[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74546-74604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29692]
[[Page 74545]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Designating
Critical Habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia); Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 74546]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0054; MO 92210-0-0009-B4]
RIN 1018-AW20
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule
Designating Critical Habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
designating critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia)
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Approximately 783
acres (317 hectares) are being designated as critical habitat for A.
pumila in Riverside and San Diego counties, California.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on December 30, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The final rule, final economic analysis, and map of critical
habitat will be available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0054. 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, 6010
Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760-431-
9440; facsimile 760-431-5901. 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 critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), in this final critical habitat designation. For more information
on the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of A. pumila, refer to the final
listing rule published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2002 (67 FR
44372), the proposed critical habitat designation published in the
Federal Register on August 27, 2009 (74 FR 44238), and the Notice of
Availability (NOA) of the draft economic analysis (DEA) published in
the Federal Register on May 18, 2010 (75 FR 27690).
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, or habitat of Ambrosia pumila following the 2009
proposed critical habitat designation (74 FR 44238, August 27, 2009).
However, we did receive and analyze new information related to the
distribution and status of A. pumila, which is described below.
Geographic Range and Status
As described in the proposed rule, Ambrosia pumila is distributed
in southern California from northwestern Riverside County, south
through western San Diego County, to northwestern Baja California,
Mexico (CNDDB 2010). It is generally found at or below elevations of
1,600 feet (ft) (487 meters (m)) in Riverside County, and 600 ft (183
m) in San Diego County (CNDDB 2010). Since publication of the proposed
rule in the Federal Register on August 27, 2009 (74 FR 44238), we
became aware of two additional occurrences of this species, both of
which fall within the previously known geographic range of the species.
One occurrence (Subunit 3B) is in the City of Temecula in Riverside
County near the western end of 1st Street, just west of Murrieta Creek.
This occurrence is believed to have been present at the time of listing
because plants with clonal growth patterns tend to be long-lived
(Watkinson and White 1985, pp. 44-45; Tanner 2001, p. 1980). Although
stems may die and portions of the rhizome may disintegrate over time,
except under extreme conditions, enough of the rhizome survives from
one growing season to the next to support continued growth of an
individual plant. Additionally, because the plants produce very few if
any seeds, the ability of the plant to disperse into and colonize
previously unoccupied areas is diminished. The second occurrence is
located just west of Lake Hodges in the western portion of central San
Diego County, on and adjacent to the west side of the Crosby National
Golf Club. This occurrence was included in the listing rule, but was
thought to have been possibly extirpated since the species was listed.
This occurrence is now known to be extant.
Previous Federal Actions
Ambrosia pumila was listed as an endangered species on July 2, 2002
(67 FR 44372). Designation of critical habitat was found to be prudent
in the proposed (64 FR 72993; December 29, 1999) and final listing
rules, but was deferred due to budgetary constraints and higher listing
priorities. 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 the Service's failure to designate
critical habitat for four endangered plants, including A. pumila
(Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife, et
al., Case No. 07- CV-2378 NLS). The April 11, 2008, settlement
agreement stipulates that the Service shall submit a determination as
to whether it is prudent to designate critical habitat for A. pumila,
and if prudent, submit a proposed critical habitat designation to the
Federal Register for publication by August 20, 2009, and submit a final
critical habitat designation to the Federal Register for publication by
before August 19, 2010. By order dated August 3, 2010, the district
court approved a modification to the settlement agreement that extends
to November 19, 2010, the deadline for submission of a final revised
critical habitat designation to the Federal Register. The proposed
critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register on
August 27, 2009 (74 FR 44238).
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule To Designate Critical Habitat
In our 2009 proposed rule (74 FR 44247, August 27, 2009), we
proposed approximately 802 acres (ac) (324 hectares (ha)) as critical
habitat in 7 units with 8 subunits in Riverside and San Diego Counties,
California. We reevaluated our data in conjunction with information
received during the comment period and information obtained after the
publication of the 2009 proposed rule. Based on this reevaluation, we
changed our proposal to approximately 1,140 ac (461 ha) in 7 units,
which collectively consist of 13 subunits (75 FR 27690, May 18, 2010).
In this final critical habitat rule, we are designating approximately
783 ac (317 ha) as critical habitat in 6 units with 13 subunits,
reflecting the exclusion of approximately 329 ac (133 ha) based on
consideration of relevant impacts under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. All
land designated as critical habitat in this final rule was included in
the 2009 proposed rule (74 FR 44247, August 27, 2009) or the Notice of
Availability
[[Page 74547]]
(NOA) for the Draft Economic Analysis (DEA) (75 FR 27690, May 18,
2010). Changes between this designation and the 2009 proposed
designation are described below and in Table 1.
(1) In the proposed rule and the NOA, we considered lands covered
under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County MSHCP) in Subunits 1A and
1B, Unit 2 and Subunit 3B for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. We have analyzed each of the areas considered for exclusion under
the Western Riverside County MSHCP and determined that the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion of approximately 118 ac
(48 ha) of land in Unit 2 covered by the Western Riverside County
MSHCP. We also determined that exclusion of this area will not result
in extinction of the species. Therefore, we excluded this area from
this 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 rule as modified by the NOA, we considered
lands in Units 5A and 6 owned by or under the jurisdiction of the City
of San Diego within the City of San Diego Subarea Plan under the
Multiple Species Conservation Program (City of San Diego MSCP Subarea
Plan) for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We have analyzed
each of the areas considered for exclusion under the City of San Diego
MSCP Subarea Plan and determined that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion of approximately 160 ac (65 ha) of
land in Unit 6 covered by the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan.
Exclusion of this area will not result in extinction of the species.
Therefore, we excluded this area from this critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act section below).
(3) In the proposed rule as modified by the NOA, we considered
lands in Subunit 5B and Unit 7 (Subunits 7A, 7B and 7C) owned by or
under the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego within the County of
San Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP (County of San Diego MSCP Subarea
Plan) for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We have analyzed
each of the proposed areas within the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea
Plan area and determined that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion of approximately 52 ac (21 ha) of land in Subunit
5B covered by the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan that are
conserved and managed under the Crosby at Rancho Santa Fe Habitat
Management Plan. We also determined that exclusion of this area will
not result in extinction of the species. Therefore, we excluded this
area from this critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act (see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section
below).
(4) The boundaries of Subunits 4A, 4B, and 4C have been modified to
remove habitat that is not suitable for Ambrosia pumila according to
data received after the proposed rule was published, and to remove
widened portions of State Route 76 where habitat is no longer suitable
for A. pumila (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section
below).
(5) To prepare final critical habitat maps, we overlay maps of
those lands we are excluding from this critical habitat designation on
polygons that are delineated using physical and biological features.
This process often leaves small fragments of a proposed critical
habitat unit or subunit that are not excluded but that, by themselves,
may not be considered essential. We evaluated these areas and removed
from the final designation habitat fragments remaining after areas are
excluded that were not considered essential. As a result, the sum of
the areas designated and excluded is slightly reduced in this final
critical habitat designation compared to the size of the total proposed
designation due to removal of small artifacts or fragments created by
the exclusion process.
Table 1--A Comparison of the Areas Identified as Containing Features Essential to the Conservation of Ambrosia
pumila in the 2009 Proposed Critical Habitat Designation and This Final Critical Habitat Designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 Proposed critical Excluded under section 2010 Final critical
habitat 4(b)(2) habitat
Location -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Santa Ana River watershed. 112 45 0 0 112 45
Subunit 1A: Alberhill (Lake 41 17 0 0 41 17
Street)..........................
Subunit 1B: Nichols Road.......... 70 29 0 0 70 29
Unit 2: Skunk Hollow Vernal Pool 118 48 118 48 0 0
watershed........................
Unit 3: Santa Margarita River 77 31 0 0 77 31
watershed........................
Subunit 3A: Santa Gertrudis Creek. 33 13 0 0 33 13
Subunit 3B: Murrieta Creek........ 44 18 0 0 44 18
Unit 4: San Luis Rey River 126 51 0 0 92 37
watershed........................
Subunit 4A: Calle de la Vuelta.... 30 12 0 0 15* 6
Subunit 4B: Olive Hill Road....... 35 14 0 0 23* 9
Subunit 4C: Jeffries Ranch........ 40 16 0 0 33* 13
Subunit 4D: Gird/Monserate Hill... 21 9 0 0 21** 8
Unit 5: San Dieguito River 294 119 52 21 249 101
watershed--Lake Hodges...........
Subunit 5A: Lake Hodges East (Via 21 9 0 0 21 9
Rancho Pkwy).....................
Subunit 5B: Lake Hodges West 279 113 52 21 228 92
(Crosby Estates).................
Unit 6: San Diego River watershed-- 198 80 160 65 38 16
Mission Trails Regional Park.....
Unit 7: Sweetwater River watershed 215 87 0 0 215 87
Subunit 7A: Jamul Drive........... 39 16 0 0 39 16
Subunit 7B: San Diego National 133 54 0 0 133 54
Wildlife Refuge..................
Subunit 7C: Steele Canyon Bridge.. 44 18 0 0 44 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 1,146 461 329 133 783 317
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values in this table may not sum or may differ slightly from values in the proposed rule and NOA due to
rounding.
[[Page 74548]]
* Modified to remove habitat that is not suitable for Ambrosia pumila.
** This number is different than the number given in the NOA due to a typographical error in the NOA.
Critical Habitat
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
(a) essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) which may require special management considerations or
protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3(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--regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out,
funding, or authorizing 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 and 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. 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; that is, areas on which are found the
primary constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in the appropriate
quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the conservation of the
species. Under section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Secretary 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 he/she determines that those areas are essential for 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 (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available.
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to
designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and
expert opinion or personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may naturally move within an
area or from one area to another over time. Furthermore, we recognize
that designation of critical habitat may not include all habitat areas
that may eventually be determined necessary for recovery of the
species, based on scientific data not now available. 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. Federal activities that may affect areas outside of critical
habitat are still subject to review under section 7 of the Act if they
may affect Ambrosia pumila. The prohibitions of section 9 of the Act
applicable to listed plant species also continue to apply both inside
and outside of designated critical habitat.
Areas that support occurrences of the species, but are outside the
critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to
conservation actions we 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 available scientific information 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, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available to
these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
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 propose as critical habitat, we consider those
physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation
of the species that may require special management considerations or
protection. We consider the physical and biological features to be the
PCEs laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement
essential for the
[[Page 74549]]
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.
Little is known about the specific characteristics of Ambrosia
pumila habitat. Therefore, the PCEs for this species are based on our
assessment of the ecosystem settings in which the species has most
frequently been detected. The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of A. pumila are derived from studies of
this species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below, in
the Background section of the proposed critical habitat designation
published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2009 (74 FR 44238), and
in the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on July 2,
2002 (67 FR 44372).
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Clonal Growth--Rhizome Spread and New Aerial Stems
Individual Ambrosia pumila plants spread by slender underground
rhizomes to produce a group of genetically identical aerial (above-
ground) stems--a clone. Growing rhizomes extend underground beyond the
extent of the aerial stems into adjacent suitable habitat, and rhizomes
of adjacent plants likely intermingle to a degree. The distance
rhizomes extend beyond the standing aerial stems is difficult to
measure because of the difficulty in unearthing an intact rhizome
system.
The number and spatial distribution of the aerial stems of Ambrosia
pumila patches can differ from one growing season to the next (Martin
2005, p. 3; City of San Diego 2008a, p. 1). For example, a study that
monitored A. pumila in 2000 and 2005 observed patches of A. pumila
differing in shape and size (up to several square meters), with some
patches not producing any stems in 2005 (some of the patches that did
not produce stems in 2005 were observed to produce stems in 2008
(Martin 2005, p. 8; A. Folarin 2008, pers. comm.)). Differences in
patch size and shape may be due to differences in available moisture or
competition from other plants (Martin 2005, p. 3; City of San Diego
2008a, p. 1). Based on these and other observations, we conclude that
the rhizome system of a group of A. pumila stems likely occupies a
greater underground area than that occupied by the aerial stems at any
given time, and aerial stems may be produced only when and where
conditions are appropriate. Thus, habitat occupied by A. pumila extends
beyond that seen to be occupied by the aerial stems, and area
designated as critical habitat must extend beyond the area seen to be
occupied by standing aerial stems to encompass the estimated limits of
the underground rhizome system.
Germination of Seeds and Spread of Seedlings
It is unknown to what extent and with what frequency Ambrosia
pumila reproduces by seeds. Based on genetic studies described below,
at least some low rate of sexual reproduction has occurred. We are not
aware of any research that would provide the information needed to
assess the species' germination and seedling needs.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Water
Specific water needs of the species are unknown. Ambrosia pumila is
adapted to the dry conditions which occur annually throughout its range
(Keck 1959, p. 1103; Munz 1974, p. 112; Dudek 2000, Appendix A; CNLM
2008, p. 18). Service biologists have observed fresh (not desiccated)
aerial stem shoots after small amounts of precipitation and after
annual vegetation in the area had desiccated (A. Folarin 2008, pers.
comm.), implying that either A. pumila requires less water than other
grassland plants, that the underground perennial rhizome system has
some capacity to store enough water to sustain growth, or both.
Additionally, we believe that periodic flooding may be necessary at
some stage of the plant population's life history (such as seed
germination, dispersal of seeds and rhizomes) or to maintain some
essential aspect of its habitat, because native occurrences of the
plant are always found on river terraces or within the watersheds of
vernal pools.
Light
Ambrosia pumila is limited to open or low-growing plant
communities, which implies that the species is not shade tolerant
(Dudek 2000, pp. 18-19). Ambrosia pumila stems amid taller vegetation
obtain adequate sunlight by growing taller and more slender compared to
those in more open areas (Dudek 2000, p. 19), which implies the species
is not shade tolerant.
Soil
Ambrosia pumila is found primarily on sandy loam or clay soils
including (but not limited to) the Placentia (sandy loam), Diablo
(clay), and Ramona (sandy loam) series (Dudek 2000, Appendix A; CNDDB
2010). Ambrosia pumila is rarely found growing on other substrate types
(such as gravel).
Chemical soil attributes and other abiotic and biotic
characteristics have been measured and documented for Ambrosia pumila
occurrences at Skunk Hollow (Riverside County), Mission Trails Regional
Park, and San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (San Diego County) (Dudek
2000, Appendix A; CNLM 2008, pp. 6-7, 12, and 18), including pH,
percent organic matter, soil moisture, and elemental composition. These
measurements did not provide consistent results across the range of the
species; thus, we are unable to make generalizations as to needs of the
species as far as soil attributes are concerned.
Temperature
We have no information on the tolerance of Ambrosia pumila to
climatic extremes. Temperature is thought to potentially play a role in
inducing (or prohibiting) seed germination (Johnson 1999, p. 5),
although there is limited information at this time as to how often this
species currently reproduces via seed.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
As stated in the ``Life History'' section of the proposed rule,
little is known about the nature and frequency of sexual reproduction
in Ambrosia pumila. Occurrences are consistently found on the upper
terraces of rivers and other waterways; consequently, periodic flooding
of these waterways likely plays or likely has played a role in the life
history of the plant. For example, Johnson (1999, p. 5) postulated that
A. pumila seeds may require soaking in flood waters or scarification as
they are churned about with debris in flood waters to germinate.
Additionally, floods may disperse A. pumila rhizomes and seeds (Dudek
2003, p. P-332) and create space for new stems by removing or limiting
the growth of competitors.
Presuming Ambrosia pumila is wind pollinated, as discussed in the
``Life
[[Page 74550]]
History'' section of the proposed rule, the species requires sufficient
airflow through inflorescences to pick up and carry pollen (McGlaughlin
and Friar 2007, p. 329). This is another reason (in addition to not
being shade-tolerant) that A. pumila may require habitat containing
primarily low-growing plants--low-growing plants do not block or
dramatically reduce airflow to plants of A. pumila's stature, which is
generally less than 12 inches (30 centimeters) tall (McGlaughlin and
Friar 2007, p. 329).
Ambrosia pumila is presumed to be self-compatible (an individual
can produce viable seed with its own pollen), but this aspect of the
species' reproductive strategy has not been well-examined. In a recent
study, another Ambrosia species previously thought to be self-
compatible was found not to be self-compatible (Friedman and Barrett
2008, p. 4). If A. pumila likewise is not self-compatible, genetically
distinct individuals in close proximity to one another may be crucial
to maintaining sexual reproduction in the species (McGlaughlin and
Friar 2007, p. 329).
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
Ambrosia pumila occurs most frequently on upper terraces of rivers
with flat or gently sloping areas of 0 to 42 percent slopes. A. pumila
occurrences are found near, but not directly adjacent to, the river
channels and along other drainages in western Riverside County, western
San Diego County, and northwestern Baja California, Mexico (Beauchamp
1986, p. 94; Johnson et al. 1999, p. 1; McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p.
321; CNDDB 2008). These areas are or likely have been associated with a
natural flood disturbance regime. The species is primarily associated
with native and nonnative grassland and ruderal communities, and
openings in coastal sage scrub (Johnson et al. 1999, p. 1; Dudek 2000,
p. 18; Dudek 2003, p. P-330; CNDDB 2010). In Riverside County, A.
pumila occurs in ruderal and nonnative grassland communities adjacent
to creeks and other smaller drainages (for example, Temescal
(Alberhill) Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek) (Dudek 2003, p. P-326;
CNDDB 2010). Ambrosia pumila also occurs in nonnative grassland
community adjacent to and within the watershed of Skunk Hollow vernal
pool in Riverside County (Dudek 2003, p. P-326; CNDDB 2010). In San
Diego County, A. pumila is more often found adjacent to larger
waterways (for example, San Luis Rey River, San Diego River, and
Sweetwater River), although the species is also often found associated
with smaller drainages and washes (CNDDB 2010).
Occurrences in Riverside County are found further inland and at
higher elevations than in San Diego County. For example, the occurrence
at Skunk Hollow in Riverside County is 1,350 ft (411 m) above sea
level, while the occurrences at Mission Trails Regional Park and San
Diego National Wildlife Refuge in San Diego County are about 315 ft and
360 ft (96 m and 110 m) above sea level, respectively (CNLM 2008, p.
7)).
The documented range of Ambrosia pumila in Mexico at the time of
listing extended from Cabo Colonet south to Lake Chapala in north-
central Baja California. We have no information regarding additional
occurrences in Mexico, or the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species there.
Primary Constituent Elements for Ambrosia pumila
Under the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we
are required to identify the specific areas within the geographical
area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed, on which are
found those physical or biological features determined to be essential
to the conservation of the species and that may require special
management considerations or protection. The essential physical and
biological features are those PCEs laid out in the appropriate spatial
arrangement and quantity determined to be essential to the conservation
of the species. Because not much is known about the specific needs and
characteristics of this species, the PCEs are based on observed
characteristics of the habitats in which the species is most often
found. All areas designated as critical habitat for A. pumila were
occupied at the time the species was listed, occur within the species'
historical geographic range, and contain sufficient PCEs to support at
least one life-history function.
Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life
history, biology, and ecology of Ambrosia pumila, and the
characteristics of the areas where the species is known to occur, we
identified two PCEs for A. pumila:
1. Sandy loam or clay soils (regardless of disturbance status),
including (but not limited to) the Placentia (sandy loam), Diablo
(clay), and Ramona (sandy loam) soil series that occur near (up to
several hundred meters from but not directly adjacent to) a river,
creek, or other drainage, or within the watershed of a vernal pool, and
that occur on an upper terrace (flat or gently sloping areas of 0 to 42
percent slopes are typical for terraces on which Ambrosia pumila
occurrences are found).
