Page 6913
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.010
(10) Unit 5: Northern San Diego County. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Fallbrook and Margarita Peak, San Diego County,
California.
(i) Subunit 5b: Devil Canyon. Land bounded by the following UTM
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 465203, 3702184; 465318, 3702168; 465420, 3702168; 465439, 3702023; 465428, 3701850; 465333, 3701622; 465239, 3701500; 465113, 3701402; 464908, 3701394; 464732, 3701504; 464665, 3701669; 464716, 3701889; 464645, 3702050; 464448, 3702235; 464342, 3702416; 464248, 3702534; 464228, 3702719; 464323, 3702888; 464464, 3702990; 464633, 3703049; 464775, 3703026; 464885, 3702963; 464948, 3702872; 464964, 3702739; 464987, 3702616; 465070, 3702463; 465144, 3702322; thence returning to 465203, 3702184.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 5, Northern San Diego County, follows:
Page 6914
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.011
(11) Unit 6: Oceanside, San Diego County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map San Luis Rey, San Diego County, California.
(i) Subunit 6a: Alta Creek. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 470033, 3673422; 470028, 3673364; 470103, 3673390; 470049, 3673279; 469947, 3673268; 469933, 3673297; 469861, 3673292; 469765, 3673271; 469754, 3673290; 469733, 3673288; 469694, 3673241; 469647, 3673203; 469340, 3673150; 469290, 3673280; 469454, 3673280; 469472, 3673385; 469461, 3673464; 469459, 3673517; 469775, 3673595; 469819, 3673600; 469861, 3673591; 469965, 3673540; 469936, 3673513; 469941, 3673452; thence returning to 470033, 3673422. Continue to 469160, 3673457; 469299, 3673146; 469251, 3673150; 469207, 3673154; 469101, 3673149; 469028, 3673175; 468994, 3673187; 468917, 3673248; 468862, 3673350; 468862, 3673358; 468853, 3673464; 468852, 3673477; thence returning to 469160, 3673457.
(ii) Subunit 6b: Mesa Drive. Land bounded by the following UTM
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 468915, 3674517; 468893, 3674517; 468892, 3674526; 468877, 3674541; 468863, 3674561; 468863, 3674587; 468857, 3674609; 468848, 3674625; 468844, 3674648; 468835, 3674670; 468864, 3674678; 468878, 3674689; 468899, 3674707;
Page 6915
468918, 3674700; thence returning to 468915, 3674517. Continue to 468732, 3674337; 468733, 3674299; 468680, 3674337; 468641, 3674369; 468652, 3674387; 468664, 3674416; 468674, 3674490; 468682, 3674548; 468687, 3674609; 468687, 3674641; 468711, 3674605; 468736, 3674562; 468736, 3674526; 468736, 3674474; 468739, 3674441; 468749, 3674423; 468750, 3674395; 468750, 3674374; 468743, 3674350; thence returning to 468732, 3674337. Continue to 468977, 3674272; 468936, 3674260; 468942, 3674457; 469035, 3674460; 469086, 3674475; 469154, 3674504; 469216, 3674523; 469195, 3674471; 469172, 3674417; 469150, 3674383; 469103, 3674339; 469064, 3674311; 469028, 3674288; thence returning to 468977, 3674272.
(iii) Subunit 6c: Mission View/Sierra Ridge. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 471256, 3676540; 471308, 3676525; 471322, 3676525; 471325, 3676497; 471325, 3676436; 471323, 3676399; 471318, 3676384; 471293, 3676426; 471285, 3676401; 471265, 3676381; 471248, 3676356; 471263, 3676342; 471293, 3676341; 471310, 3676341; 471323, 3676329; 471323, 3676322; 471306, 3676295; 471293, 3676269; 471310, 3676248; 471318, 3676235; 471312, 3676210; 471305, 3676181; 471313, 3676166; 471313, 3676151; 471313, 3676137; 471301, 3676117; 471275, 3676100; 471265, 3676085; 471241, 3676075; 471182, 3676137; 471149, 3676188; 471137, 3676205; 471137, 3676236; 471145, 3676267; 471167, 3676279; 471167, 3676346; 471182, 3676354; 471228, 3676354; 471236, 3676386; 471263, 3676413; 471280, 3676418; 471288, 3676440; 471253, 3676466; 471234, 3676476; 471226, 3676502; 471216, 3676525; 471216, 3676540; thence returning to 471256, 3676540.