2. Grassland or ruderal habitat types, or openings within coastal
sage scrub, on the soil types and topography described in PCE 1, that
provide adequate sunlight, and airflow for wind pollination.
Based on our current knowledge of the needs of the species, we
believe the need for space for individual and population growth and
normal behavior is met by PCE 2, and areas for reproduction, water,
light, and soil are provided by PCEs 1 and 2. These areas provide
nutrients, moisture, and proximity to water features that provide
periodic flooding presumed necessary for the plant's persistence.
In designating this critical habitat, we intend to conserve the
physical and biological features considered essential to support the
life-history functions of the species. All units and subunits
designated here as critical habitat contain sufficient PCEs in the
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for one or more
of the life-history functions of Ambrosia pumila.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the occupied
areas contain the physical and biological features that are essential
to the conservation of the species, and whether these features may
require special management considerations or protection. The area
designated as critical habitat will require some level of management to
address the current and future threats to the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. In all units,
special management will be required to ensure that the habitat is able
to provide for the growth and reproduction of the species.
Records indicate that Ambrosia pumila historically was known from
over 50 locations in San Diego and Riverside counties, but the number
of extant occurrences has been dramatically reduced because much of the
species' habitat has been impacted by human activities (Burrascano and
Hogan 1997, p. 7; Dudek 2000, p. 17; CNDDB 2010). A detailed discussion
of threats to A. pumila and its habitat can be found in the final
listing rule (67 FR 44372, July 2, 2002). The features essential to the
conservation of A. pumila require special management
[[Page 74551]]
considerations or protection to reduce the following threats, among
others:
Habitat destruction caused by urban development, including
highway and utility corridor construction and maintenance, highway
expansion, and development of recreational facilities (such as golf
courses and campgrounds). These activities can destroy the PCEs by
removing or compacting soil, making habitat unsuitable for Ambrosia
pumila.
Soil compaction caused by the creation and use of trails
by hikers, horses, and vehicles. Ambrosia pumila appears to be tolerant
to some level of disturbance caused by trail creation and use; it is
often found in the disturbed areas along margins of dirt trails.
However, it is found less often in trailways, implying that although
the appropriate soil type might be present, soil compaction can alter
soil physical characteristics such that the soil can no longer support
plant growth (PCE 1).
Habitat alteration caused by invasion of nonnative plant
species that may, if present in large enough numbers, change the plant
assemblage or cover density to the extent that Ambrosia pumila plants
can no longer receive adequate sunlight and airflow (PCE 2).
Alteration of hydrological and floodplain dynamics, such
as channelization and water diversions, (an additional threat not
discussed in the listing rule), which can change the frequency of
flooding in occupied areas or eliminate natural periodic flooding
presumed necessary for the plant's long-term persistence (PCE 1).
Special management considerations or protection are required within
critical habitat areas to address these threats. Management activities
that could ameliorate these threats include fencing Ambrosia pumila
occurrences and providing signage to discourage encroachment by hikers,
horses, and off-road vehicle users; control of nonnative plants using
methods shown to be effective (for examples, see CNLM 2008); guiding
the design of development projects to avoid impacts to A. pumila
habitat; and restoring and maintaining natural hydrology and floodplain
dynamics of waterways associated with A. pumila occurrences where
feasible. These management activities will help protect the PCEs for
the species by reducing soil compaction (PCE 1), lowering the density
of nonnative plants thereby maintaining the appropriate community
structure (PCE 2), and maintain periodic flooding of A. pumila habitat
where possible (PCE 1).
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific
and commercial data available in determining areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing that contain the
features essential to the conservation of Ambrosia pumila. We are
designating critical habitat in areas that we consider to have been
occupied by the species at the time of listing and that continue to be
occupied today, and that contain the PCEs laid out in the appropriate
quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the conservation of the
species (see the ``Geographic Range and Status'' section of the
proposed critical habitat rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 2009) for more
information). We are not designating any areas outside the geographical
range occupied at the time of listing. All units and subunits contain
the PCEs of A. pumila habitat.
We also reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat
requirements of this species, although A. pumila has not been well-
studied and little is known about its breeding system or habitat
requirements and characteristics. Additionally, some data from
different information sources conflict, further complicating the task
of discerning species' habitat requirements. We used sources of
information, such as reports submitted to the Service during section 7
consultations and other project reviews, and by biologists holding
section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; research published in peer-
reviewed articles; research presented in academic theses and agency
reports; regional Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages; and
data collected in the field by Service biologists.
Ambrosia pumila was first detected after listing of the species in
two of the areas we are designating as critical habitat. We concluded
these areas were occupied at the time the species was listed because
individuals of species with a clonal growth habit like A. pumila are
usually long-lived (Watkinson and White 1985, pp. 44-45; Tanner 2001,
p. 1980). The occurrence at the intersection of State Route 76 and
Olive Hill Road in San Diego County (Subunit 4B) was found during a
general survey for A. pumila in 2006 (CNDDB 2010). The occurrence near
the intersection of State Route 76 and Gird Road in San Diego County
(Subunit 4D) was mapped during a survey for a State Route 76 road
widening project (GIS data provided to the Service by California
Department of Transportation in 2009; USFWS 2008). To our knowledge,
these two areas had not been adequately, if at all, surveyed for A.
pumila prior to discovery, and we have no reason to believe the plant
was imported, or had dispersed into these areas from other locations
after listing because the plants produce very few if any seeds and,
consequently, the ability of the plant to disperse into and colonize
previously unoccupied areas is diminished. It is unlikely that the
species would be able to disperse great distances and colonize new
areas (see Index Map below). We believe that the occurrences identified
since listing were in existence for many years and were only recently
detected due to increased awareness of this species.
We are also designating critical habitat in some areas where
Ambrosia pumila was thought to be extirpated and where an occurrence
exists that was not considered viable at the time of listing. We
conducted surveys of historical occurrences as part of the background
research for this rule. Based on information provided by a local
biological consultant, we were able to verify one occurrence east of
Lake Hodges in San Diego County that was previously thought to be
extirpated because it had not been seen since 1999. During our
development of the proposed rule, we were unable to verify this site
because the available records contained minimal site location
information. However, our recent survey (2009) of the site east of Lake
Hodges in San Diego County found a viable, relatively large A. pumila
occurrence and we determined this site meets the definition of critical
habitat (see criteria below). All units and subunits contain the
physical and biological features believed to be essential to the
conservation of this species.
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best
scientific and commercial data available in trying to determine areas
that contain the physical and biological features that are essential to
the conservation of Ambrosia pumila, and that may require special
management considerations or protection.
After identifying the PCEs, we followed these steps to delineate
critical habitat:
(1) We identified all extant, natural occurrences of Ambrosia
pumila, which consist of those known to exist at the time of listing,
and those subsequently detected that we believe existed at the time of
listing. We compiled data from the following sources to create our
database of A. pumila occurrences: (1) Data used in the 2002 listing
rule for A. pumila (67 FR 44372, July 2, 2002); (2)
[[Page 74552]]
the current CNDDB element occurrence data report for A. pumila and
accompanying GIS references (CNDDB 2010, pp. 1-50); (3) data from the
on-line Consortium of California Herbaria and accompanying Berkeley
Mapper GIS records (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010); (4) the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(Western Riverside County MSHCP) species GIS database; and (5) the
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office's (CFWO) internal GIS species
database, which includes the species data used for the San Diego
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) and the San Diego Multiple
Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP), reports from section 7 consultations,
and Service observations of A. pumila (CFWO internal species GIS
database). We used these data to delineate GIS polygons around A.
pumila occurrences.
First, we reviewed the data that we compiled to ensure its
accuracy. We checked each data point to ensure it represented a site
documented by a herbarium voucher or reported observation of Ambrosia
pumila and was not a duplicate occurrence in the database. Any
duplicates detected were removed from the database. Secondly, we
checked each data point to ensure that it was correctly mapped. Data
points that did not match the description for the original herbarium
collection or observation were remapped in the correct location, if
possible. We removed occurrences where the location could not be
determined from available data or site visits. Third, we determined
occupancy status. For areas where we have past occupancy data for A.
pumila, we assumed the area remained occupied unless: (1) Multiple
surveys for the species did not find A. pumila; (2) the site was
significantly disturbed (for example, developed) since the last
observation of the species; or (3) records lacked specific location
information, and field surveys carried out in conjunction with this
critical habitat determination could not locate the occurrence.
(2) We determined there are no specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by Ambrosia pumila at the time it was listed
that are essential for the conservation of the species. Information
obtained during the Service's research in connection with this action
indicates that the geographical area occupied by the species at the
time it was listed provides sufficient resources for the conservation
of the species. For example, McGlaughlin and Friar (2007, p. 329)
conducted an analysis of genetic diversity within and among populations
of A. pumila and determined that the existing occurrences could support
recovery of the species. We do not have sufficient information
regarding the specific needs of the species to determine if any areas
outside the geographical area occupied by Ambrosia pumila at the time
it was listed are essential for the conservation of the species.
(3) We removed areas where Ambrosia pumila occurs in habitat of low
quality for growth and propagation (such as paved areas, or relatively
small urban lots surrounded by residential development and continuously
subjected to impacts of urbanization such as mowing or foot and vehicle
traffic). For example, we did not include one occurrence in the City of
El Cajon on a site composed of two residential lots less than half an
acre in size, one mowed and landscaped, the other with highly disturbed
and compacted soil. Although occupied, we did not consider these
locations for critical habitat because they likely do not contribute to
the long-term conservation of the species. We made this determination
using site descriptions in the CNDDB, satellite imagery, and by talking
with Service biologists, other researchers, and land managers familiar
with the areas in question.
(4) Using data from studies that mapped the aerial stems of
Ambrosia pumila, we estimated the distance the rhizome system likely
extends beyond aerial stems clusters by calculating the average
distance between aerial stems clusters within a CNDDB occurrence
polygon. An occurrence is defined by CNDDB as an occupied habitat area
separated by 0.25 mi (0.40 km) or more from the next nearest occupied
habitat area. Using this method we estimated the average distance of
underground rhizome expansion beyond the above-ground aerial stems as
approximately 1,181 ft (260 m). Therefore, we expanded the outer
boundary of the above-ground extent of each CNDDB occurrence polygon by
1,181 ft (260 m) to account for the underground rhizome system
extending beyond the area occupied by visible stems. We believe this
distance adequately captures the extent of individual occurrences.
(5) We removed any areas within the boundary mapped in step (4)
above where vegetation type was not grassland, ruderal, or coastal sage
scrub, using the vegetation types in our GIS database and personal
observations by Service biologists and other researchers or land
managers.
When determining the critical habitat boundaries, we made every
effort to map precisely only the areas that contain the PCEs and
provide for the conservation of Ambrosia pumila. However, we cannot
guarantee that every fraction of critical habitat contains the PCEs due
to the mapping scale we use to identify 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 A. pumila. 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 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.
Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 783 ac (317 ha) of critical habitat for Ambrosia
pumila in 6 units that include 13 subunits. The critical habitat areas
outlined in Table 2 and described below constitute our best assessment
of areas occupied at the time of listing that contain the PCEs laid out
in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the
conservation of the species that may require special management
considerations or protection. We are not designating any areas outside
the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing
because we determined that occupied lands within the species' known
geographical range are sufficient for the conservation of A. pumila.
Each unit and subunit include suitable habitat that will allow for
population growth and growth of individual plants represented by aerial
stems and the associated rhizome system.
[[Page 74553]]
Table 2--Area Estimates (Acres) (Hectares) and Land Ownership for Ambrosia pumila Final Critical Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federally owned land State or local Privately-owned land Total area
Unit : Unit name (CNDDB element occurrence ------------------------ government-owned land -----------------------------------------------
number) ------------------------
Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Santa Ana River watershed....................... .......... .......... 26 11 85 35 112 45
1A. Alberhill (58)...................................... .......... .......... 23 10 18 7 41 17
1B. Nichols Road (44)................................... .......... .......... 3 1 67 27 70 29
Unit 3: Santa Margarita River watershed................. .......... .......... 8 3 69 28 77 31
Subunit 3A: Santa Gertrudis Creek....................... .......... .......... 8 3 25 10 33 13
Subunit 3B: Murrieta Creek.............................. .......... .......... .......... .......... 44 18 44 18
Subtotal:........................................... .......... .......... 34 14 154 62 189 76
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 4: San Luis Rey River watershed.................... .......... .......... 17 7 75 30 92 37
4A. Calle de la Vuelta (43)............................. .......... .......... 1 0 14 6 15 6
4B. Olive Hill Road (16)................................ .......... .......... 16 6 8 3 23 9
4C. Jeffries Ranch (45)................................. .......... .......... 0 0 33 13 33 13
4D. Gird/Monserate Hill (n/a)........................... .......... .......... 1 0 20 8 21 8
Unit 5: San Dieguito River watershed.................... .......... .......... 129 52 121 49 249 101
5A. Lake Hodges East (Via Rancho Pkwy) (14)............. .......... .......... 16 6 5 2 21 9
Subunit 5B: Lake Hodges West (Crosby Estates)........... .......... .......... 113 46 115 47 228 92
Unit 6: San Diego River watershed--Mission Trails .......... .......... 6 3 32 13 38 15
Regional Park..........................................
Unit 7: Sweetwater River watershed...................... 146 59 13 5 57 23 215 87
Subunit 7A: Jamul Road.................................. .......... .......... 3 1 36 15 39 16
7B. SDNWR (48).......................................... 118 48 .......... .......... 15 6 133 54
7C. Steele Canyon Bridge (34)........................... 28 11 10 4 6 2 44 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 146 59 164 67 284 115 594 240
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 146 59 199 81 438 178 783 316
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values in this table may not sum due to rounding.
Critical Habitat Units
Presented below are brief descriptions of all subunits included in
the final critical habitat designation and reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila. The subunits are
listed in order geographically north to south and east to west.
Unit 1: Santa Ana River Watershed
Unit 1 is located in western Riverside County and consists of two
subunits totaling approximately, 26 ac (11 ha) of State or local
government-owned land, and 85 ac (35 ha) of private land for a total of
approximately 112 ac (45 ha) (values do not sum due to rounding).
Subunit 1A: Alberhill
Subunit 1A is located near Alberhill, north of Lake Elsinore and
just west of Interstate Highway 15 in Riverside County, California.
This subunit is near the northern base of Alberhill Mountain, and near
the intersection of Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road. Subunit 1A
consists of approximately 23 ac (10 ha) of County-owned land, and 18 ac
(7 ha) of privately owned land for a total of approximately 41 ac (17
ha). The approximately 23 ac (10 ha) of County-owned land in Subunit 1A
are conserved and currently managed by the Western Riverside County
Regional Conservation Authority; transfer of ownership by the County of
Riverside to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation
Authority is planned for the near future. This conserved area is not
yet receiving active management. This subunit was occupied at the time
of listing and remains occupied and, like all other extant occurrences,
we also believe this subunit is essential to the conservation of this
species because of its contribution to the genetic diversity of the
species (McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329; see Genetics section of
the proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 2009)). Subunit 1A contains
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
Ambrosia pumila, including sandy loam or clay soils located on an upper
terrace of a water source, which provide nutrients, moisture, and
potentially periodic flooding presumed necessary for the plant's
persistence (PCE 1); and coastal sage scrub vegetation, which allows
adequate sunlight and airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2). The PCEs in this
subunit require special management considerations or protection to
address threats from nonnative plant species in situations where
nonnative species are outcompeting A. pumila for resources, and from
human encroachment and development. Please see the Special Management
Considerations or Protection section of this rule for a discussion of
the threats to A. pumila habitat and potential management
considerations.
Subunit 1B: Nichols Road
Subunit 1B is located about 2.1 mi (3.5 km) southeast of Subunit 1A
(Alberhill), on the north and south sides
[[Page 74554]]
of Nichols Road, in Riverside County, California. This subunit is near
the southeastern base of Alberhill Mountain, just west of Durant Road
and Temescal Creek. Subunit 1B consists of approximately 3 ac (1 ha) of
State or local government-owned land, and 67 ac (27 ha) of privately
owned land for a total of approximately 70 ac (29 ha) (values do not
sum due to rounding). No lands in Subunit 1B are conserved or managed
for biological resources. This subunit was occupied at the time of
listing and remains occupied, and is essential to the conservation of
this species because this subunit (along with Subunit 1A) represents
the northernmost occurrences of this species, which is geographically
situated to potentially assist this species expand its range northward.
Like all other extant occurrences, this subunit is also essential to
the conservation of this species because of its contribution to the
genetic diversity of the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329;
see Genetics section of the proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27,
2009)). However, due to impacts from unauthorized grading and disking,
and a permitted road realignment project, Ambrosia pumila within this
subunit may be in imminent danger of extirpation. Subunit 1B contains
physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation
of A. pumila, including sandy loam or clay soils located on an upper
terrace of a water source, which provide nutrients, moisture, and
periodic flooding presumed necessary for the plant's persistence (PCE
1), and ruderal habitat type, which allows adequate sunlight and
airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2). The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may
require special management considerations or protection to address
threats from nonnative plant species in situations where nonnative
species are outcompeting A. pumila for resources, and from activities
(grading, construction, human encroachment) that occur in the area.
Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section
of this rule for a discussion of the threats to A. pumila habitat and
potential management considerations.
Unit 3: Santa Margarita River Watershed
Unit 3 is located in western Riverside County and consists of two
subunits totaling approximately, 8 ac (3 ha) of State or local
government-owned land, and 69 ac (28 ha) of private land for a total of
77 ac (31 ha).
Subunit 3A: Santa Gertrudis Creek
Subunit 3A is located about 1 mile (1.6 km) southwest of Unit 2,
along the San Diego Aqueduct, south of the intersection of Chandler and
Suzi Roads and north of Santa Gertrudis Creek in Riverside County.
Subunit 3A consists of approximately 8 ac (3 ha) of State-owned land
and 25 ac (10 ha) of privately owned land for a total of approximately
33 ac (13 ha). No lands in Subunit 3A are conserved or managed for
biological resources. This unit was occupied at the time of listing and
remains occupied, and like all other extant occurrences, is essential
to the conservation of this species because of its contribution to the
genetic diversity of the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329;
see Genetics section of the proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27,
2009)). Subunit 3A contains physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of Ambrosia pumila, including sandy loam
or clay soils located on an upper terrace of a water source, which
provide nutrients, moisture, and periodic flooding presumed necessary
for the plant's persistence (PCE 1), and ruderal habitat type, which
allows adequate sunlight and airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2). The
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species in this unit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats from nonnative plant species in
situations where nonnative species are outcompeting A. pumila for
resources, human encroachment, and utility maintenance activities.
Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section
of this rule for a discussion of the threats to A. pumila habitat and
potential management considerations.
Subunit 3B: Murrieta Creek
Subunit 3B is located in the City of Temecula in southwestern
Riverside County, California. This subunit is near the western end of
1st Street, just west of Murrieta Creek. Subunit 3B consists of
approximately 44 ac (18 ha) of privately owned land. No lands in
Subunit 3B are conserved or managed for biological resources. This
subunit meets the definition of critical habitat for this species
because of its contribution to the genetic diversity of the species
(McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329; see Genetics section of the
proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 2009)). Subunit 3B contains
physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation
of Ambrosia pumila, including sandy loam or clay soils located on an
upper terrace of a water source, which provide nutrients, moisture, and
periodic flooding presumed necessary for the plant's persistence (PCE
1), and nonnative grassland habitat type, which allows adequate
sunlight and airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2). The physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit
may require special management considerations or protection to address
threats from nonnative plant species in situations where nonnative
species are out-competing A. pumila for resources, from human foot and
vehicle traffic that may occur in the area, and from development.
Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section
of this rule for a discussion of the threats to A. pumila habitat and
potential management considerations.
Unit 4: San Luis Rey River Watershed
Unit 4 is located in northwestern San Diego County and consists of
four subunits of approximately 17 ac (7 ha) of State or local
government-owned land and approximately 74 ac (30 ha) of privately
owned land, for a total of approximately 91 ac (37 ha).
Subunit 4A: Calle de la Vuelta
Subunit 4A is located near junction of State Route 76 and Calle de
la Vuelta in unincorporated San Diego County. Subunit 4A consists of
approximately 0.8 ac (0.3 ha) of State or local government-owned land
and 14 ac (6 ha) of privately owned land, for a total of approximately
15 ac (6 ha). No lands in Subunit 4A are conserved or managed for
biological resources. This subunit was occupied at the time of listing
and, like all other extant occurrences, we also believe this subunit is
essential to the conservation of this species because of its
contribution to the genetic diversity of the species (McGlaughlin and
Friar 2007, p. 329; see Genetics section of the proposed rule (74 FR
44241, August 27, 2009)). Subunit 4A contains physical and biological
features that are essential to the conservation of Ambrosia pumila,
including sandy loam or clay soils located on an upper terrace of a
water source, which provide nutrients, moisture, and periodic flooding
presumed necessary for the plant's persistence (PCE 1), and ruderal
vegetation, which allows adequate sunlight and airflow for A. pumila
(PCE 2). The PCEs in this subunit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats from nonnative plant
species in situations
[[Page 74555]]
where nonnative species are outcompeting A. pumila for resources, human
encroachment, road maintenance activities, and future widening of State
Route 76. Please see the Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a discussion of the threats to A.
pumila habitat and potential management considerations.
Subunit 4B: Olive Hill Road
Subunit 4B is located on the west side of State Route 76, south of
Olive Hill Road in unincorporated San Diego County. Subunit 4B consists
of approximately 16 ac (6 ha) of State or local government-owned land
and approximately 8 ac (3 ha) of privately owned land, for a total of
approximately 23 ac (9 ha) (values do not sum due to rounding). No
lands in Subunit 4B are conserved (a portion of Subunit 4B is within
the Groves mitigation preserve, managed by the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans); this area has not yet been conserved). The
occurrence in this subunit was erroneously considered extirpated at the
time of listing, but has since been found to be extant. Like all other
extant occurrences, we also believe this subunit is essential to the
conservation of this species because of its contribution to the genetic
diversity of the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329; see
Genetics section of the proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 2009)).
Subunit 4B contains physical and biological features that are essential
to the conservation of Ambrosia pumila, including sandy loam or clay
soils located on an upper terrace of a water source, which provide
nutrients, moisture, and flooding presumed necessary for the plant's
persistence (PCE 1), and grassland vegetation which allow adequate
sunlight and airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2). The PCEs in this subunit
may require special management considerations or protection to address
threats from nonnative plant species in situations where nonnative
species are outcompeting A. pumila for resources, human encroachment,
road maintenance activities, and future widening of State Route 76.
Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section
of this rule for a discussion of the threats to A. pumila habitat and
potential management considerations.
Subunit 4C: Jeffries Ranch
Subunit 4C is located approximately 0.7 mi (1 km) southwest of
Bonsall Bridge, adjacent to the south side of State Route 76 in the
City of Oceanside, San Diego County. Subunit 4C consists of
approximately 0.1 ac (0.05 ha) of State or local government-owned land
and approximately 33 ac (13 ha) of privately owned land for a total of
approximately 33 ac (13 ha). No lands in Subunit 4C are conserved. This
subunit was occupied at the time of listing and, like all other extant
occurrences, we believe this subunit is essential to the conservation
of this species because of its contribution to the genetic diversity of
the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329; see Genetics section
of the proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 2009)). Subunit 4C
contains physical and biological features that are essential to the
conservation of Ambrosia pumila, including sandy loam or clay soils
located on an upper terrace of a water source, which provide nutrients,
moisture, and periodic flooding presumed necessary for the plant's
persistence (PCE 1), and nonnative grassland vegetation, which allows
adequate sunlight and airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2). The PCEs in this
subunit may require special management considerations or protection to
address threats from nonnative plant species in situations where
nonnative species are outcompeting A. pumila for resources, human
encroachment, road and utility maintenance activities, future widening
of State Route 76, and potential development. Please see the Special
Management Considerations or Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to A. pumila habitat and potential management
considerations.
Subunit 4D: Gird/Monserate Hill
Subunit 4D is located in the Fallbrook area of northern San Diego
County, California. This subunit is adjacent to the north side of State
Route 76, almost equidistant from Gird Road (to the west) and Monserate
Hill Road (to the east). Subunit 4D consists of 0.7 ac (0.3 ha) of
State-owned land and 20 ac (8 ha) of privately owned land, for a total
of 21 ac (9 ha) (values do not sum due to rounding). No lands in
Subunit 4D are conserved or managed for biological resources. This
subunit was occupied at the time of listing and, like all other extant
occurrences, we believe this subunit is also essential to the
conservation of this species because of its contribution to the genetic
diversity of the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329; see
Genetics section of the proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 2009)).
Subunit 4D contains physical and biological features that are essential
to the conservation of A. pumila, including sandy loam or clay soils
located on an upper terrace of a water source, which provide nutrients,
moisture, and periodic flooding presumed necessary for the plant's
persistence (PCE 1); and nonnative grassland vegetation, which allows
adequate sunlight and airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2). The PCEs in this
subunit may require special management considerations or protection to
address threats from nonnative plant species in situations where
nonnative species are out-competing A. pumila for resources, from human
encroachment that may occur in the area, and from development and road
maintenance. Please see the Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a discussion of the threats to A.
pumila habitat and potential management considerations.
Unit 5: San Dieguito River Watershed--Lake Hodges
Unit 5 is located in central San Diego County and consists of two
subunits comprised of approximately 129 ac (52 ha) of State or local
government-owned land and approximately 121 ac (49 ha) of privately
owned land, for a total of approximately 249 ac (101 ha) (values do not
sum due to rounding). This total does not include a portion of Subunit
5B (52 ac (21 ha)) that we have excluded from this designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see the Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act section of this rule).
Subunit 5A: Lake Hodges East (Via Rancho Pkwy)
Subunit 5A is located on the west side of Interstate 15, just north
of Lake Hodges and south of Via Rancho Parkway in San Diego County.
Subunit 5A consists of approximately 16 ac (6 ha) of State or local
government owned land and approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of privately owned
land, for a total of approximately 21 ac (9 ha) (values do not sum due
to rounding). No lands in Subunit 5A are conserved or managed for
biological resources. This subunit was occupied at the time of listing
and, like all other extant occurrences, we also believe this subunit is
essential to the conservation of this species because of its
contribution to the genetic diversity of the species (McGlaughlin and
Friar 2007, p. 329; see Genetics section of the proposed rule (74 FR
44241, August 27, 2009)). Subunit 5A contains physical and biological
features that are essential to the conservation of Ambrosia pumila,
including sandy loam or clay soils located on an upper terrace of a
water
[[Page 74556]]
source, which provide nutrients, moisture, and periodic flooding
presumed necessary for the plant's persistence (PCE 1), and nonnative
grassland vegetation, which allows adequate sunlight and airflow for A.
pumila (PCE 2). The PCEs in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats from nonnative plant
species in situations where nonnative species are outcompeting A.
pumila for resources, human encroachment, utility maintenance
activities, and potential development. Please see the Special
Management Considerations or Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to A. pumila habitat and potential management
considerations.
Subunit 5B: Lake Hodges West--Crosby Estates
Subunit 5B is located just west of Lake Hodges in the western
portion of central San Diego County, California. This subunit is on and
adjacent to the west side of the Crosby National Golf Club. Subunit 5B
consists of approximately 113 ac (46 ha) of State or local government
owned land, 115 ac (47 ha) of privately owned land for a total of
approximately 228 ac (92 ha) (values do not sum due to rounding). This
subunit meets the definition of critical habitat for this species
because of its contribution to the genetic diversity of the species
(McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329; see Genetics section of the
proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 2009)). Subunit 5B contains
physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation
of Ambrosia pumila, including sandy loam or clay soils located on an
upper terrace of a water source, which provide nutrients, moisture, and
periodic flooding presumed necessary for the plant's persistence (PCE
1), and nonnative grassland habitat type, which allows adequate
sunlight and airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2). The physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit
may require special management considerations or protection to address
threats from nonnative plant species in situations where nonnative
species are out-competing A. pumila for resources, from human
encroachment that may occur in the area, and from golf course
maintenance. Please see the Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a discussion of the threats to A.
pumila habitat and potential management considerations.
Unit 6: San Diego River Watershed--Mission Trails Regional Park
Unit 6 is located in Mission Trails Regional Park in the City of
San Diego. Unit 6 consists of approximately 6 ac (3 ha) of State or
local government owned land, and approximately 32 ac (13 ha) of
privately owned land, for a total of 38 ac (15 ha) (values do not sum
due to rounding). This total does not include a portion of Unit 6 (160
ac (65ha)) that we have excluded from this designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (see the Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
section of this rule). This unit was occupied at the time of listing
and remains occupied, and like all other extant occurrences, is
essential to the conservation of this species because of its
contribution to the genetic diversity of the species (McGlaughlin and
Friar 2007, p. 329; see Genetics section of the proposed rule (74 FR
44241, August 27, 2009)). Unit 6 contains physical and biological
features that are essential to the conservation of A. pumila, including
sandy loam or clay soils located on an upper terrace of a water source,
which provide nutrients, moisture, and periodic flooding presumed
necessary for the plant's persistence (PCE 1), and nonnative grassland
habitat type, which allows adequate sunlight and airflow for A. pumila
(PCE 2). The physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats from nonnative plant
species in situations where nonnative species are outcompeting A.
pumila for resources, and human encroachment. Please see the Special
Management Considerations or Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to A. pumila habitat and potential management
considerations.
Unit 7: Sweetwater River Watershed
Unit 7 is located in southwestern San Diego County and consists of
three subunits containing approximately 146 ac (60 ha) of federally
owned land (San Diego National Wildlife Refuge), approximately 13 ac (5
ha) of State or local government owned land, and approximately 57 ac
(23 ha) of privately owned land, for a total of approximately 215 ac
(87 ha) (values do not sum due to rounding).
Subunit 7A: Jamul Road
Subunit 7A is located southeast of the City of El Cajon at and near
junction of Jamul Road and Steele Canyon Road, on the north and south
sides of Jamul Road. Subunit 7A consists of approximately 3 ac (1 ha)
of State or local government owned land, and approximately 36 ac (15
ha) of privately owned land, for a total of approximately 39 ac (16
ha). No lands in Subunit 7A are conserved or managed for biological
resources. This subunit was occupied at the time of listing and remains
occupied. This subunit, like all other extant occurrences, is essential
to the conservation of this species because of its contribution to the
genetic diversity of the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329;
see Genetics section of the proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27,
2009)). Subunit 7A contains physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of A. pumila, including sandy loam or
clay soils located on an upper terrace of a water source, which provide
nutrients, moisture, and periodic flooding presumed necessary for the
plant's persistence (PCE 1), and nonnative grassland habitat type,
which allows adequate sunlight and airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2). The
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require special management considerations
or protection to address threats from nonnative plant species in
situations where nonnative species are outcompeting A. pumila for
resources, alterations of site hydrology, and off-highway vehicle use.
Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section
of this rule for a discussion of the threats to A. pumila habitat and
potential management considerations.
Subunit 7B: San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (SDNWR)
Subunit 7B is located on the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge,
south of Sweetwater River between Rancho San Diego Golf Course and the
hills to the south, and on the north and south sides of a dirt trail
adjoining the end of Par Four Drive in unincorporated San Diego County.
Subunit 7B consists of approximately 118 ac (48 ha) of Federal land
owned and managed by the Service, and approximately 15 ac (6 ha) of
privately owned land, for a total of approximately 133 ac (54 ha). No
private lands in Subunit 7B are conserved or managed for biological
resources. This subunit was occupied at the time of listing and, like
all other extant occurrences, we also believe this subunit is essential
to the conservation of this species because of its contribution to the
genetic diversity of the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329
see Genetics section of the proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27,
2009)). Subunit 7B contains physical
[[Page 74557]]
and biological features that are essential to the conservation of A.
pumila, including sandy loam or clay soils located on an upper terrace
of a water source, which provide nutrients, moisture, and periodic
flooding presumed necessary for the plant's persistence (PCE 1), and
nonnative grassland vegetation, which allows adequate sunlight and
airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2). The PCEs in this subunit may require
continued management and protection on federally owned lands to address
threats from nonnative plant species in situations where nonnative
species are outcompeting A. pumila for resources, and human
encroachment. Please see the Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a discussion of the threats to A.
pumila habitat and potential management considerations.
Subunit 7C: Steele Canyon Bridge
Subunit 7C is located mainly on the east side of State Route 94 on
a slope between a concrete-lined ditch and a fence adjacent and
parallel to State Route 94, approximately 0.7 mi (1.1 km) southeast of
Subunit 7B, in unincorporated San Diego County. A small portion of the
subunit is located on the opposite side of State Route 94 just south of
Steele Canyon Bridge in a split-rail exclosure. Subunit 7C consists of
approximately 28 ac (11 ha) of federally owned land managed by the
Service, approximately 10 ac (4 ha) of State or local government owned
land, and approximately 6 ac (2 ha) of privately owned land, for a
total of approximately 44 ac (18 ha) (values do not sum due to
rounding). No private or state/local government owned lands in Subunit
7C are conserved or managed for biological resources. This subunit was
occupied at the time of listing and, like all other extant occurrences,
we also believe this subunit is essential to the conservation of this
species because of its contribution to the genetic diversity of the
species (McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329; see Genetics section of
the proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 2009)). Subunit 7C contains
physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation
of Ambrosia pumila, including sandy loam or clay soils located on an
upper terrace of a water source, which provide nutrients, moisture, and
flooding presumed necessary for the plant's persistence (PCE 1), and
nonnative grassland vegetation, which allows adequate sunlight and
airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2). The PCEs in this subunit may require
continued management and protection on federally owned lands to address
threats from nonnative plant species in situations where nonnative
species are outcompeting A. pumila for resources, and human
encroachment. Please see the Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a discussion of the threats to A.
pumila habitat and potential management considerations.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Decisions
by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated our
definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' (50 CFR 402.02)
(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378
F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)), and we do not rely
on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the
statutory provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse
modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of the
Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional
(or retain the current ability for the PCEs to be functionally
established) to serve its intended conservation role for the species
(Service 2004a, p. 3).
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency
(action agency) must enter into consultation with us in most cases. As
a result of this consultation, we document compliance with the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or designated
critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that are likely to
adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitat.
An exception to the concurrence process referred to in (1) above
occurs in consultations involving National Fire Plan projects on lands
managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS). However, none of the lands we are designating as
critical habitat are located on BLM or USFS lands.
If we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable. We define ``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the
intended purpose of the action,
Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
Are economically and technologically feasible, and
Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely
modifying its critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is not
likely to jeopardize a listed species or adversely modify its critical
habitat but may result in incidental take of listed animals, we provide
an incidental take statement that specifies the impact of such
incidental taking on the species. We then define ``Reasonable and
Prudent Measures'' considered necessary or appropriate to minimize the
impact of such taking. Reasonable and prudent measures are binding
measures the action agency must implement to receive an exemption to
the prohibition against take contained in section 9 of the Act. These
reasonable and prudent measures are implemented through specific
``Terms and Conditions'' that must be followed by the action agency or
passed along by the action agency as binding conditions to an
applicant. Reasonable and prudent measures, along with the terms and
conditions that implement them, cannot alter the basic design,
location, scope, duration, or timing of the action under consultation
and may involve only minor changes (50 CFR 402.14). The Service may
provide the action agency with additional conservation recommendations,
which are advisory and not intended to carry binding legal force.
[[Page 74558]]
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect Ambrosia pumila or its
designated critical habitat will require section 7 consultation under
the Act. Activities on State, tribal, local, or private lands requiring
a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act or a permit under
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the Service) or involving some
other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency) will also be subject to the section 7
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or
critical habitat, and actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require
section 7 consultations.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species, or would retain its current ability
for the primary constituent elements to be functionally established.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical and biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for
Ambrosia pumila. Generally, the conservation role of the A. pumila
critical habitat units is to support viable occurrences in appropriate
habitat areas.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may adversely affect critical habitat and therefore
should result in consultation for Ambrosia pumila include, but are not
limited to, the following:
(1) Actions that would alter the configuration of the water sources
associated with Ambrosia pumila habitat or the upper terraces where A.
pumila habitat is found. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, water impoundment, stream channelization, water diversion,
water withdrawal, and development activities. These activities could
alter the biological and physical features that provide the appropriate
habitat for A. pumila by altering or eliminating flooding events that
this species may rely on for dispersal, seed germination, and control
of competitors; reducing or increasing the availability of groundwater
that may result in a shift of habitat type to a community unsuitable
for A. pumila (shrub- or tree-dominated habitat, which would inhibit
exposure to needed sunlight and airflow); or causing increased erosion
that could remove soils appropriate for A. pumila growth.
(2) Activities that cover or remove soils appropriate for A. pumila
growth such as development, plowing or grading, or activities that
change the characteristics of soils so that A. pumila growth is
impeded, such as soil compaction due to hiking and off-highway vehicle
use.
Exemptions Under Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
No lands meet the criteria for being exempted from the designation
of critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of
the Act.
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate
and revise critical habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an
area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the legislative history is clear that the Secretary has
broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight
to give to any factor.
In the following paragraphs we address a number of general issues
that are relevant to our analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we must
identify the benefits of including the area in the designation,
identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and
determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion. If based on this analysis, we make this determination, then
we can exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that
may apply to critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat may
strengthen or reinforce some of the provisions in other State and
Federal laws, such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These laws analyze the
potential for projects to significantly affect the environment.
Critical habitat may signal the presence of sensitive habitat that
could otherwise be missed in the review process for these other
environmental laws.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in long-term conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or
encouragement of partnerships that result in conservation of listed
species; or implementation of a management plan that provides equal to
or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would provide.
Specifically, when evaluating a conservation plan we consider, among
other factors:
(1) Whether the plan is complete and provides a benefit for the
species by conserving and managing the features
[[Page 74559]]
essential for the conservation of the species;
(2) Whether the plan provides conservation strategies and measures
consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology;
and
(3) Whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the
foreseeable future, and effective based on past practices, written
guidance, or regulations.
After evaluating the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to determine whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If we determine that
they do, we then determine whether exclusion would result in
extinction. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat will result
in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.
In the case of Ambrosia pumila, the areas proposed and ultimately
designated as critical habitat do not include any tribal lands or
tribal trust resources or DOD lands. However, this designated critical
habitat does include some lands covered by HCPs, specifically, the
Western Riverside County MSHCP, the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea
Plan, and the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan.
The information provided above applies to the following discussions
of exclusions under section (4)(b)(2) of the Act. Ambrosia pumila is
covered under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the County of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, and the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan.