(iv) Subunit 6d: Taylor/Darwin. Land bounded by the following UTM
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 475246, 3676994; 475198, 3676860; 474920, 3676914; 474920, 3676911; 474917, 3676900; 474843, 3676895; 474840, 3676895; 474762, 3676777; 474688, 3676855; 474720, 3676903; 474720, 3677197; 474818, 3677296; 474888, 3677325; 474968, 3677352; 474925, 3677213; 474936, 3677192; 474928, 3677106; thence returning to 475246, 3676994.
(v) Subunit 6e: Arbor Creek/Colucci. Land bounded by the following
UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 475917, 3675848; 475854, 3675822; 475695, 3675915; 475579, 3676018; 475583, 3676501; 475701, 3676520; 476070, 3676287; 476071, 3676228; 476380, 3676221; 476380, 3675858; 476001, 3675858; thence returning to 475917, 3675848.
(vi) Note: Map of Unit 6, Oceanside, follows:
Page 6916
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.012
(12) Unit 7: Carlsbad, San Diego County, California.
(i) Subunit 7a: Letterbox Canyon. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map
San Luis Rey, land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E,
N): 473516, 3667072; 473504, 3666941; 473516, 3666839; 473519, 3666765; 473558, 3666762; 473635, 3666758; 473759, 3666758; 473782, 3666785; 473756, 3666880; 473761, 3666926; 473777, 3666940; 473845, 3666935; 473846, 3666935; 473847, 3666778; 473848, 3666778; 473849, 3666778; 473850, 3666781; 473860, 3666822; 473904, 3666832; 473971, 3666844; 473968, 3666840; 473973, 3666838; 473978, 3666836; 474005, 3666824; 474011, 3666821; 474033, 3666818; 474036, 3666817; 474081, 3666811; 474121, 3666781; 474134, 3666779; 474136, 3666779; 474149, 3666777; 474151, 3666777; 474156, 3666777; 474159, 3666776; 474161, 3666776; 474167, 3666775; 474173, 3666774; 474160, 3666727; 474159, 3666726; 474159, 3666724; 474155, 3666721; 474153, 3666720; 474120, 3666699; 474118, 3666698; 474112, 3666694; 474100, 3666695; 474099, 3666695; 474098, 3666695; 474095, 3666695; 474090, 3666695; 474087, 3666695; 474061, 3666696; 473920, 3666753; 473848, 3666694; 473861, 3666635; 473890, 3666593; 473952, 3666506; 473930, 3666483; 473810, 3666500;
Page 6917
473706, 3666498; 473599, 3666515; 473533, 3666593; 473539, 3666667; 473480, 3666686; 473474, 3666798; 473441, 3666848; 473394, 3666880; 473370, 3666918; 473297, 3666974; 473330, 3667034; 473360, 3667013; 473404, 3667041; 473441, 3667031; 473480, 3667085; thence returning to 473516, 3667072.
(ii) Subunit 7b: Rancho Carrillo. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Rancho Santa Fe and San Marcos, land bounded by the following UTM
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 478285, 3664797; 478307, 3664759; 478307, 3664749; 478251, 3664772; 478244, 3664745; 478200, 3664753; 478146, 3664747; 478085, 3664702; 478076, 3664774; 477946, 3664862; 477994, 3664920; 478066, 3664996; 478104, 3665067; 478117, 3665119; 478147, 3665221; 478249, 3665297; 478278, 3665368; 478339, 3665400; 478409, 3665501; 478419, 3665498; 478419, 3665496; 478419, 3665309; 478383, 3665244; 478345, 3665196; 478327, 3665137; 478319, 3665051; 478304, 3665021; 478303, 3664935; 478270, 3664821; thence returning to 478285, 3664797.