After considering the following areas under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
we are exercising our discretion to exclude from critical habitat
designation: Subunit 2 within the Western Riverside County MSHCP; a
portion of Subunit 5B within the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
area and conserved and managed under the Crosby at Rancho Santa Fe
Habitat Management Plan; and a portion of Subunit 6 within the City of
San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. As described in the following exclusion
analyses for the three HCPs, we made this determination because we
believe that the value of the excluded lands for A. pumila conservation
will be preserved for the foreseeable future by existing protective
actions and they are appropriate for exclusion under the ``other
relevant factor'' provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We
concluded that the benefits of excluding these areas from critical
habitat outweigh the benefits of including the areas. With regard to
the remaining portions of essential habitat covered by the Western
Riverside County MSHCP, the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, and
the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, we concluded that the
benefits of inclusion outweigh the benefits of exclusion; therefore we
are not exercising our discretion to exclude these lands from critical
habitat designation. Brief descriptions of each plan and lands excluded
from critical habitat covered by each plan are described below. The
areas where we determined the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion are listed in Table 3. Additional details on
these areas can be found in the proposed critical habitat rule (74 FR
44238, August 27, 2009) and the NOA (75 FR 27690, May 18, 2010).
Table 3--Areas Excluded From Ambrosia Pumila Critical Habitat
Designation Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluded under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act
Subunit -------------------------------
Acres Hectares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Riverside County MSHCP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Skunk Hollow......................... 118 48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan (The Crosby at Rancho Santa Fe
Habitat Management Plan)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5B. Lake Hodges west--Crosby estates.... 52 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of San Diego MSCP Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Mission Trails Regional Park......... 160 65
-------------------------------
Total............................... 329 133
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values in this table may not sum due to rounding.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(Western Riverside County MSHCP)
We determined that approximately 298 ac (121 ha) of land in
Subunits 1A and 1B, Unit 2, and Subunits 3A and 3B that are within the
Western Riverside County MSHCP planning area meet the definition of
critical habitat under the Act (approximately 9 ac (3 ha) in Subunit 1A
are not covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP as a result of a
legal settlement reached between certain landowners and the County of
Riverside in 2004 exempting the landowners from the HCP (Murdock
Settlement, 2004)). In making our final decision with regard to these
lands, we considered several factors including our relationships with
participating jurisdictions and other stakeholders, existing
consultations, conservation measures and management that are in place
on these lands, and impacts to current and future partnerships. Under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have determined to exercise our
delegated discretion to exclude 118 ac (48 ha) of land within Unit 2
from this final critical habitat designation. We are including 189 ac
(76 ha) of land within Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, and 3B in this critical
habitat designation (including approximately 9 ac (3 ha) in Subunit 1A
not covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP). As described in our
analysis below, we reached this conclusion by weighing the benefits of
exclusion against the benefits of including each area in the final
critical habitat designation.
The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a regional,
multijurisdictional HCP encompassing approximately 1.26 million ac
(510,000 ha) of land in western Riverside County. The Western Riverside
County MSHCP addresses 146
[[Page 74560]]
listed and unlisted ``covered species,'' including Ambrosia pumila. The
Western Riverside County MSHCP includes a multispecies conservation
program designed to minimize and mitigate the expected loss of habitat
and associated incidental take of covered species, while allowing
development to occur. On June 22, 2004, the Service issued a single
incidental take permit (Service 2004b, TE-088609-0) under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to 22 permittees under the Western Riverside
County MSHCP to be in effect for a period of 75 years (Service 2004,
TE-088609-0). We concluded in our biological opinion (Service 2004b, p.
342) that implementation of the plan, as proposed, was not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of A. pumila. Our determination was
based on our conclusion that 62 percent of A. pumila suitable habitat
and at least 2 (Nichols Road (Subunit 1B) and Skunk Hollow (Unit 2)) of
the 3 extant occurrences known at that time would be protected or
remain within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Area
(lands conserved under the Western Riverside County MSHCP). We also
noted that the surveys required by the HCP (see Narrow Endemic Plant
Species survey area discussed below) could result in newly discovered
occurrences of A. pumila. These potentially new occurrences would be
conserved by being added to the Western Riverside County MSHCP
Conservation Area.
The Western Riverside County MSHCP, when fully implemented, will
establish approximately 153,000 ac (61,917 ha) of new conservation
lands (Additional Reserve Lands) to complement the approximate 347,000
ac (140,426 ha) of preexisting natural and open space areas (Public/
Quasi-Public (PQP) lands). These PQP lands include those under
ownership of public or quasi-public agencies, primarily the United
States Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as
well as permittee-owned or controlled open-space areas managed by the
State of California and Riverside County. Collectively, the Additional
Reserve Lands and PQP lands form the overall Western Riverside County
MSHCP Conservation Area. The configuration of the 153,000 ac (61,916
ha) of Additional Reserve Lands (ARL) is not mapped or precisely
delineated (``hard-lined'') in the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
Instead, the ARL are textual descriptions of habitat conservation
necessary to meet the conservation goals for all covered species within
the bounds of the approximately 310,000-ac (125,453-ha) Criteria Area
and is determined as implementation of the Western Riverside County
MSHCP takes place.
Three species-specific conservation objectives are included in the
Western Riverside County MSHCP for Ambrosia pumila. The first objective
is to conserve at least 21,800 ac (8,822 ha) of occupied or suitable
habitat for the species. This objective can be attained through
acquisition or other dedications of land assembled from within the
Criteria Area (i.e., the ARL) or Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey
Area and through coordinated management of existing PQP. We mapped a
``Conceptual Reserve Design'' that illustrates existing PQP lands and
predicts the geographic distribution of the ARL based on our
interpretation of the textual descriptions of habitat conservation
necessary to meet Western Riverside County MSHCP conservation goals.
Our Conceptual Reserve Design is the Service's estimate of one possible
future configuration of 153,000 ac (61,916 ha) of ARL in conjunction
with the existing PQP lands, including approximately 21,800 ac (8,822
ha) of ``suitable'' A. pumila habitat that will be conserved to meet
the goals and objectives of the plan (Service 2004b, p. 73).
Preservation and management of approximately 21,800 ac (8,822 ha) of
suitable A. pumila habitat under the Western Riverside County MSHCP
will contribute to conservation and ultimate recovery of this species.
The second species-specific conservation objective included in the
Western Riverside County MSHCP for Ambrosia pumila is to include within
the Conservation Area at least two of the three occupied locations
identified at the time the Western Riverside County MSHCP was
permitted. Ambrosia pumila is threatened in the plan area primarily by
habitat loss due to urbanization, flood control activities, and
nonnative species competition (Service 2004b, pp. 334-342). The Western
Riverside County MSHCP is designed to remove or reduce threats to this
species as the plan is implemented by placing large blocks of occupied
and unoccupied habitat into preservation throughout the Conservation
Area. The two areas identified for inclusion in the Conservation Area
are the occurrences at the Barry Jones (Skunk Hollow) Wetland
Mitigation Bank (in Unit 2), and the occurrence near Temescal Creek at
Nichols Road (in Subunit 1B).
The third species-specific conservation objective included in the
Western Riverside County MSHCP for Ambrosia pumila is the requirement
of surveys for A. pumila as part of the project review process for
public and private project proposals where suitable habitat is present
within a defined Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area (see Narrow
Endemic Plant Species Survey Area Map, Figure 6-1 of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP, Volume I in Dudek 2003). For locations with
positive survey results, 90 percent of those portions of the property
that provide long-term conservation value for the species will be
avoided; when it is demonstrated the conservation objectives for the
species under the HCP are met, avoided areas will be evaluated to
determine whether they will be open for development or considered for
inclusion into the MSHCP Conservation Area (see Additional Survey Needs
and Procedures; Western Riverside County MSHCP, Volume 1, section 6.3.2
in Dudek 2003). The Western Riverside County MSHCP anticipated
inclusion of a third occurrence, near Temescal Creek east of Lake
Street (in Subunit 1A), into the MSHCP Conservation Area in accordance
with its Narrow Endemics Policy (Dudek 2003, pp. P-327-P-328). This
area has been conserved but is not currently managed to benefit A.
pumila and its habitat.
Below is a brief analysis of the relative benefits of inclusion and
exclusion of Unit 2, which we have exercised our discretion to exclude
from critical habitat designation and our analysis of the relative
benefits of inclusion and exclusion of Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A and 3B which
we have not exercised our discretion to exclude from critical habitat
designation.
Benefits of Inclusion--Western Riverside County MSHCP
The principal benefit of including an area in a critical habitat
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure actions
they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of any designated critical habitat,
the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which
consultation is completed. Federal agencies must consult with the
Service on actions that may affect critical habitat and must avoid
destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. Federal agencies
must also consult with us on actions that may affect a listed species
and refrain from undertaking actions that are likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such species. The analysis of effects to
critical habitat is a separate and different analysis from that of the
effects to the species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these
two analyses represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For
some species (including Ambrosia pumila), and in some locations, the
outcome of these
[[Page 74561]]
analyses will be similar, because effects to habitat will often also
result in effects to the species. However, the regulatory standard is
different, as the jeopardy analysis investigates the action's impact on
the survival and recovery of the species, while the adverse
modification analysis focuses on the action's effects on the designated
habitat's contribution to conservation. This will, in many instances,
lead to different results and different regulatory requirements. Thus,
critical habitat designations may provide greater benefits to the
recovery of a species than would listing alone.
Critical habitat may provide a regulatory benefit for Ambrosia
pumila when there is a Federal nexus present for a project that might
adversely modify critical habitat. A Federal nexus generally exists
where land is federally owned, or where actions proposed on non-Federal
lands require a Federal permit or Federal funding. In the absence of a
Federal nexus, the regulatory benefit provided through Section 7
consultation under the Act does not exist. Clearly, any activities
affecting designated critical habitat on Federal land would trigger a
duty to consult under Section 7. In contrast, the potential for a
Federal nexus for activities proposed on non-Federal lands varies
widely and depends on the particular circumstances of each case.
Nevertheless, because the breadth of potential Federal actions that may
trigger a duty to consult under Section 7 is quite broad, we cannot say
with certainty that future development of, or activities on non-Federal
lands will always lack a Federal nexus. However, where there is no
discernable Federal nexus on non-Federal lands we propose to designate
as critical habitat, we consider the regulatory benefit of designation
of those non-Federal lands to be small.
Any protections provided by critical habitat that are redundant
with protections already in place on lands proposed for designation
also reduce the benefits of inclusion in critical habitat. Protections
provided by HCPs or other conservation and management, may prevent the
destruction or adverse modification of habitat to the same or greater
extent as would the consultation provisions under section 7(a) of the
Act for critical habitat.
None of the land in Unit 2 is Federal land. The majority of Unit 2
is within the Barry Jones (Skunk Hollow) Wetland Mitigation Bank on
privately owned lands owned and managed by Center for Natural Lands
Management (CNLM) and protected by a conservation easement held by the
California Department of Fish and Game. Two smaller portions of this
unit are adjacent to the Barry Jones (Skunk Hollow) Wetland Mitigation
Bank, one to the east on Johnson Ranch and Metropolitan Water District
lands, and the other to the west on lands conserved as part of the
Rancho Bella Vista HCP. All land in Unit 2 is conserved under
conservation easement and actively managed by CNLM in accordance with
the Western Riverside County MSHCP. We consider the likelihood of a
Federal nexus for activities occurring on lands in Unit 2 to be remote.
It is possible that the Army Corps of Engineers may take jurisdiction
over portions of Unit 2 if a project were to occur in that area;
however, the probability of project impacts in Unit 2 is slight because
the area is conserved and managed and thus protected from direct
development impacts. Because Unit 2 is already permanently conserved
and managed to benefit Ambrosia pumila, the regulatory benefit of
designating this area as critical habitat would be redundant with the
protections already in place. Because the existence of a future Federal
nexus in Unit 2 is remote and the protections afforded by designation
would be redundant with protections already in place, we believe the
regulatory benefit of designation of Unit 2 is negligible and not
significant.
Similar to Unit 2, none of the land in Units 1 and 3 is federally
owned, and we consider the likelihood of a future Federal nexus in
Units 1 and 3B to be remote. There is a potential that Federal funds
may be applied to future projects related to the San Diego Aqueduct in
Subunit 3A (see Comment 14 in the Summary of Comments and
Recommendations section below); however the probability of a project
with a Federal nexus occurring in Subunit 3A is uncertain. The absence
of a discernable Federal nexus in Unit 1 and Subunit 3B, and the
uncertainty regarding a future Federal nexus in Subunit 3A reduce the
potential regulatory benefits of designation of these areas.
In contrast to Unit 2, Subunits 1B, 3A, and 3B are not currently
protected or managed under the Western Riverside MSHCP for the benefit
of A. pumila and its essential habitat. Subunit 1A is largely
conserved, but it is not currently managed to protect the species and
its habitat.
As summarized above, under the Western Riverside County MSHCP on
lands within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area with positive
survey results for Ambrosia pumila, impacts to 90 percent of portions
of the property that provide long-term conservation value for the
species are to be avoided until it is demonstrated that the
conservation objectives for the species have been met, at which time
avoidance is no longer be required (see Protection of Narrow Endemic
Plant Species; Western Riverside County MSHCP, Volume 1, section 6.1.3,
in Dudek 2003). Also, projects proposed in areas within the Western
Riverside County MSHCP Criteria Area (Criteria Area) are to be
implemented through the Joint Project Review Process to ensure that the
requirements of the Western Riverside County MSHCP permit and the
Implementing Agreement are properly met and are protecting essential
habitat for A. pumila (Western Riverside County MSHCP, Volume 1,
section 6.6.2 in Dudek 2003, p. 82).
Portions of Subunits 1A, 1B, and 3B are within the Narrow Endemic
Plant Species Survey Area or the Criteria Area under the Western
Riverside County MSHCP, and we anticipate that these areas will
eventually be protected and managed under the plan. As noted above, a
large portion of Subunit 1A is already conserved, but it is not
actively managed for the benefit of Ambrosia pumila. Because none of
these areas are both conserved and managed, they remain vulnerable to
threats from nonnative species, human encroachment and development
related impacts as discussed above in the Special Management
Considerations or Protection section. We recognize that the regulatory
benefit of designating Subunits 1A, 1B, and 3B is partially redundant
with existing and anticipated protection (conservation) and management
of these areas under the Western Riverside County MSHCP; however
because such protection is not yet fully in place, we believe there is
some regulatory benefit to designation of these areas. Subunit 3A is
neither within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area or the
Criteria Area and is not targeted for conservation and management under
the Western Riverside County MSHCP. As a result, the regulatory benefit
provided by the designation of critical habitat within Subunit 3A would
not be redundant with conservation measures outlined in the plan. We
conclude that the regulatory benefit of designating Subunits 1A, 1B and
3B is partially redundant with the anticipated protection of these
areas under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, while the regulatory
benefit of designating Subunit 3A would not be redundant with
conservation provided under the plan. However, because the likelihood
of a future Federal nexus on any of these lands is remote we consider
[[Page 74562]]
the regulatory benefit of designation of the entirety of Units 1 and 3
to be small and not significant.
Designating critical habitat also can be beneficial because the
process of proposing critical habitat provides the opportunity for peer
review and public comment on lands we propose to designate as critical
habitat, our criteria to assess those lands, potential impacts from the
proposal, and information on the taxon itself. We believe the
designation of critical habitat may generally provide previously
unavailable information to the public. Public education regarding the
potential conservation value of an area may also help focus
conservation and management efforts on areas of high conservation value
for certain species. Information about Ambrosia pumila and its habitat
that reaches a wide audience, including parties concerned about and
engaged in conservation activities, is valuable because the public may
not be aware of documented (or undocumented) A. pumila occurrences that
have not been conserved or are not being managed.
Because Unit 2 is already permanently conserved and actively
managed for the benefit of Ambrosia pumila, we believe there is little
educational benefit to designation of this area. The education benefit
of designation is somewhat lower for Subunits 1A and 1B because
educational information regarding the importance of the A. pumila
occurrences in these two areas to the conservation of the species has
been presented to the public during development and implementation of
the Western Riverside County MSHCP. However, this critical habitat rule
provides more specific information regarding the entire habitat area in
Subunits 1A and 1B (not just the above-ground portions of the
occurrences) that we consider essential to the conservation of the
species. Therefore, we believe the education benefit to including
Subunits 1A and 1B in this designation is still significant.
Subunits 3A and 3B were unknown at the time the Western Riverside
County MSHCP was finalized, and therefore educational information
regarding the Ambrosia pumila occurrences in Subunits 3A and 3B was not
presented to the public during development and implementation of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP. Designating as critical habitat for
Ambrosia pumila Subunits 3A and 3B will identify these specific areas
as essential for the conservation and recovery of Ambrosia pumila and
in doing so, provide an educational component that is a significant
benefit to the conservation of this species. The educational
information contained in this rule provides information that can be
used by the public to learn about A. pumila and its essential habitat
in Subunits 3A and 3B and that can refine the broader conservation
goals for A. pumila under the Western Riverside County MSHCP by
focusing conservation on the specific areas essential for the recovery
of the species.
The designation of Ambrosia pumila critical habitat may also
strengthen or reinforce some of the provisions in other State and
Federal laws, such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These laws analyze the
potential for projects to significantly affect the environment. In
Riverside County, the additional protections associated with critical
habitat may be beneficial in areas not currently conserved. Critical
habitat may signal the presence of sensitive habitat that could
otherwise be missed in the review process for these other environmental
laws. In the case of CEQA, this could be a benefit, since CEQA may
require additional review of projects that may affect critical habitat
and protection of essential habitat if its destruction would constitute
a significant environmental effect. However, this benefit is a minor
benefit in the case of NEPA, because NEPA does not require project
proponents to protect sensitive habitat. The potential ancillary
benefits under other laws of critical habitat designation would be
higher in Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, and 3B where the species and its habitat
are not currently conserved. The benefits would be negligible in Unit 2
because A. pumila and its essential habitat are protected and managed.
In summary, we believe that the regulatory benefit of designating
critical habitat under section 7(a) of the Act is small in Subunits 1A,
1B, and 3B because the likelihood of a future Federal nexus in these
areas is remote. There is a higher potential for a Federal nexus in
Subunit 3A, but it is still uncertain. Overall, we believe the
regulatory benefit of designation of Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A and 3B is not
significant. We believe that the educational benefit of designation is
significant in Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, and 3B because these areas are not
conserved and managed and designation may help focus conservation
efforts for this species under the Western Riverside County MSHCP on
these specific essential habitat areas. There are also potential
ancillary benefits under other laws that would result from designation
of Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, and 3B. In Unit 2, which is conserved and
managed, we believe the benefits of critical habitat designation are
not significant. The regulatory benefit of designation in Unit 2 is
likely redundant with protection provided by the conservation and
management of the area, and because this area is already conserved and
managed, the public education and ancillary benefits are also
insignificant in Unit 2. We conclude that among lands proposed as
critical habitat that are covered by the Western Riverside County
MSHCP, the educational benefit of designation in Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A,
and 3B is significant, and the regulatory and ancillary benefits of
designating these areas are small and not significant. The regulatory,
educational and ancillary benefits of designating Unit 2 as critical
habitat are negligible.
Benefits of Exclusion--Western Riverside County MSHCP
We believe benefits could be realized by forgoing designation of
critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila on lands covered by the Western
Riverside County MSHCP including:
(1) Continuance and strengthening of our effective working
relationships with all Western Riverside County MSHCP jurisdictions and
stakeholders to promote conservation of Ambrosia pumila, its habitat,
and 145 other species covered by the HCP and their habitat;
(2) Allowance for continued meaningful collaboration and
cooperation in working toward protecting and recovering this species
and the many other species covered by the HCP, including conservation
benefits that might not otherwise occur;
(3) Encouragement for local jurisdictions to fully participate in
the Western Riverside County MSHCP; and
(4) Encouragement of additional HCP and other conservation plan
development in the future on other private lands for this and other
federally listed and sensitive species, including incorporation of
protections for plant species which is voluntary because the Act does
not prohibit take of plant species.
The Western Riverside County MSHCP provides substantial protection
and management for Ambrosia pumila and the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species, and addresses
conservation issues from a coordinated, integrated perspective rather
than a piecemeal, project-by-project approach (as would occur under
sections 7 of the Act or smaller HCPs), thus resulting in coordinated
landscape-scale
[[Page 74563]]
conservation that can contribute to genetic diversity by preserving
covered species populations, habitat, and interconnected linkage areas
that support recovery of Ambrosia pumila and other listed species. It
is important that we encourage participation in such plans and
encourage voluntary coverage of listed plant species in such plans.
Additionally, many landowners perceive critical habitat as an unfair
and unnecessary regulatory burden given the expense and time involved
in developing and implementing complex regional and jurisdiction-wide
HCPs, such as the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Exclusion of Western
Riverside County MSHCP lands would help preserve the partnerships we
developed with the County of Riverside and other local jurisdictions in
the development of the HCP, and foster future partnerships and
development of future HCPs, and in particular HCPs that include
protections for listed plants, such as A. pumila.
In summary, we believe excluding land covered by the Western
Riverside County MSHCP from critical habitat could provide the
significant benefit of maintaining existing regional HCP partnerships
and fostering new ones.
Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--Western
Riverside County MSHCP
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and the
benefits of exclusion for all lands owned by or under the jurisdiction
of Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees as critical habitat for
Ambrosia pumila. The benefits of including conserved and managed lands
in the critical habitat designation are small. All of the approximately
118 ac (48 ha) of land in Unit 2 at the Barry Jones (Skunk Hollow)
Wetland Mitigation Bank are already conserved and managed. Therefore we
do not believe critical habitat designation for A. pumila will provide
significant regulatory, educational or ancillary benefits for this
area. In contrast to Unit 2, the designation as critical habitat of
essential habitat for Ambrosia pumila in Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, and 3B
will provide a significant educational benefit and may also result in
small regulatory and ancillary benefits for A. pumila and its essential
habitat. None of these subunits are currently both conserved and
managed to benefit A. pumila (a large portion of Subunit 1A is
conserved, but not actively managed), the broad conservation goals for
this species under the Western Riverside County MSHCP do not explicitly
require and assure protection of the specific lands included in
Subunits 1A, 1B, and 3B, and the plan does not identify the lands in
Subunit 3A for conservation. Therefore designation of these units will
provide a significant educational benefit by focusing attention on the
specific lands within Western Riverside County MSHCP that are essential
for the species' recovery so that conservation efforts are directed
toward those areas. We also anticipate a potential regulatory benefit
from designation in the unlikely circumstance that a Federal nexus
exists in connection with activities on these lands and some ancillary
benefit from other laws such as CEQA and NEPA from designating these
areas as critical habitat.
Excluding Subunits 1A, 1B, Unit 2, and Subunits 3A and 3B from
critical habitat designation will further our existing partnerships
with permittees under the Western Riverside County MSHCP and encourage
future voluntary conservation efforts for this species by relieving
landowners of the any additional regulatory burden stemming from
designation. We consider this a significant benefit of excluding these
lands.
In summary, we find that excluding from critical habitat areas that
are receiving long-term conservation and management for the purpose of
protecting Ambrosia pumila (Unit 2) will preserve our partnership with
the County of Riverside and other permittees in the Western Riverside
County MSHCP and encourage the conservation of lands associated with
development and implementation of future HCPs. These partnership
benefits are significant and outweigh the small potential regulatory,
educational, and ancillary benefits of including Unit 2 in critical
habitat for A. pumila. We find that including lands as critical habitat
that are not yet receiving long-term conservation and management
(Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, and 3B) will provide additional regulatory
protection under section 7(a) of the Act if there is a Federal nexus,
and will provide a significant educational benefit by focusing
conservation efforts by the Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees
on conservation and management of these specific essential habitat
areas for A. pumila and educating the public about importance of these
areas for the conservation of this species. Designation may also result
in some ancillary benefits under other laws. Therefore, designating
these areas as critical habitat for A. pumila will provide significant
educational as well as some regulatory and ancillary benefits to the
species. While we acknowledge that excluding these areas under section
4(b)(2) of the Act would provide a significant benefit to the
partnership that we have with the County of Riverside and other
permittees under the Western Riverside MSHCP, we believe that the
significant educational along with the potential regulatory and
ancillary benefits to conservation of the species and its essential
habitat in Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, and 3B of including these lands as
critical habitat outweighs the benefit of exclusion. Therefore we have
not exercised our delegated discretion to exclude these areas.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Unit 2, Western
Riverside County MSHCP
We determined that exclusion of 118 ac (48 ha) of land in Unit 2
within the Western Riverside County MSHCP planning area from the final
critical habitat designation for Ambrosia pumila will not result in
extinction of the species. This area is permanently conserved and
managed to provide a benefit to A. pumila and its habitat. The jeopardy
standard of section 7 of the Act provides assurances the species will
not go extinct as a result of exclusion from critical habitat
designation where habitat is occupied by A. pumila or other federally
listed species. Therefore, based on the above discussion, we have
determined to exercise our delegated discretion to exclude
approximately 118 ac (48 ha) of land in Unit 2 owned by or under the
jurisdiction of Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees from this
critical habitat designation.
San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)--City and County
of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plans
We determined that approximately 207 ac (84 ha) of habitat in
Subunit 5A and Unit 6 within the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan,
and approximately 488 ac (198 ha) of habitat in Subunits 5B, 7A, 7B,
and 7C within the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan meet the
definition of Ambrosia pumila critical habitat under the Act. In making
our decision with regard to designating lands within these two subarea
plans as critical habitat, we considered several factors, including our
relationship with the participating MSCP jurisdictions, our
relationship with other MSCP stakeholders, non-covered activities,
existing consultations, conservation measures in place that benefit A.
pumila, and impacts to current and future partnerships. We recognize
that A. pumila conservation efforts required under the City and County
of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plans will continue regardless of whether
covered areas are
[[Page 74564]]
designated as critical habitat. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
have decided to exercise our delegated discretion to exclude
approximately 160 ac (65 ha) of non-Federal land in Unit 6 covered by
the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, and approximately 52 ac (21
ha) of non-Federal land in Subunit 5B covered by the County of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plan from this critical habitat designation. The
remaining approximately 228 ac (92 ha) of land in Subunit 5B in the
County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan area and the remaining 38 ac (15
ha) of land covered by the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan in Unit
6, and all lands covered by the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan in
Subunit 5A (9 ac (4 ha)), and all lands covered by the County of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plan in Subunits 7A, 7B, and 7C (215 ac (87 ha)) are
being designated as critical habitat for A. pumila.
The MSCP is a subregional HCP made up of several subarea plans that
has been in place for more than a decade. The subregional plan area
encompasses approximately 582,243 ac (235,626 ha) (MSCP 1998, pp. 2-1,
and 4-2 to 4-4) and provides for conservation of 85 federally listed
and sensitive species (``covered species'') through the existing
preserve lands and establishment and management of approximately
171,920 ac (69,574 ha) of preserve lands within the Multi-Habitat
Planning Area (MHPA) (City and County) and Pre-Approved Mitigation
Areas (PAMA) (County of San Diego). The MSCP was developed in support
of applications for incidental take permits for several federally
listed species by 12 participating jurisdictions and included many
other stakeholders in southwestern San Diego County. Under the umbrella
of the MSCP, each of the 12 participating jurisdictions is required to
prepare a subarea plan that implements the goals of the MSCP within
that particular jurisdiction. Ambrosia pumila was evaluated in the MSCP
subregional plan, the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, and the
County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan.
Upon completion of preserve assembly, approximately 171,920 ac
(69,574 ha) of the 582,243 ac (235,626 ha) MSCP plan area will be
preserved (MSCP 1998, pp. 2-1 and 4-2 to 4-4). The MSCP identifies
areas where mitigation activities should be focused to assemble its
preserve areas (i.e., MHPA and PAMA). Those areas of the MSCP preserve
that are already conserved, as well as those areas that are designated
for inclusion in the preserve under the plan, are referred to as the
``preserve area'' in this critical habitat designation. When the
preserve is completed, the public sector (i.e., Federal, State, and
local government, and general public) will have contributed 108,750 ac
(44,010 ha) (63 percent) to the preserve, of which 81,750 ac (33,083
ha) (48 percent) was existing public land when the MSCP was established
and 27,000 ac (10,927 ha) (16 percent) will have been acquired. At
completion, the private sector will have contributed 63,170 ac (25,564
ha) (37 percent) to the preserve as part of the development process,
either through avoidance of impacts or as compensatory mitigation for
impacts to biological resources outside the preserve. Currently and in
the future, Federal and State governments, local jurisdictions and
special districts, and managers of privately owned lands will manage
and monitor their lands in the preserve for species and habitat
protection (MSCP 1998, pp. 2-1 and 4-2 to 4-4).
Private lands within the MHPA (City and County of San Diego) and
PAMA (County of San Diego) are subject to special restrictions on
development, and lands that are dedicated to the preserve must be
permanently protected and managed to conserve the covered species.
Public lands owned by the cities, county, State of California, and the
Federal Government that are identified for conservation under the MSCP
must also be protected and permanently managed to conserve the covered
species. Numerous processes are incorporated into the MSCP that allow
Service oversight of the MSCP implementation. For example, the MSCP
imposes annual reporting requirements, provides for Service review and
approval of proposed subarea plan amendments and preserve boundary
adjustments, and for Service review and comment on projects during CEQA
review process. We also chair the MSCP Habitat Monitoring Subcommittee
(MSCP 1998, pp. 5-11 to 5-23). Each MSCP subarea plan must account
annually for the progress it is making in assembling conservation areas
and show that preserve assembly is in rough step with the development
allowed in each jurisdiction. We receive annual reports that detail the
habitat acreage lost and conserved within the subareas by project and
cumulatively. This accounting process ensures habitat conservation
proceeds in rough proportion to habitat loss and in compliance with the
MSCP subarea plans and the plans' associated implementing agreements.
The City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan and the County of San Diego
MSCP Subarea Plan contain requirements to monitor and adaptively manage
Ambrosia pumila habitats and provide for the conservation of this
species. The framework and area-specific management plans are required
to be comprehensive and address a broad range of management needs at
the preserve and species levels intended to reduce the threats to
covered species and thereby contribute to recovery. These plans are to
include the following: (1) Fire management; (2) public access control;
(3) fencing and gates; (4) ranger patrol; (5) trail maintenance; (6)
visitor, interpretive, and volunteer services; (7) hydrological
management; (8) signage and lighting; (9) trash and litter removal;
(10) access road maintenance; (11) enforcement of property and
homeowner requirements; (12) removal of invasive species; (13)
nonnative predator control; (14) species monitoring; (15) habitat
restoration; (16) management for diverse age classes of covered
species; (17) use of herbicides and rodenticides; (18) biological
surveys; (19) research; and (20) species management conditions (MSCP
1998, p. 49-97).
City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
In addition to the protections described above, the City of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plan requires preservation of over 90 percent of the
occurrence of Ambrosia pumila at Mission Trails Regional Park,
additional impact avoidance and other measures required under the MSCP
narrow endemic species policy, and area-specific management directives
designed to maintain long-term survival in the planning area (Service
1997, pp. 104-105; Dudek 2000, p. 28). Under the City of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan, impacts to narrow endemic plants, including A. pumila,
inside the MHPA will be avoided, and outside the MHPA will be protected
as appropriate by management, enhancement (for example, removing
nonnative species), restoration, or transplantation to areas identified
for preservation (City of San Diego 1997, pp. 105-106; Service 1997, p.
15). These measures help protect Ambrosia pumila, whether located on
lands targeted for preserve status within the MHPA or located outside
of the MHPA in the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan area. Within the
MHPA, the narrow endemic policy for the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea
Plan requires in situ conservation of A. pumila or mitigation to
ameliorate any habitat loss.
Below is a brief analysis of the benefits of inclusion and
exclusion of a portion of Unit 6 which we have
[[Page 74565]]
exercised our delegated discretion to exclude from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our analysis of the
relative benefits of inclusion and exclusion of the remaining portion
of Unit 6 and the portions of Subunit 5A covered under the City of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plan which we have not exercised our delegated
discretion to exclude from critical habitat designation.
Benefits of Inclusion--City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
As discussed above in our section 4(b)(2) analysis of lands within
the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the principal benefit of including
an area in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal
agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of any
designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act under which consultation is completed. Federal agencies must
consult with the Service on actions that may affect critical habitat
and must avoid destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Federal agencies must also consult with us on actions that may affect a
listed species and refrain from undertaking actions that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of such species. The analysis of
effects to critical habitat is a separate and different analysis from
that of the effects to the species. Therefore, the difference in
outcomes of these two analyses represents the regulatory benefit of
critical habitat. For some species (including Ambrosia pumila), and in
some locations, the outcome of these analyses will be similar, because
effects to habitat will often also result in effects to the species.
However, the regulatory standard is different, as the jeopardy analysis
investigates the action's impact to survival and recovery of the
species, while the adverse modification analysis investigates the
action's effects to the designated habitat's contribution to
conservation. This will, in many instances, lead to different results
and different regulatory requirements. Thus, critical habitat
designations may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a species
than would listing alone.
Critical habitat may provide a regulatory benefit for Ambrosia
pumila when there is a Federal nexus present for a project that might
adversely modify critical habitat. A Federal nexus generally exists
where land is federally owned, or where actions proposed on non-Federal
lands require a Federal permit or Federal funding. In the absence of a
Federal nexus, the regulatory benefit provided through Section 7
consultation under the Act does not exist. Clearly, any activities
affecting designated critical habitat on Federal land would trigger a
duty to consult under Section 7. In contrast, the potential of a
Federal nexus for activities proposed on non-Federal lands varies
widely and depends on the particular circumstances of each case.
Nevertheless, because the breadth of potential Federal actions that may
trigger a duty to consult under Section 7 is quite broad, we cannot say
with certainty that future development of, or activities on non-Federal
lands will always lack a Federal nexus. However where there is no
discernable Federal nexus on non-Federal lands we propose to designate
as critical habitat, we consider the regulatory benefit of designation
of those non-Federal lands to be small.
Any protections provided by critical habitat that are redundant
with protections already in place also reduce the benefits of inclusion
in critical habitat. Other protections, such as may be provided by HCPs
or conservation and management, may prevent the destruction or adverse
modification of habitat to the same or greater extent as would the
consultation provisions under section 7(a) of the Act for critical
habitat.
None of the land in Subunit 5A or Unit 6 is federally owned. In
Subunit 5A, which lies adjacent to Interstate 15, there is the
potential of Federal funding for future projects related to the
interstate (see Comment 14 in the Summary of Comments and
Recommendations section below). However the probability of a project
with a Federal nexus occurring in Subunit 5A is uncertain. We are not
aware of any current or potential future Federal nexus on the lands in
Unit 6.
A portion of Unit 6, 160 ac (65 ha) lies within the Mission Trails
Regional Park and is conserved and managed in accordance with the City
of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan and the City of San Diego Mission Trails
Regional Park San Diego Ambrosia Management Plan (Dudek 2000), which
includes ongoing monitoring (City of San Diego 2000, 2001, 2003, 2006,
and 2008b) and management, including building and maintaining fencing
and rerouting or closing trails to protect plants (Dudek 2000, pp. 29-
30). Because this 160 ac (65 ha) portion of Unit 6 is already
permanently conserved and managed to benefit Ambrosia pumila, we
believe the regulatory benefit of designating this area as critical
habitat is redundant with the protections already in place. As noted
above, there is also little likelihood of a future Federal nexus in the
conserved portion of Unit 6. The lack of a discernable Federal nexus
combined with the redundancy of Federal protections afforded by
designation with those already in place in this area, render the
regulatory benefit of designating the conserved portion of Unit 6
negligible and insignificant.
In contrast to the 160 ac (65 ha) conserved and managed portion of
Unit 6, neither the remaining portion of Unit 6 nor Subunit 5A is
currently conserved and managed under the City of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan.
As discussed above, the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
provides for protection of Ambrosia pumila habitat considered necessary
for survival and recovery of the species. Areas that we have identified
as essential for the conservation of A. pumila (portion of Subunit 5A
and Unit 6) that occur with the MHPA are targeted for conservation
under the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, and as noted above, a
160 ac (65 ha) portion of Unit 6 is already conserved and managed.
Also, under the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, impacts to narrow
endemic plants, including A. pumila, inside the MHPA must be avoided.
Outside of the MHPA A. pumila may be afforded protection as appropriate
by management, enhancement (such as removing nonnative species), or
restoration (City of San Diego 1997, pp. 105-106; Service 1997, p. 15).
The portion of Unit 6 that is not conserved and a portion of
Subunit 5A are both within the MHPA, and we anticipate that these areas
may eventually be conserved under the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea
Plan. However, the areas are not currently conserved or managed and
remain more vulnerable to threats, including competition from non-
native plant species and human encroachment as discussed above in the
Special Management Considerations or Protection section. That portion
of Subunit 5A within the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan area, but
outside of the MHPA, will also be protected to the extent practicable
under the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, but the plan allows for
the transplantation of Ambrosia pumila individuals to areas identified
for preservation under the subarea plan's narrow endemic policy if
impacts outside of the MHPA cannot be avoided. We recognize that the
regulatory benefit of designating Subunit 5A, and in particular that
portion of Subunit 5A within the MHPA, and the currently unconserved
portion of Unit 6 is partially redundant
[[Page 74566]]
with the anticipated conservation and management of these areas under
the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. However, because such
protections are not yet in place, and are not certain to occur, we
believe there is some regulatory benefit to designation of these areas
notwithstanding the existing and anticipated protections under the City
of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. Because the likelihood of a future
Federal nexus on Subunit 5A is uncertain and on Unit 6 is remote, we
believe this regulatory benefit is small and not significant.
Designating critical habitat also can be beneficial because the
process of proposing critical habitat provides the opportunity for peer
review and public comment on lands we propose to designate as critical
habitat, our criteria to assess those lands, potential impacts from the
proposal and information on the taxon itself. We believe the
designation of critical habitat may generally provide previously
unavailable information to the public. Public education regarding the
potential conservation value of an area may also help focus
conservation and management efforts on areas of high conservation value
for certain species. Information about Ambrosia pumila and its habitat
that reaches a wide audience, including parties concerned about and
engaged in conservation activities, is also valuable because the public
may not be aware of documented (or undocumented) A. pumila occurrences
that have not been conserved or are not being managed.
Because the 160 ac (65 ha) portion of Unit 6 is already permanently
conserved and is actively managed for the benefit of Ambrosia pumila,
there is little educational benefit to designation of this area.
Designating as critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila Subunit 5A and
the portions of Unit 6 that are not conserved will identify areas
essential for the conservation and recovery of A. pumila and in doing
so, provide an educational component that is a significant benefit to
the conservation of A. pumila. The educational information contained in
this rule provides information that can be used by the public to learn
about A. pumila and its essential habitat in the currently unconserved
portion of Unit 6 and in Subunit 5A and that can refine the broader
conservation goals for A. pumila under the City of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan by focusing conservation on the specific areas essential
for the recovery of the species.