(iii) Subunit 7c: Calavera Hills Village H. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map San Luis Rey, land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 471354, 3670039; 471355, 3670036; 471357, 3670032; 471361, 3670025; 471364, 3670018; 471374, 3669997; 471361, 3669999; 471345, 3669999; 471310, 3670039; 471282, 3670039; 471271, 3670102; 471257, 3670129; 471225, 3670198; 471181, 3670281; 471131, 3670366; 471109, 3670410; 471099, 3670466; 471068, 3670472; 471018, 3670480; 470999, 3670495; 470982, 3670510; 470940, 3670542; 470876, 3670576; 470871, 3670578; 470893, 3670639; 470935, 3670684; 471000, 3670729; 471009, 3670731; 471066, 3670749; 471099, 3670749; 471119, 3670749; 471188, 3670741; 471258, 3670710; 471348, 3670646; 471362, 3670634; 471362, 3670629; 471351, 3670626; 471252, 3670590; 471219, 3670578; 471107, 3670536; 471141, 3670460; 471150, 3670442; 471154, 3670434; 471156, 3670431; 471158, 3670429; 471161, 3670426; 471163, 3670423; 471165, 3670421; 471168, 3670418; 471170, 3670416; 471172, 3670413; 471174, 3670410; 471176, 3670408; 471178, 3670405; 471180, 3670402; 471182, 3670399; 471183, 3670396; 471185, 3670393; 471187, 3670390; 471189, 3670387; 471190, 3670384; 471192, 3670381; 471193, 3670378; 471195, 3670375; 471262, 3670230; 471322, 3670100; 471325, 3670092; 471328, 3670086; 471332, 3670079; 471335, 3670072; 471339, 3670065; 471344, 3670056; 471350, 3670046; thence returning to 471354, 3670039.
(iv) Note: Map of Unit 7, Carlsbad, follows:
Page 6918
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.013
(13) Unit 8: San Marcos and Vista. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map San Marcos, San Diego County, California.
(i) Subunit 8b: Rancho Santalina/Loma Alta. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 482357, 3668036; 482390, 3667949; 482348, 3667946; 482282, 3667946; 482244, 3667925; 482220, 3667908; 482187, 3667931; 482127, 3667997; 482157, 3668021; 482235, 3667976; 482324, 3668168; 482336, 3668078; thence returning to 482357, 3668036. Continue to 481816, 3669068; 481771, 3669038; 481765, 3669046; 481771, 3669329; 481771, 3669358; 481807, 3669373; 481891, 3669418; 481974, 3669435; 482013, 3669456; 482007, 3669432; 481974, 3669373; 481953, 3669307; 481921, 3669274; 481879, 3669244; 481870, 3669223; 481865, 3669217; 481831, 3669175; 481819, 3669136; 481822, 3669089; thence returning to 481816, 3669068. Continue to 481753, 3668523; 481720, 3668446; 481689, 3668496; 481648, 3668562; 481604, 3668646; 481714, 3668649; 481723, 3668661; 481756, 3668718; 481768, 3668756; 481816, 3668766; 481831, 3668715; 481819, 3668670; 481786, 3668595; thence returning to 481753, 3668523. Continue to 482091, 3669106; 482121, 3668876; 482130, 3668802; 482091, 3668736; 482052, 3668553; 482214, 3668350; 482258,
Page 6919
3668281; 482312, 3668281; 482315, 3668230; 482258, 3668242; 482253, 3668242; 482187, 3668338; 482154, 3668356; 482091, 3668356; 482091, 3668386; 482097, 3668443; 482052, 3668502; 481995, 3668562; 482085, 3668912; 482000, 3668916; 481989, 3668917; 481980, 3668918; 481877, 3668514; 481876, 3668512; 481872, 3668496; 481872, 3668494; 481862, 3668457; 481861, 3668453; 481852, 3668416; 481837, 3668383; 481840, 3668353; 481841, 3668350; 481861, 3668308; 481933, 3668224; 482085, 3668084; 482064, 3668072; 482046, 3668072; 482025, 3668060; 481986, 3668093; 481888, 3668164; 481819, 3668260; 481809, 3668280; 481786, 3668323; 481783, 3668329; 481741, 3668407; 481828, 3668398; 481852, 3668541; 481915, 3668751; 481962, 3668927; 481974, 3668923; 482046, 3669067; 482062, 3669090; 482076, 3669110; thence returning to 482091, 3669106.
(ii) Subunit 8d: Upham. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 481849, 3666534; 481819, 3666534; 481462, 3666688; 481594, 3666985; 481973, 3666823; thence returning to 481849, 3666534.
Continue to 481372, 3666489; 481677, 3666364; 481689, 3666409; 481719, 3666459; 481804, 3666429; 481801, 3666386; 481779, 3666359; 481687, 3666147; 481597, 3666102; 481550, 3666247; 481535, 3666274; 481320, 3666376; thence returning to 481372, 3666489.
(iii) Subunit 8f: Oleander/San Marcos Elementary. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 480307, 3668488; 480280, 3668462; 480137, 3668521; 480047, 3668580; 479946, 3668654; 480044, 3668711; 480087, 3668741; 480190, 3668776; 480226, 3668765; 480210, 3668748; 480149, 3668728; 480117, 3668702; 480092, 3668639; 480066, 3668592; 480125, 3668556; 480158, 3668554; 480241, 3668547; 480297, 3668531; 480310, 3668511; thence returning to 480307, 3668488.