The designation of Ambrosia pumila critical habitat may also
strengthen or reinforce some of the provisions in other State and
Federal laws, such as CEQA or NEPA. These laws analyze the potential
for projects to significantly affect the environment. In the City of
San Diego, the additional protections associated with critical habitat
would be beneficial in areas not currently conserved. Critical habitat
signals the presence of sensitive habitat that could otherwise be
missed in the review process for these other environmental laws. In the
case of CEQA, this could be a benefit, since CEQA may require
protection of essential habitat if its destruction would constitute a
significant environmental effect. However, this benefit is a minor
benefit in the case of NEPA, because NEPA does not require project
proponents to protect sensitive habitat. The potential ancillary
benefits under other laws of critical habitat designation would be
higher in the currently unconserved portion of Unit 6 and in Subunit 5A
because A. pumila and its habitat are not protected and managed in
these areas. The ancillary benefits of designation would be negligible
in the 160 ac (65 ha) conserved portion of Unit 6 because the species
and its essential habitat in that area are protected and managed.
In summary, we believe that the regulatory benefit of designating
critical habitat under section 7(a) of the Act is small in Subunit 5A
and in the portion of Unit 6 that is not conserved and managed. The
likelihood of a future Federal nexus in the unconserved portion of Unit
6 is remote; there is a higher potential for a Federal nexus in Subunit
5A, but it is still uncertain. While the regulatory benefit of
designation in these areas is only partially redundant with existing
protections for Ambrosia pumila provided under the City of San Diego
MSCP Subarea Plan, the regulatory benefit is lower because of the
uncertainty of a future Federal nexus for activities that could
adversely affect essential habitat for A. pumila on these lands. We
believe that the regulatory benefit of designation in Subunit 5A and in
the unconserved and unmanaged portion of Unit 6 is not significant. We
consider the educational benefit of designation of Unit 5A and the
unconserved and unmanaged portion of Unit 6 to be significant because
designation will help focus conservation efforts for this species under
the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan on these specific essential
habitat areas and educate the public about the importance of these
areas for the conservation of this species. There are also potential
ancillary benefits under other laws that would result from designation
of Subunit 5A and the portion of Unit 6 that is not conserved or
managed. In the 160-ac (65-ha) portion of Unit 6 that is conserved and
managed, we believe the benefits of critical habitat designation are
not significant. The regulatory benefit of designation in this area is
redundant with protection provided by the conservation and management
of the area, and because this area is already conserved and managed,
the public education and ancillary benefits are also insignificant. We
conclude that among lands proposed as critical habitat that are covered
by the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, the educational benefit of
designation of Subunit 5A and the portion of Unit 6 that is not
conserved and managed is significant, and the regulatory and ancillary
benefits of designating these areas are small and not significant. The
regulatory, educational and ancillary benefits of designating the 160
ac (65-ha) conserved portion of Unit 6 as critical habitat are
negligible.
Benefits of Exclusion--City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
We believe benefits would be realized by forgoing designation of
critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila on lands covered by the City of
San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan including:
(1) Continuance and strengthening of our effective working
relationships with all MSCP jurisdictions and stakeholders to promote
conservation of Ambrosia pumila and its habitat;
(2) Allowance for continued meaningful collaboration and
cooperation in working toward protecting and recovering this species
and the many other species covered by the Subarea plan, including
conservation benefits that might not otherwise occur;
(3) Encouragement for local jurisdictions to fully participate in
the MSCP; and
(4) Encouragement of additional HCP and other conservation plan
development in the future on other private lands for this and other
federally listed and sensitive species, including incorporation of
protections for plant species which is voluntary because the Act does
not prohibit take of plant species.
The City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan provides substantial
protection and management for Ambrosia pumila and the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and
addresses conservation issues from a coordinated, integrated
perspective rather than a piecemeal, project-by-project approach (as
would
[[Page 74567]]
occur under sections 7 and 9 of the Act or smaller HCPs); therefore, it
is important that we encourage participation in such plans and
encourage voluntary coverage of listed plant species in such plans.
Many landowners perceive critical habitat as an unfair and unnecessary
regulatory burden given the expense and time involved in developing and
implementing complex regional and jurisdiction-wide HCPs, such as the
City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. Exclusion of the City of San Diego
MSCP Subarea Plan lands from critical habitat would help preserve the
partnerships we developed with the City of San Diego in the development
of the MSCP and the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, and foster
future partnerships and development of future HCPs, and in particular
HCPs that include protections for listed plants, such as A. pumila.
In summary, we believe excluding land covered by the City of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plan from critical habitat will provide the
significant benefit of maintaining existing regional HCP partnerships
and fostering new ones.
Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--City of
San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and benefits of
exclusion for all lands within the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
(approximately 207 ac (84 ha)) as critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila.
The benefits of including conserved and managed lands in the critical
habitat designation are small. Approximately 160 ac (65 ha) of land in
Unit 6 are conserved and managed. We do not believe critical habitat
designation for A. pumila will provide significant regulatory,
educational or ancillary benefits for this area. In contrast, the
designation as critical habitat of essential habitat for A. pumila in
Subunit 5A and the unconserved portion of Unit 6 will provide a
significant educational benefit and may provide some regulatory and
ancillary benefits for the species and its habitat. Neither of these
areas is currently conserved and managed to benefit A. pumila.
Therefore designation of these areas will provide a significant
educational benefit by focusing conservation efforts under the City of
San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan on habitat for A. pumila, both within and
outside the MHPA, that is essential for the recovery of the species. We
also anticipate some regulatory benefit from designation of Subunit 5A
and the unconserved portion of Unit 6 in the unlikely circumstance that
a Federal nexus exists in connection with activities on these lands and
some ancillary benefit from other laws such as CEQA and NEPA.
Excluding the portion of Subunit 5A covered under the City of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plan and all of Unit 6 from critical habitat
designation will further our existing partnerships with permittees
under the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan and encourage future
voluntary conservation efforts for this species by relieving landowners
of any additional regulatory burden stemming from designation. We
consider this a significant benefit of excluding these lands.
In summary, we find that the benefits of excluding lands from
critical habitat that are receiving long-term conservation and
management for the purpose of protecting Ambrosia pumila (160 ac (65
ha) in Unit 6) will preserve our partnership with the City of San Diego
and other permittees of the MSCP and encourage the conservation of
lands associated with development and implementation of future HCPs.
These partnership benefits are significant and outweigh the small
potential regulatory, educational, and ancillary benefits of including
those lands as critical habitat for A. pumila. We find that including
lands as critical habitat that are not yet receiving long-term
conservation and management (Subunit 5A and portions of Unit 6 that are
not conserved) will provide additional regulatory protection under
section 7(a) of the Act if there is a Federal nexus and will provide a
significant educational benefit by focusing conservation efforts by the
City of San Diego under the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan on
conservation and management of these specific essential habitat areas
for A. pumila and educating the public about the importance of these
areas for the conservation of this species. Designation may also result
in some ancillary benefits under other laws. Therefore, designating
these areas as critical habitat for A. pumila will provide significant
educational as well as some regulatory and ancillary benefits to the
species. While we acknowledge that excluding these areas under section
4(b)(2) of the Act would provide a significant benefit to the
partnership that we have with the City of San Diego and other
permittees under the MSCP, we believe that the significant educational
benefit along with the potential regulatory and ancillary benefits to
conservation of the species and its essential habitat in Subunit 5A and
in the unconserved portion of Unit 6 of including these lands as
critical habitat outweighs the benefits of exclusion. Therefore we have
not exercised our delegated discretion to exclude these areas.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Portions of
Unit 6, City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
We determined that exclusion of 160 ac (65 ha) of land in Unit 6
within the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan planning area from the
final critical habitat designation for Ambrosia pumila will not result
in extinction of the species. This area is permanently conserved and
managed to provide a benefit to A. pumila and its habitat. The jeopardy
standard of section 7 of the Act provides assurances that the species
will not go extinct as a result of exclusion from critical habitat
designation where habitat is occupied by A. pumila or other federally
listed species. Therefore, based on the above discussion, we have
determined to exercise our delegated discretion to exclude
approximately 160 ac (65 ha) of land in Unit 6 covered under the City
of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan.
County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
In addition to the protections described above under the ``San
Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)--City and County of
San Diego's Subarea Plans'' section, the County of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan dictates that all occurrences (including any newly
discovered occurrences) of A. pumila will be protected by impact
avoidance measures required under the County's Biological Mitigation
Ordinance (BMO; County of San Diego 1997, p. 11). Narrow endemic
plants, including A. pumila, are conserved under the BMO using a
process that: (1) Requires avoidance to the maximum extent feasible,
(2) restricts encroachment into a population not already conserved to a
maximum of 20 percent if total avoidance is not feasible, and (3)
requires in-kind mitigation at 1-to-1 to 3-to-1 ratios for impacts if
avoidance and minimization of impacts would preclude reasonable use of
the property (County of San Diego 1997, p. 11; USFWS 1998, p. 12).
Thus, the narrow endemic species policy for the County of San Diego
MSCP Subarea plan requires in situ conservation of A. pumila or
mitigation to ameliorate any habitat loss.
Below is a brief analysis of the relative benefits of inclusion and
exclusion of that portion of Subunit 5B which we have exercised our
delegated discretion to exclude from critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2)
[[Page 74568]]
of the and our analysis of the relative benefits of inclusion and
exclusion of the remaining portion of Unit 5B and all of Unit 7 which
we have not exercised our delegated discretion to exclude from critical
habitat designation.
Benefits of Inclusion--County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
As discussed above in our section 4(b)(2) analysis of lands within
the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the principle benefit of including
an area in a critical habitat designation is the requirement of Federal
agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of any
designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act under which consultation is completed. Federal agencies must
consult with the Service on actions that may affect critical habitat
and must avoid destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Federal agencies must also consult with us on actions that may affect a
listed species and refrain from undertaking actions that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of such species. The analysis of
effects to critical habitat is a separate and different analysis from
that of the effects to the species. Therefore, the difference in
outcomes of these two analyses represents the regulatory benefit of
critical habitat. For some species (including Ambrosia pumila), and in
some locations, the outcome of these analyses will be similar, because
effects to habitat will often also result in effects to the species.
However, the regulatory standard is different, as the jeopardy analysis
investigates the action's impact to survival and recovery of the
species, while the adverse modification analysis investigates the
action's effects to the designated habitat's contribution to
conservation. This will, in many instances, lead to different results
and different regulatory requirements. Thus, critical habitat
designations may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a species
than would listing alone.
Critical habitat may provide a regulatory benefit for Ambrosia
pumila when there is a Federal nexus present for a project that might
adversely modify critical habitat. A Federal nexus generally exists
where land is federally owned, or where actions proposed on non-Federal
lands require a Federal permit or Federal funding. In the absence of a
Federal nexus, the regulatory benefit provided through Section 7
consultation under the Act does not exist. Clearly, any activities
affecting designated critical habitat on Federal land would trigger a
duty to consult under Section 7. In contrast, the potential of a
Federal nexus for activities proposed on non-Federal lands varies
widely and depends on the particular circumstances of each case.
Nevertheless, because the breadth of potential Federal actions that may
trigger a duty to consult under Section 7 is quite broad, we cannot say
with certainty that future development of, or activities on non-Federal
lands will always lack a Federal nexus. However where there is no
discernable Federal nexus on non-Federal lands we propose to designate
as critical habitat, we consider the regulatory benefit of designation
of those non-Federal lands to be small.
Any protections provided by critical habitat that are redundant
with protections already in place also reduce the benefits of inclusion
in critical habitat. Other protections, such as may be provided by HCPs
or conservation and management, may prevent the destruction or adverse
modification of habitat to the same or greater extent as would the
consultation provisions under section 7(a) of the Act for critical
habitat.
The County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan dictates that occurrences
of A. pumila will be protected by impact avoidance measures required
under the County's BMO. Narrow endemic plants, including A. pumila, are
conserved under the BMO using a process that:
(1) Requires avoidance to the maximum extent feasible;
(2) Restricts encroachment into a population not already conserved
to a maximum of 20 percent if total avoidance is not feasible; and
(3) Requires in-kind mitigation at 1-to-1 to 3-to-1 ratios for
impacts if avoidance and minimization of impacts would preclude
reasonable use of the property (County of San Diego 1997, p. 11;
Service 1998, p. 12).
None of the lands in Subunit 5B are federally owned and only a
portion of the lands in Unit 7 are federally owned. (We are not
considering exercising our discretion to exclude the federally owned
portions of Unit 7.) We are not aware of any current or future Federal
nexus on the non-Federal lands in Subunit 5B and Unit 7.
Approximately 52 ac (21 ha) of Subunit 5B are within the Crosby at
Rancho Santa Fe preserve area and have been conserved and are managed
in accordance with the Crosby at Rancho Santa Fe Habitat Management
Plan (Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2008, pp. 1-6), which includes ongoing
monitoring and management (such as conducting regular surveys of
sensitive species including Ambrosia pumila, managing weeds, conducting
erosion control activities, installing and maintaining fencing and
signage, removing trash, and enhancing public awareness of the
preserve). Because this 52 ac (21 ha) portion of Subunit 5B is already
permanently protected and managed to benefit A. pumila, we believe the
regulatory benefit of designating this area as critical habitat is
redundant with the protections already in place. As noted above, there
is also little likelihood of a future Federal nexus in the conserved
portion of Subunit 5B. The lack of a discernable Federal nexus combined
with the redundancy of Federal protections afforded by designation with
those already in place under the Crosby at Rancho Santa Fe Habitat
Management Plan, render the regulatory benefit of designating the
conserved portion of Subunit 5B negligible and insignificant.
In contrast to the 52 ac (21 ha) conserved and managed portion of
Subunit 5B, neither the remaining portion of Unit 5B nor the portion of
Unit 7 that is not federally owned is currently conserved and managed
under the County of San Diego's MSCP Subarea Plan. As discussed above,
the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan dictates that occurrences of
A. pumila both inside and outside of the PAMA will be protected by
impact avoidance measures required under the County's BMO using a
process that requires avoidance to the maximum extent feasible;
restricts encroachment into a population not already conserved to a
maximum of 20 percent if total avoidance is not feasible; and requires
in-kind mitigation if avoidance and minimization of impacts would
preclude reasonable use of the property (County of San Diego 1997, p.
11; Service 1998, p. 12).
We anticipate that the portions of Unit 7 that are not federally
owned and the unconserved portion of Subunit 5B may eventually be
protected under the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan as the BMO is
applied to future development. However, these areas are currently not
conserved and managed and remain vulnerable to threats, including
competition from non-native plant species and human encroachment as
discussed above in the Special Management Considerations or Protection
section. In addition, the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan does
allow for some impacts to the species and its habitat where avoidance
is not feasible. We recognize that the regulatory benefit of
designating the portion of Unit 7 that is not federally owned and the
currently unconserved portion of Subunit 5B is partially
[[Page 74569]]
redundant with the anticipated protection and management of these areas
for the benefit of A. pumila under the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea
Plan. However, because conservation and management are not yet in place
and protection under the County's BMO may not be coextensive with the
protections afforded by critical habitat in these areas, we believe
there is some regulatory benefit to designation of these areas
notwithstanding the existing and anticipated protections under the
County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. Because the likelihood of a
future Federal nexus in these areas is remote, we believe this
regulatory benefit is small and not significant.
Designating critical habitat also can be beneficial because the
process of proposing critical habitat provides the opportunity for peer
review and public comment on lands we propose to designate as critical
habitat, our criteria to assess those lands, potential impacts from the
proposal and information on the taxon itself. We believe the
designation of critical habitat may generally provide previously
unavailable information to the public. Public education regarding the
potential conservation value of an area may also help focus
conservation and management efforts on areas of high conservation value
for certain species. Information about Ambrosia pumila and its habitat
that reaches a wide audience, including parties concerned about and
engaged in conservation activities, is also valuable because the public
may not be aware of documented (or undocumented) A. pumila occurrences
that have not been conserved or are not being managed.
Because the 52 ac (21 ha) portion of Subunit 5B is already
permanently conserved and is actively managed for the benefit of
Ambrosia pumila, there is little educational benefit to designation of
this area.
Designating as critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila Unit 7 and the
portion of Subunit 5B that is not conserved will identify areas
essential for the conservation and recovery of A. pumila and in doing
so, provide an educational component that is a significant benefit to
the conservation of A. pumila. The educational information contained in
this rule provides information that can be used by the public to learn
about A. pumila and its essential habitat in Unit 7 and the currently
unconserved portion of Unit 5B and that can refine the broader
conservation goals for A. pumila under the County of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan by focusing conservation on the specific areas essential
for the recovery of the species.
The designation of Ambrosia pumila critical habitat may also
strengthen or reinforce some of the provisions in other State and
Federal laws, such as CEQA or NEPA. These laws analyze the potential
for projects to significantly affect the environment. In the County of
San Diego, the additional protections associated with critical habitat
may be beneficial in areas not currently conserved. Critical habitat
would signal the presence of sensitive habitat that could otherwise be
missed in the review process for these other environmental laws. In the
case of CEQA, this could be a benefit, since CEQA may require
protection of essential habitat if its destruction would constitute a
significant environmental effect. However, this benefit is a minor
benefit in the case of NEPA, because NEPA does not require project
proponents to protect sensitive habitat. The potential ancillary
benefits under other laws of critical habitat designation would be
higher in Unit 7 and the currently unconserved portion of Subunit 5B
because A. pumila and its habitat are not protected and managed in
these areas. The ancillary benefits of designation would be negligible
in the 52 ac (21 ha) conserved portion of Subunit 5B because the
species and its essential habitat in that area are protected and
managed.
In summary, we believe that the regulatory benefit of designating
critical habitat under section 7(a) of the Act is small in Unit 7 and
in the portion of Subunit 5B that is not conserved and managed. While
the regulatory benefits of designation in these areas are only
partially redundant with existing and anticipated protections for
Ambrosia pumila provided under the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea
Plan, the regulatory benefit is lower because of the uncertainty of a
future Federal nexus for activities that could adversely affect
essential habitat for A. pumila on these lands. We believe that the
regulatory benefit of designation in Unit 7 and in the portion of
Subunit 5B that is not conserved and managed is not significant. We
consider the educational benefit of designation of Unit 7 and the
unconserved and unmanaged portion of Subunit 5B to be significant
because designation will help focus conservation efforts for this
species under the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan on these
specific essential habitat areas and educate the public about the
importance of these areas for the conservation of A. pumila. There are
also potential ancillary benefits from other laws that would result
from designation of Unit 7 and the unconserved portion of Unit 5B. In
the 52 ac (21 ha) portion of Subunit 5B that is conserved and managed,
we believe the benefits of critical habitat designation are not
significant. The regulatory benefit of designation in this area is
redundant with protection provided by the conservation and management
of the area, and because this area is already conserved and managed,
the public education and ancillary benefits are also insignificant. We
conclude that among the lands proposed as critical habitat that are
covered by the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, the educational
benefit of designation of Unit 7 and the portion of Subunit 5B that is
not conserved and managed is significant, and the regulatory and
ancillary benefits of designating these areas are small and not
significant. The regulatory, educational and ancillary benefits of
designating the 52 ac (21 ha) conserved and managed portion of Subunit
5B are negligible.