(iv) Note: Map of Unit 8, San Marcos and Vista, follows:
Page 6920
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.014
(14) Unit 11: Western Riverside County, Riverside County,
California.
(i) Subunit 11a: San Jacinto Wildlife Area. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Lakeview and Perris, land bounded by the following UTM
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 488983, 3745493; 489065, 3745348; 489100, 3745144; 489088, 3745019; 489008, 3744998; 488955, 3744984; 488940, 3744982; 488834, 3744968; 488827, 3744966; 488803, 3744959; 488696, 3744929; 488626, 3744907; 488610, 3744902; 488565, 3744888; 488532, 3744878; 488500, 3744869; 488441, 3744853; 488363, 3744831; 488314, 3744794; 488285, 3744772; 488171, 3744760; 487999, 3744760; 487873, 3744819; 487818, 3744885; 487811, 3744894; 487796, 3744916; 487773, 3744954; 487767, 3744964; 487765, 3744983; 487756, 3745058; 487756, 3745172; 487783, 3745258; 487846, 3745333; 487948, 3745395; 487978, 3745412; 488042, 3745450; 488050, 3745454; 488159, 3745489; 488289, 3745470; 488336, 3745470; 488438, 3745517; 488563, 3745603; 488728, 3745658; 488786, 3745693; 488724, 3745740; 488677, 3745854; 488669, 3745964; 488692, 3746105; 488739, 3746179; 488783, 3746226; 488785, 3746227; 488803, 3746231; 488885, 3746250; 488990, 3746269; 489131, 3746336; 489273, 3746420; 489374, 3746481; 489511, 3746574; 489547, 3746598;
Page 6921
489652, 3746637; 489668, 3746643; 489719, 3746661; 489876, 3746657; 489895, 3746633; 489982, 3746517; 490025, 3746461; 490033, 3746371; 490018, 3746275; 490013, 3746242; 489983, 3746214; 489951, 3746183; 489637, 3745987; 489425, 3745858; 489198, 3745787; 489096, 3745677; 488998, 3745634; thence returning to 488983, 3745493.
(ii) Subunit 11b: San Jacinto Avenue/Dawson Road. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Perris, land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 483682, 3737705; 483570, 3737705; 483524, 3737712; 483463, 3737755; 483380, 3737824; 483344, 3737895; 483344, 3737975; 483366, 3738075; 483387, 3738129; 483423, 3738183; 483470, 3738269; 483491, 3738345; 483538, 3738434; 483621, 3738506; 483983, 3738506; 484059, 3738445; 484127, 3738348; 484145, 3738186; 484116, 3738104; 484023, 3738021; 483965, 3737949; 483922, 3737867; 483865, 3737777; 483789, 3737741; thence returning to 483682, 3737705.
(iii) Subunit 11c: Case Road. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map
Perris, land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 481228, 3736775; 480714, 3736203; 480100, 3736631; 480093, 3736652; 480100, 3736807; 480139, 3736897; 481124, 3736908; 481192, 3736854; thence returning to 481228, 3736775. Continue to 480689, 3736146; 480416, 3735873; 480258, 3735905; 480121, 3736024; 480082, 3736139; 480100, 3736315; 480172, 3736390; 480157, 3736473; 480150, 3736548; thence returning to 480689, 3736146.
(iv) Subunit 11d: Railroad Canyon. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Lake Elsinore and Romoland, land bounded by the following UTM
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 476192, 3732071; 476177, 3732058; 476095, 3732067; 476092, 3732068; 476075, 3732070; 475968, 3732083; 475828, 3732198; 475767, 3732413; 475789, 3732650; 475922, 3732859; 475949, 3732877; 476026, 3732931; 476086, 3732989; 476141, 3733042; 476417, 3733214; 476590, 3733286; 476816, 3733401; 476878, 3733419; 476891, 3733423; 476983, 3733450; 477099, 3733465; 477223, 3733446; 477305, 3733326; 477300, 3733201; 477280, 3733049; 477274, 3733042; 477252, 3733009; 477230, 3732975; 477227, 3732972; 477210, 3732947; 477204, 3732938; 477090, 3732890; 477055, 3732876; 476892, 3732809; 476888, 3732808; 476755, 3732787; 476694, 3732744; 476583, 3732650; 476410, 3732510; 476367, 3732352; 476342, 3732230; 476335, 3732194; 476265, 3732134; 476216, 3732091; thence returning to 476192, 3732071.
(v) Subunit 11e: Upper Salt Creek (Stowe Pool). From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Winchester, land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 495693, 3731707; 495719, 3731126; 495375, 3730970; 495372, 3731340; 494997, 3731340; 494979, 3731381; 494982, 3731490; 495018, 3731613; 495074, 3731735; 495112, 3731898; 495260, 3732003; 495334, 3732070; 495421, 3732105; 495811, 3732113; thence returning to 495693, 3731707.
(vi) Note: Map of Unit 11, Western Riverside County, Subunits a, b, c, d, and e, follows:
Page 6922
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.015
(vii) Subunit 11f: Santa Rosa Plateau--Mesa de Colorado. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Wildomar, land bounded by the following UTM
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 473758, 3706932; 473672, 3706842; 473581, 3706815; 473540, 3706803; 473426, 3706843; 473384, 3706858; 473296, 3706997; 473298, 3707017; 473454, 3706981; 473594, 3706853; 473766, 3707097; 473785, 3707063; thence returning to 473758, 3706932.
(viii) Note: Map of Unit 11, Western Riverside County, Subunit 11f, follows:
Page 6923
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.016
(15) Unit 12: San Diego County. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map
Rancho Santa Fe, San Diego County, California.
(i) Artesian Trails. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 485589, 3653612; 485575, 3653542; 485571, 3653524; 485570, 3653490; 485569, 3653489; 485569, 3653487; 485569, 3653486; 485569, 3653474; 485565, 3653471; 485564, 3653470; 485563, 3653469; 485543, 3653449; 485537, 3653450; 485493, 3653460; 485462, 3653486; 485459, 3653480; 485448, 3653449; 485448, 3653343; 485448, 3653326; 485448, 3653319; 485444, 3653319; 485370, 3653319; 485356, 3653325; 485354, 3653500; 485354, 3653526; 485354, 3653577; 485354, 3653610; 485332, 3653612; 485299, 3653597; 485307, 3653383; 485307, 3653327; 485255, 3653327; 485256, 3653411; 485257, 3653522; 485169, 3653522; 485164, 3653522; 485146, 3653473; 485144, 3653466; 485146, 3653323; 485112, 3653325; 485086, 3653397; 485086, 3653470; 485096, 3653542; 485114, 3653602; 485146, 3653657; 485216, 3653715; 485227, 3653725; 485557, 3653721; 485556, 3653713; 485554, 3653696; 485551, 3653660; 485549, 3653645; 485550, 3653644; thence returning to 485589, 3653612.
Continue to 485700, 3653157; 485748, 3653150; 485750, 3653151; 485754, 3652943; 485754, 3652911; 485759, 3652710;
Page 6924
485760, 3652681; 485761, 3652680; 485768, 3652672; 485939, 3652471; 485934, 3652466; 485932, 3652465; 485925, 3652459; 485863, 3652401; 485766, 3652366; 485761, 3652364; 485748, 3652359; 485702, 3652364; 485668, 3652395; 485636, 3652403; 485583, 3652399; 485569, 3652394; 485477, 3652439; 485406, 3652509; 485400, 3652515; 485324, 3652630; 485319, 3652795; 485346, 3652902; 485396, 3653009; 485458, 3653090; 485468, 3653103; 485481, 3653110; 485495, 3653117; 485496, 3653118; 485529, 3653134; 485557, 3653142; 485581, 3653148; 485652, 3653163; thence returning to 485700, 3653157; excluding land bounded by 485555, 3652857; 485555, 3652822; 485572, 3652827; 485610, 3652827; 485613, 3652829; 485651, 3652882; 485667, 3652882; 485667, 3652899; 485556, 3652899; 485555, 3652857; and land bounded by 485629, 3652710; 485749, 3652710; 485749, 3652807; 485746, 3652807; 485745, 3652820; 485744, 3652822; 485723, 3652822; 485717, 3652810; 485708, 3652806; 485690, 3652791; 485679, 3652788; 485671, 3652784; 485670, 3652780; 485665, 3652765; 485663, 3652761; 485649, 3652754; 485648, 3652750; 485635, 3652718; 485629, 3652710.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 12, San Diego County, follows:
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TR08FE11.017
Page 6925
* * * * *
Dated: January 25, 2011.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
FR Doc. 2011-2403 Filed 2-7-11; 8:45 am
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
-