Benefits of Exclusion--County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
We believe benefits would be realized by forgoing designation of
critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila on lands covered by the County of
San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan including:
(1) Continuance and strengthening of our effective working
relationships with all MSCP jurisdictions and stakeholders to promote
conservation of Ambrosia pumila and its habitat;
(2) Allowance for continued meaningful collaboration and
cooperation in working toward protecting and recovering this species
and the many other species covered by the subarea plan, including
conservation benefits that might not otherwise occur;
(3) Encouragement for local jurisdictions to fully participate in
the MSCP; and
(4) Encouragement of additional HCP and other conservation plan
development in the future on other private lands for this and other
federally listed and sensitive species, including incorporation of
protections for plant species which is voluntary because the Act does
not prohibit take of plant species.
The County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan provides substantial
protection and management for Ambrosia pumila and the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and
addresses conservation issues from a coordinated, integrated
perspective rather than a piecemeal, project-by-project approach (as
would occur under sections 7 and 9 of the Act or smaller
[[Page 74570]]
HCPs). Therefore it is important that we encourage participation in
such plans and encourage voluntary coverage of listed plant species in
such plans. Many landowners perceive critical habitat as an unfair and
unnecessary regulatory burden given the expense and time involved in
developing and implementing complex regional and jurisdiction-wide
HCPs, such as the MSCP and County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan.
Exclusion of the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan lands from
critical habitat would help preserve the partnerships we developed with
the County of San Diego in the development of the MSCP and the County
of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, and foster future partnerships and
development of future HCPs, and in particular HCPs that include
protections for listed plants, such as A. pumila.
In summary, we believe that excluding land covered by the County of
San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan from critical habitat will provide the
significant benefit of maintaining existing regional HCP partnerships
and fostering new ones.
Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--County of
San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and benefits of
exclusion for lands within the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
area (approximately 494 ac (200 ha) in Subunits 5B, 7A, 7B, and 7C) as
critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila. The benefits of including
conserved and managed lands in the critical habitat designation are
small. Approximately 52 ac (21 ha) of land in Subunit 5B are conserved
and managed. We do not believe that critical habitat designation for A.
pumila will provide significant regulatory, educational, or ancillary
benefits for this area. In contrast, the designation as critical
habitat of essential habitat for A. pumila in the non-federally owned
portions of Unit 7 and the unconserved portion of Subunit 5B will
provide a significant educational benefit and may provide some
regulatory and ancillary benefits for the species and its habitat.
Neither of these areas is currently both conserved and managed to
benefit A. pumila. Therefore designation of these areas may provide a
significant educational benefit by focusing conservation efforts under
the County of San Diego Subarea Plan on habitat for A. pumila, both
within and outside the PAMA, which is essential for the recovery of the
species. We also anticipate some regulatory benefit from designation of
Unit 7 and the unconserved portion of Subunit 5B in the unlikely
circumstance that a Federal nexus exists in connection with activities
on these lands and some ancillary benefit from other laws such as CEQA
and NEPA.
Excluding Unit 7 and all of Subunit 5B from critical habitat
designation will further our existing partnerships with permittees
under the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan and encourage future
voluntary conservation efforts for this species by relieving landowners
of any additional regulatory burden stemming from designation. We
consider this a significant benefit of excluding these lands.
In summary, we find that excluding lands from critical habitat
areas that are receiving long-term conservation and management for the
purpose of protecting Ambrosia pumila (52 ac (21 ha) in Subunit 5B)
will preserve our partnership with the County of San Diego and other
permittees of the MSCP and encourage the conservation of lands
associated with development and implementation of future HCPs. These
partnership benefits are significant and outweigh the small potential
regulatory, educational, and ancillary benefits of including those
lands in critical habitat for A. pumila. We find that including lands
as critical habitat that are not yet receiving long-term conservation
and management (Subunits 7A, 7B, and 7C, and portions of Subunit 5B
that are not conserved) will provide additional regulatory protection
under section 7(a) of the Act if there is a Federal nexus, and will
provide a significant educational benefit by focusing conservation
efforts by the County of San Diego under the County of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan on conservation and management of these specific essential
habitat areas for A. pumila and educating the public about the
importance of these areas for the conservation of this species.
Designation may also result in some ancillary benefits under other
laws. Therefore, designating these areas as critical habitat for A.
pumila will provide significant educational as well as some regulatory
and ancillary benefits to the species. While we acknowledge that
excluding these areas under section 4(b)(2) of the Act would provide a
significant benefit to the partnership that we have with the County of
San Diego and other permittees under the MSCP, we believe that the
significant educational along with the potential regulatory and
ancillary benefits to conservation of the species and its essential
habitat in Unit 7 and the unconserved portion of Subunit 5B of
including these lands as critical habitat outweighs the benefit of
exclusion. Therefore we have not exercised our delegated discretion to
exclude these areas.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Portions of
Subunits 5B, County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
We determined that exclusion of 52 ac (21 ha) of land in Subunit 5B
within the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan planning area from the
final critical habitat designation for Ambrosia pumila will not result
in extinction of the species. This area is permanently conserved and
managed to provide a benefit to A. pumila and its habitat. The jeopardy
standard of section 7 of the Act provides assurances that the species
will not go extinct as a result of exclusion from critical habitat
designation where habitat is occupied by A. pumila or other federally
listed species. Therefore, based on the above discussion, we have
determined to exercise our delegated discretion to exclude
approximately 52 ac (21 ha) of land in Subunit 5B covered under the
County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan.
Economics
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we prepared a draft economic analysis, which
we made available for public review on (May 18, 2010; 75 FR 27690),
based on the August 27, 2009, proposed rule (74 FR 44238). We accepted
comments on the draft analysis until May 17, 2010. Following the close
of the comment period, a final analysis of the potential economic
effects of the designation was developed taking into consideration the
public comments and any new information.
The intent of the final economic analysis (FEA) is to quantify the
economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for Ambrosia
pumila; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of
whether we designate critical habitat (baseline). The economic impact
of the final critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing
scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and ``without critical
habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the
baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for
the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State,
and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs
incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The
``with critical habitat''
[[Page 74571]]
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental
conservation efforts and associated impacts are those not expected to
occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the species. In
other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat above and beyond the baseline costs;
these are the costs we consider in the final designation of critical
habitat. The analysis looks retrospectively at baseline impacts
incurred since the species was listed, and forecasts both baseline and
incremental impacts likely to occur during the 20 year period following
the designation of critical habitat. This period was determined to be
the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning
information was available for most activities to forecast activity
levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe.
The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with
residential and commercial development and public projects and
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether
the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group
or economic sector.
The final economic analysis determined that the costs associated
with critical habitat for A. pumila, across the entire area considered
for designation (both designated and excluded areas), are primarily a
result of residential and commercial development and transportation and
utility projects. The incremental economic impact of designating
critical habitat was estimated to be $8,990 over the next 20 years
using a 7 percent discount rate (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2010, p.
ES-9). Based on the 2010 final economic analysis, we concluded that the
designation of critical habitat for A. pumila, as proposed in 2009 and
as finalized in this rule, would not result in significant small
business impacts and no areas are expected to experience
disproportionate economic impacts as a result of the designation. We
have not exercised our delegated discretion to exclude any areas from
this critical habitat designation for economic reasons. A copy of the
final economic analysis with supporting documents may be obtained by
contacting the Carlsbad Field Office (see ADDRESSES) or for downloading
from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed rule
to designate critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila during two comment
periods. The first comment period opened with the publication of the
proposed rule in the Federal Register on August 27, 2009 (74 FR 44238),
and closed on October 26, 2009. The second comment period opened with
the publication of the notice of availability of the Draft Economic
Analysis (DEA) in the Federal Register on May 18, 2010 (75 FR 27690)
and closed on June 17, 2010. During the public comment periods, we
contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific
organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment
on the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for A. pumila and
the associated DEA. During the comment periods, we requested all that
interested parties submit comments or information related to the
proposed critical habitat, including (but not limited to) the
following: Reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat''; information that may assist us in clarifying or
identifying more specific PCEs; the appropriateness of designating
critical habitat for this species; the amount and distribution of A.
pumila habitat included in this proposed rule; what areas are essential
to the conservation of the species; unit boundaries and methodology
used to delineate the areas proposed as critical habitat; land use
designations and current or planned activities in the areas proposed as
critical habitat; economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area; issues with the exclusions being
considered under section 4(b)(2) of the Act; special management
considerations; how to improve public outreach during the critical
habitat designation process; and whether the benefit of an exclusion of
any particular area outweighs the benefit of inclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act.
During the first comment period, we received nine comment letters,
two from peer reviewers and seven from public organizations or
individuals. During the second comment period we received 4 comment
letters addressing the proposed critical habitat designation and the
DEA. All four of these latter comment letters were from public
organizations or individuals. We did not receive any requests for a
public hearing. We appreciate all peer reviewer and public comments
submitted and their contributions to the improvement of the content and
accuracy of this document.
Peer Review
In accordance with our Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species
Act Activities, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited
expert opinions from four knowledgeable individuals with scientific
expertise that includes familiarity with Ambrosia pumila, the
geographic region in which it occurs, and conservation biology
principles. Two peer reviewers submitted responses that included
additional information, clarifications, and suggestions that we
incorporated into the final critical habitat rule.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information regarding the
designation of critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila. All comments are
addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule
as appropriate.
Peer Reviewer's Comments
Comment 1: One peer reviewer noted that it is important to be
careful and conservative in our designation of the critical habitat for
Ambrosia pumila to protect as many occurrences as possible to ensure
the long-term viability of the species. This is important because there
are critical questions about the ecology and habitat requirements that
remain unanswered, and we do not have enough information to confidently
extend the critical habitat designation far beyond the known
occurrences of this species.
Our Response: The approach recommended in this peer reviewer's
comment mirrors the approach we used in designating critical habitat
for Ambrosia pumila. See Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
section above.
Comment 2: One peer reviewer suggested that data such as distance
to water source could help expand the critical habitat of this species
to areas outside of where it is known to occur, and pointed out that
these data are available for three of the seven proposed critical
habitat units (CNLM 2008, p. 7).
Our Response: According to our GIS analysis conducted during the
development of the proposed critical habitat rule, distance to water
source is very inconsistent throughout the range of the species. Using
GIS data we estimated the distance between
[[Page 74572]]
Ambrosia pumila and associated waterways for over 30 A. pumila patches,
and the results ranged from approximately 330 ft (100 m) to over 2,400
ft (750 m). Because of the wide range of results, distance to water
source was not included as part of the finalized criteria or
methodology used to designate critical habitat.
Comment 3: One peer reviewer stated that it would be helpful to
know how many and which occurrences were removed in step (3) of the
Methods section in the proposed critical habitat rule (74 FR 44245).
Our Response: The CNDDB Element Occurrence numbers that were
removed in step (3) of the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
section above are Element Occurrence numbers 11, 24, and 29.
Comment 4: One peer reviewer noted that there may be some
particular circumstances where an occurrence should be protected even
if it does not protect the full life history of the species.
Our Response: We attempted to designate sites that protect the full
life history of Ambrosia pumila, as such sites will provide the
greatest conservation benefit for the species. Some of the sites we
designated may not provide for all life history requirements of the
species. Also, sites occupied by the species that did not meet the
criteria set forth for this critical habitat designation may still
contribute to the conservation and recovery of the species.
Comment 5: One peer reviewer noted that to better make an informed
decision about the process of the critical habitat delineation, it
would be helpful to know the extent to which each step refined the
critical habitat.
Our Response: After eliminating many CNDDB Element Occurrences from
consideration in step (1) of our methodology due to these being
extirpated or nonnatural occurrences (transplants), we further refined
the proposed critical habitat by removing three areas (CNDDB Element
Occurrence numbers 11, 24, and 29) where the species occurs in habitat
of low quality for growth and propagation. After adding area to each
unit or subunit to account for the underground rhizomes that extend
beyond the visible extent of the above-ground stems, we further refined
the proposed critical habitat by removing habitat types inappropriate
for the species and developed areas. See the Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat section above for a more detailed description of the
steps we followed to delineate critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila.
Comment 6: One peer reviewer stated that there should be a clear
goal of how many occurrences will be protected.
Our Response: In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
propose as critical habitat, we consider those physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species that may require
special management considerations or protection. We consider the
physical and biological features to be the PCEs laid out in the
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for the conservation of
the species. Although the peer reviewer's request is to protect a
certain number or percentage of occurrences, such an approach would not
be consistent with the conservation purpose of critical habitat
designation. Therefore, goals of how many occurrences will be protected
are not outlined in this rule.
Comment 7: One peer reviewer requested information on how many of
the known extant Ambrosia pumila occurrences are protected in the seven
critical habitat units, what percentage of the existing Ambrosia pumila
occurrences will be protected by this critical habitat designation, and
what percentage of the existing population (percent of total stems)
will be protected by this critical habitat designation.
Our Response: Each critical habitat subunit corresponds with one
CNDDB Element Occurrence of Ambrosia pumila; thus, the final critical
habitat designation for this species includes all or portions of 9
occurrences of A. pumila (or 63 percent of the 16 currently known
extant occurrences of A. pumila) (some portions of the area containing
occurrences have been excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
Although critical habitat designation does not guarantee protection of
a species in an area designated as critical habitat, it is a regulatory
mechanism that can aid in the recovery of a species. All or portions of
9 occurrences of A. pumila will receive additional regulatory
protection. We do not have range-wide data sufficient to estimate the
total number of Ambrosia pumila aerial stems in 2010 or any year prior;
therefore, we are unable to determine what percent of total stems are
included in this critical habitat designation.
Comment 8: One peer reviewer noted that on p. 44248 of the proposed
critical habitat rule, under the heading ``Unit 2: Skunk Hollow Vernal
Pool Watershed,'' sentence three should read, ``Unit 2 consists of
approximately 118 ac (48 ha) of privately owned land owned and managed
by Center for Natural Lands Management that is also protected by a
Conservation Easement held by the California Department of Fish and
Game.''
Our Response: We have revised this sentence in the unit description
in this final rule.
Comment 9: One peer reviewer noted that the USGS 7.5' quadrangle
maps used as a base layer for the maps published with the proposed
critical habitat for A. pumila are obsolete due to recent urban
development that has occurred since the maps were published. The peer
reviewer suggested we use a more recent road map or aerial photograph
that they believe would better depict the boundaries of the units and
allow photos for a more constructive evaluation of the units.
Our Response: We use the most recent data available to create our
critical habitat maps. However, we may remove some roads and other
features to avoid creating maps that are too complex or unclear. If
roads appear to be missing from critical habitat maps, it is not
because we have used outdated maps that do not have more recently built
roads, but rather because we removed those roads in order to maintain
clarity.
Comment 10: One peer reviewer noted that the description of basic
biology and current knowledge about Ambrosia pumila is detailed and
accurate.
Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewer's comment.
Comment 11: One peer reviewer agreed with our determination that
including unoccupied habitat in the critical habitat designation for
Ambrosia pumila is not warranted. The peer reviewer stated they believe
there are too many gaps in the knowledge of habitat requirements for
this species, and that adding unoccupied habitat to that designated as
critical habitat would potentially far exceed what is necessary to
adequately protect this species.
Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewer's insight and
critical review of our analysis of areas considered essential to the
conservation of the species.
Comment 12: One peer reviewer expressed concern that the
methodology for determining potential habitat for Ambrosia pumila does
not adequately account for the down-slope, stream, or drainage
dispersal of seeds or rhizomes. The peer reviewer noted that although
it is reasonable to assume that flooding or runoff would carry seeds
and rhizomes beyond the designated areas, the amount is difficult to
quantify.
[[Page 74573]]
Alternatively, the peer reviewer stated that accounting for the down-
slope, stream, or drainage dispersal of seeds or rhizomes may not be an
issue if the down-slope areas are adequately protected under a local
HCP.
Our Response: Not enough information is available to determine what
down-slope, stream, or drainage areas might be essential to the
conservation of this species or to what extent current drainage systems
affect the distribution and survival of the species. We likewise have
no direct evidence that seeds or rhizomes are currently dispersed (or
are dispersible in the case of the rhizomes) by current annual drainage
events. Therefore, we did not specifically include these areas in the
critical habitat designation (although some down-slope or drainage
areas may overlap with areas included in the designation), and we were
not able to assess whether relevant HCPs adequately protected the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of A.
pumila in these unoccupied areas.
Comment 13: One peer reviewer expressed concern that some of the
proposed exclusion areas contained within the Western Riverside County
MSHCP may overstate the degree of protection that any area is likely to
receive since the protected areas are not clearly defined at this time.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act authorizes the Secretary
to designate critical habitat after taking into consideration the
economic impacts, national security impacts, and any other relevant
impacts 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 designating a particular
area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate will result
in the extinction of the species. We believe the exclusions made in
this final rule are legally supported under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
and scientifically justified. After analyzing the benefits of inclusion
and exclusion of proposed critical habitat units and subunits on lands
covered under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, we determined that
the benefits of exclusion outweighed the benefits of inclusion for Unit
2 because this area is conserved and managed (see Weighing Benefits of
Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--Western Riverside County MSHCP
section above). Service biologists continue to work with the County of
Riverside and permittees of the HCP to ensure that A. pumila and its
habitat receive the full extent of protections anticipated by the
Western Riverside County MSHCP.
Comment 14: One peer reviewer expressed concern regarding the
potential exclusion of Subunit 3A (Santa Gertrudis Creek) because they
believe this area could potentially be eligible for Federal funds
related to the San Diego Aqueduct. The peer reviewer also expressed
concern regarding the exclusion of Unit 5A, which the reviewer believes
may conflict with necessary conservation associated with Federal funds
directed toward the adjacent Interstate 15.
Our Response: The probability of a project with a Federal nexus
occurring in Subunit 3A is uncertain; we do not know if Federal funds
will be used for future maintenance of the San Diego Aqueduct (see
Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--Western
Riverside County MSHCP); however, we have not excluded Subunit 3A from
this critical habitat designation. We have not excluded any part of
Subunit 5A from this critical habitat designation; therefore, the peer
reviewer's concern regarding potential conflicts with necessary
conservation associated with Federal funds directed toward the adjacent
Interstate 15 is no longer an issue.
Comments From Representatives of Local Jurisdictions
Comment 15: One commenter stated that since Ambrosia pumila is a
covered species under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, lands covered
by this HCP should be excluded from the critical habitat designation
because the HCP provides adequate protection for the species. The
commenter asserted that including land covered by the Western Riverside
County MSHCP in the critical habitat designation for Ambrosia pumila
would be in violation of section 6.9 of the Western Riverside County
MSHCP and section 14.10 of the associated Implementing Agreement, while
exclusion of these lands would be consistent with Home Builders
Association of Northern California v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(E.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2006) Case No. 05-629-WBS-KJMA, which upheld the
exclusion of Western Riverside County MSHCP lands from critical habitat
for 15 vernal pool species, finding that the exclusion was a reasonable
exercise of Service discretion.
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) of the Act. 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 Ambrosia pumila by
the Western Riverside County MSHCP during our exclusion analysis in
this critical habitat designation, and have determined that the
benefits of excluding in areas owned by or under the jurisdiction of
Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees do not outweigh the benefits
of including Unit 1 and 3 because these areas are not conserved and
managed. However, we also determined 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 (Unit 2)
outweigh the benefits of including those lands as critical habitat for
A. pumila (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 section 14.10 of the
associated Implementing Agreement, the Implementing Agreement does not
preclude critical habitat designation within the plan area (Dudek 2003,
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 critical
habitat for Ambrosia pumila, we determined through our analysis under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act that exclusions under the Western Riverside
County MSHCP are 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 (Unit 2). The Western
Riverside County MSHCP does not specifically identify which lands will
be conserved and managed and allows lands which may be essential for A.
pumila to be developed as long as the Plan's overall goals for
conservation are achieved over the term of the permit. As a result, the
exclusion from critical habitat of all lands within the boundary of the
Western Riverside County
[[Page 74574]]
MSHCP would be premature and potentially not assist in conservation of
A. pumila (see Benefits of Exclusion--Western Riverside County MSHCP
section above for a detailed discussion of the exclusion analysis).
Comment 16: One commenter asserted that since the Service has
maintained in previous critical habitat rules that the benefits of
excluding Western Riverside County MSHCP lands outweigh the benefits of
including this HCP in the designation, not excluding lands covered by
this HCP in the designation of critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila
would be arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure
Act (5 U.S.C. 701 et seq.). Further, the commenter cited several
examples of past critical habitat designations wherein the Service has
excluded lands covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP, and
detailed the reasoning used by the Service to justify these exclusions.
Our Response: We agree that the Service has in the past excluded
Western Riverside County MSHCP lands from critical habitat
designations. We do not agree that designating critical habitat on
lands covered under the Western Riverside County MSHCP is arbitrary and
capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because we have a
reasoned basis for our decision. Section 3(5)(A) of the Endangered
Species Act defines critical habitat, in part, as areas containing
physical or biological features that may require special management
considerations or protection, while section 4(b)(2) directs the
Secretary to consider the impacts of designating such areas as critical
habitat and provides the Secretary with discretion to exclude
particular areas if he determines that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion. In this rule, we considered the
protection and management of particular areas covered by the Western
Riverside County MSHCP that meet the definition of critical habitat in
our exclusion analyses under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Upon weighing the benefits of inclusion against benefits of
exclusion, we determined the benefits of excluding 118 ac (48 ha) owned
by or under the jurisdiction of permittees of the Western Riverside
County MSHCP in Unit 2 outweigh the benefits of including this area in
the final critical habitat designation. Further, we determined that
exclusion of this area will not result in extinction of Ambrosia
pumila. Therefore, we excluded Unit 2 from this final critical habitat
designation (see the ``Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County MSHCP)'' subsection
under the Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above).
Comment 17: One commenter stated that the establishment of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP was intended, in part, to replace the
need for critical habitat, not to implement an additional layer of
regulation. The commenter stated that this was the reason all of these
stakeholders, including private parties such as the Building Industry
Association, agreed to support the establishment of this HCP. If the
Service includes lands covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP in
the critical habitat designation for Ambrosia pumila, the commenter
believes the Service would be establishing a precedent that there was
no reason behind the work and effort that the County of Riverside and
other stakeholders invested in initially creating the Western Riverside
County MSHCP. Thus, the commenter believes that not excluding lands
covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP from the critical habitat
designation for A. pumila would dissuade creation of future HCPs.
Our Response: We appreciate the efforts of the many local
jurisdictions and other stakeholders in developing the Western
Riverside County MSHCP. Those efforts are anticipated to result in
significant protection for numerous species including Ambrosia pumila
under the plan, including conservation of A. pumila habitat in a
reserve system (the Conservation Area), protection for A. pumila
habitat within the Criteria Area and the Narrow Endemic Plant Species
survey area), avoidance and minimization measures, and management for
A. pumila and its habitat on lands covered by the Western Riverside
County MSHCP in Units 1, 2, and 3. However, we have examined the
current protections afforded A. pumila by the Western Riverside County
MSHCP during our exclusion analysis in this critical habitat
designation, and have determined that the benefits of excluding Units 1
and 3 from critical habitat do not outweigh the benefits of including
Unit 1 and 3 because these areas are not conserved and managed, and
therefore the regulatory, educational and ancillary benefit of critical
habitat designation of these areas outweighs the partnership benefits
furthered by their exclusion. We also determined that the benefits of
excluding lands in Unit 2 which are conserved and managed outweigh the
benefits of including those lands as critical habitat for A. pumila
(see Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--
Western Riverside County MSHCP section above).
Comment 18: One commenter submitted comments opposing the
designation of critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila on lands covered by
the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan under the MSCP. The commenter
asserted that sensitive plant and wildlife species covered by the
County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan and their habitats are conserved
to the maximum extent practicable under this HCP, and that designation
of critical habitat on lands covered by the County of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan would not add more protection for A. pumila, but could add
economic burdens on County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan participants.
The commenter goes on to state that portions of Unit 7 that are not
already preserved are covered by the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea
Plan.
Our Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns regarding what
the commenter believes is the maximum protection afforded to Ambrosia
pumila under the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan and realize that
Unit 7 (and portions of Subunit 5B that are not already preserved) are
covered by the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. Although not
specifically stated by the commenter, their comment indicates they
believe:
(1) The benefits of exclusion would be higher than the benefits of
inclusion because the existing protections provide adequate protection
to Ambrosia pumila to date, and the economic burden on participants
would be high; and
(2) The benefits of inclusion (nonredundant protections provided by
critical habitat designation) are less because conservation actions
mandated by the HCP are already in place and are being implemented.
Conservation benefits provided by existing HCPs are not considered
a benefit of exclusion because they would remain in place regardless of
critical habitat designation; however, they do minimize the benefits of
inclusion to the extent they are redundant with protection measures
that would be provided by a critical habitat designation. With regard
to the commenter's assertion that lands owned or under the jurisdiction
of the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan 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) of the Act. Exclusion of an area from critical
[[Page 74575]]
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
analytical process.
We have examined the protections afforded Ambrosia pumila by the
County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan during our exclusion analysis in
this critical habitat designation, and have determined that the
benefits of exclusion in areas covered under the County of San Diego
MSCP Subarea Plan do not outweigh the regulatory, educational and
ancillary benefits of including Unit 7 and the portion of Subunit 5B
that is not conserved because these areas are not conserved and
managed. However, we also determined that the benefits of excluding
lands in areas under the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan that are
conserved and managed (portion of Subunit 5B) outweigh the benefits of
including those lands as critical habitat for A. pumila (see Weighing
Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--County of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plan section above).
With regard to the commenter's statement that critical habitat
designation for Ambrosia pumila could add economic burdens on County of
San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan participants, section 4(b)(2) of the Act
states that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat, and make
revisions thereto, under subsection (a)(3) on the basis of the best
scientific data available and after taking into consideration the
economic impact, the impact to national security, and any other
relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
In accordance with 50 CFR 424.19, in conducting an impact analysis of
critical habitat, the Secretary shall identify any significant
activities that would either affect an area considered for designation
as critical habitat or be likely to be affected by the designation, and
shall, after proposing designation of such an area, consider the
probable economic and other impacts of the designation on proposed or
ongoing activities. The Secretary may exclude any area from critical
habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh
the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat,
unless he determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data
available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the species concerned. Therefore,
consistent with the Act and our implementing regulations, we must
consider the relevant impacts of designating areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat prior to finalizing a critical habitat
designation.
After determining which areas met the definition of critical
habitat for Ambrosia pumila under section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we took
into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national
security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area
as critical habitat for this species. In this final designation, we
recognize that designating critical habitat in areas where we have
partnerships with landowners that have led to conservation or
management of listed species on non-Federal lands has a relevant,
perceived impact to landowners and a relevant impact to future
partnerships and conservation efforts on non-Federal lands. Economic
impacts are benefits of exclusion that are evaluated in an exclusion
analysis. The commenter provided no data to support the assertion that
designating critical habitat on lands owned by or under the
jurisdiction of draft North County MSCP permittees could add economic
burdens on potential North County MSCP participants. According to the
Final Economic Analysis completed for this critical habitat
designation, the economic impact of this designation on landowners is
not expected to be significant.
Comment 19: One commenter opposed designating critical habitat for
Ambrosia pumila on lands covered by the draft North County MSCP. The
commenter asserted that sensitive plant and wildlife species
anticipated to be covered by the draft North County MSCP and their
habitats will be conserved to the maximum extent practicable under this
HCP, and that designation of critical habitat on lands that will be
covered by the draft North County MSCP would not add more protection
for A. pumila, but could add economic burdens on potential North County
MSCP participants. The commenter goes on to state that the A. pumila
populations within the County's jurisdiction along the San Luis Rey
River (Units 4A and 4B) are within the Pre-approved Mitigation Area
(PAMA) of the draft North County MSCP and would be subject to the
proposed Narrow Endemic Policy.
Our Response: We did not consider exercising our delegated
discretion to exclude any habitat from this critical habitat
designation that falls within the plan area of an HCP where an
incidental take permit has not yet been issued because until we have
reviewed the completed HCP and issued an incidental take permit, we do
not know whether the protections afforded the species under the draft
plan are adequate or will be implemented.
After determining which areas met the definition of critical
habitat for Ambrosia pumila under section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we took
into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national
security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area
as critical habitat for this species. According to the Final Economic
Analysis completed for this critical habitat designation, the economic
impact of this designation on landowners is not expected to be
significant and we declined to exercise our delegated discretion to
exclude any areas based on economic impacts. The commenter provided no
data to support the assertion that designating critical habitat on
lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of draft North County MSCP
permittees could add economic burdens on potential North County MSCP
participants. Therefore, we disagree with the commenter's assertion
that lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of draft North County
MSCP permittees should be excluded because of possible economic
impacts.
Other Comments:
Comment 20: One commenter stated that the values in Tables 3 and 4
either do not match summary totals in the text of the proposed rule, or
are presented awkwardly and cause confusion. The commenter suggested
that we correct the figures if they are in error, or present them in a
clearer format allowing readers to match figures in the text to figures
in tables.
Our Response: We agree that the manner in which data were presented
in Tables 3 and 4 could be confusing to the reader. We removed these
tables from the final rule, and have presented this data in text only
to alleviate confusion.
Comment 21: One commenter submitted comments on behalf of an
organization which, as a whole, supports designation of critical
habitat within HCPs, but in the case of the City and County of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plans under the MCSP, acknowledges there may be some
merit to the argument that excluding MSCP lands will benefit
coordination with stakeholders, and that the City and County Subarea
Plans are already offering benefits to covered species, including
Ambrosia pumila. Additionally, the commenter stated that rare plant
protection mechanisms were already in place prior to protections
afforded under the MSCP, and there are serious efforts to implement the
MSCP, at least at the County level.
Our Response: Exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act consider
the
[[Page 74576]]
benefits of partnerships together with numerous other factors to
determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion. In our exclusion analyses for the City and County of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plans, we reviewed the goals and objectives that
provide beneficial conservation measures for Ambrosia pumila that are
redundant with conservation measures provided by critical habitat
designation, and therefore would reduce the benefits of inclusion in
critical habitat. When considering the benefits of exclusion, we
consider a variety of factors, including but not limited to whether the
plan is finalized (i.e., approved by all parties) and if there is a
reasonable expectation that conservation management strategies and
actions will be implemented into the future (see Exclusions under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above for further discussion). We
determined that the benefits of exclusion do not outweigh the benefits
of inclusion of essential habitat covered by the City and County of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plan with the exception of those lands that are both
conserved and managed. See the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation
Program (MSCP)--City and County of San Diego's Subarea Plans section
above for the exclusion analyses for the City and County of San Diego
MSCP Subarea Plans.
Comment 22: One commenter believes that critical habitat
designations within HCP lands are reasonable and prudent and exclusions
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act should not be given for HCP lands.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act authorizes the Secretary
to designate critical habitat after taking into consideration the
economic impacts, national security impacts, and any other relevant
impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary is vested with discretion to exclude any particular area from
critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of designating the area as critical habitat,
unless the failure to designate will result in the extinction of the
species. We believe the exclusions made in this final rule are legally
supported under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and scientifically
justified. The commenter specifically addressed exclusions where HCPs
are in place. Areas excluded under section 4(b)(2) based on completed
HCPs or other Service-approved management plans typically receive long-
term protection and conservation under their HCPs or management plans.
As discussed above, we fully considered and weighed the benefits to the
conservation of Ambrosia pumila in determining whether to exclude from
critical habitat designation any particular area of essential A. pumila
habitat within an HCP area (see response to Comments 13 though 19
above, and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section for
further discussion on the exclusion analyses for the Western Riverside
County MSHCP, City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan under the MSCP, and
County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan under the MSCP).
Comment 23: One commenter opposed excluding lands under the Western
Riverside County MSHCP, stating that coordination is poor, habitat
continues to degrade at rates equal to or exceeding rates when the
Western Riverside County MSHCP was adopted, and it is not clear that
there is a serious effort in Western Riverside County to implement the
plan (at least in terms of rare plant conservation).
Our Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns regarding
adequate protection of Ambrosia pumila under the Western Riverside
County MSHCP. We have determined that the benefits of excluding lands
owned by or under the jurisdiction of Western Riverside County MSHCP
permittees outweigh the benefits of inclusion only in Unit 2, which is
both conserved and managed. Coordination between the Service and the
managers of the land in Unit 2 (CNLM) is ongoing and has resulted in
research and conservation actions for the benefit of Ambrosia pumila
onsite and elsewhere. The remaining Subunits in Western Riverside
County (Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, and 3B) have not been excluded from this
designation, and thus will receive the benefits of critical habitat
designation under the Act. We therefore believe the commenter's concern
regarding excluding lands covered under the Western Riverside County
MSHCP is no longer an issue. We will continue to monitor the Western
Riverside County MSHCP implementation on the status of A. pumila in
other areas owned by or under the jurisdiction of Western Riverside
County MSHCP permittees, and work with HCP permittees and landowners to
continue and improve implementation of the Western Riverside County
MSHCP.
Comment 24: One commenter 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 commenter's concerns regarding the
long-term recovery of Ambrosia pumila. Although not specifically stated
by the commenter, 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. However, the Secretary is vested with broad
discretion under Section 4(b)(2) in evaluating whether the benefits of
excluding an area from critical habitat designation outweigh the
benefits of designating the area, so long as exclusion of an area will
not result in extinction of a species. We consider a number of factors
in a section 4(b)(2) analysis, including (but not limited to) the
protections afforded for a species and its essential habitat under an
HCP, whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat,
particularly partnerships that include voluntary protections for listed
plant species in an HCP or other management plan, and the economic,
regulatory and educational impacts of including a particular area as
critical habitat. 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 City of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, and the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
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 25: One commenter 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.
A second commenter 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
[[Page 74577]]
strategic goal is to recover or stabilize an endangered species.
Our Response: 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 exclude an area from critical habitat 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.
See the Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above for a
detailed discussion.
We found the benefits of excluding lands that are both conserved
and managed under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the City of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, and the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
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 26: One commenter stated that the Service should not
exclude HCPs from critical habitat because critical habitat is a
Federal tool for conserving species and their habitats and by excluding
HCPs we are depriving Federal agencies opportunities to conserve
species.
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. In instances where the critical habitat is unoccupied, there
may be additional benefit in that the Federal agency is required to
consult under section 7 of the Act if its proposed action would affect
critical habitat. With regard to areas that are within the boundaries
of an HCP, exclusions are 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. In the areas that
we are excluding from this final rule (lands that are both conserved
and managed), 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 have excluded (see the Exclusions under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act section above for details).
Comment 27: One commenter noted that the information on the life
history and geographical range in the proposed rule appears to be
accurate overall, but also noted that more detailed editing of the text
would greatly improve the readability of the Life History and
Geographic Range and Status sections of the proposed rule.
Our Response: We appreciate the commenter's critical review.
However, the commenter did not specify how or what portions of the text
in these sections should be edited, nor what could be improved for
clarity/readability. However, we thank the commenter for their
suggestion, and have reevaluated the information provided in the
proposed critical habitat rule and believe that it is complete, clear,
and accurate based on the best information available.
Comment 28: One commenter suggested that the descriptions of the
critical habitat units be expanded to provide more detail on the
distribution of Ambrosia pumila within these units. This commenter
suggested that we describe in detail the current conditions and land
use practices within these localities, and note potential threats, even
at localities with Western Riverside County MSHCP or HCP reserve or
reserve study areas.
Our Response: Regarding the distribution of Ambrosia pumila within
critical habitat units/subunits, we presume each unit/subunit to be
entirely occupied by the species; areas not occupied by aerial stems
are presumed to be occupied by rhizomes (see Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat section above). Therefore, a discussion of the
distribution of A. pumila plants within each unit/subunit is not
needed. Regarding the description of current conditions, land use
practices, and potential threats within each unit, we provided all
information we are aware of in this final critical habitat designation.
Any additional relevant details received during the comment periods
have been incorporated into this final rule where appropriate.
Comment 29: One commenter noted that the acreage figures between
Table 1 and Table 2 appear to be different than the 41.4 ac (16.8 ha)
of occupied habitat for this species in Unit 1A; Table 2 notes that
there are 58.3 ac (23.6 ha) of occupied habitat.
Our Response: Each column in Table 2 of the proposed rule was
intended to present a separate set of data; the acreages should not sum
across each row. We understand that the presentation used was
confusing, and have attempted to make presentation of all data as clear
as possible in this final critical habitat rule.
Comment 30: One commenter believes that text in the proposed
critical habitat rule fails to mention the distribution of Ambrosia
pumila within proposed Subunit 1A. The commenter further states that
from Table 1 it would appear that 56 percent of this habitat is already
within County-owned property that will be a reserve area. The commenter
suggests that the text clearly note whether the occurrence is within
County or private property.
Our Response: As stated above in our response to Comment 28, we
presume each unit/subunit to be entirely occupied by the species; areas
not occupied by aerial stems are presumed to be occupied by rhizomes
(see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section above). The
boundaries of all critical habitat subunits represent our estimation of
the underground extent of the Ambrosia pumila rhizome of each
occurrence. Therefore, a discussion of the distribution of A. pumila
plants within each unit/subunit is not needed and we believe the
species occupies 100 percent of Subunit 1A, approximately 23 ac (10 ha)
of which is on County property and 18 ac (7 ha) of which is on private
property (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat above, and our
response to Comment 29).
Comment 31: One commenter stated that the description of critical
habitat units should clearly note any current or future threats to
Subunit 1A, if there is any planned expansion of Lake Street, and if
this or other projects could further fragment the clones found at this
locality and how this could affect the viability of the clonal stands
found within this subunit.
Our Response: In our description of Subunit 1A we have included all
known threats to the habitat in this subunit. We are not aware of a
planned expansion of Lake Street or any other proposed project at this
site, and thus how any future project that we are not aware of could
affect the species in this area.
Comment 32: One commenter stated that the text in the proposed
critical
[[Page 74578]]
habitat rule should note current land use practices and threats in
proposed Subunits 1B and 3A. The commenter pointed out that lands on
the south side of Nichols Road (Subunit 1B) are often disked, and lands
on the north side of Nichols Road are subject to OHV activity and trash
dumping.
Our Response: In our description of Subunits 1B and 3A, we included
all known land use practices and threats to the habitat in this subunit
that we are aware of (see Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County MSHCP) section
above). We appreciate the additional information provided by the
commenter regarding activities in Subunit 1B that impact Ambrosia
pumila habitat, and we have incorporated this information into this
final rule where appropriate.
Comment 33: One commenter believes the expansion of Nichols Road is
a likely possibility; thus, further analysis is needed to determine the
viability of Subunit 1B if only the 1.1 ac (0.5 ha) within the Criteria
Area is retained as occupied habitat for this species. The commenter
believes it will be difficult to complete any expansion of Nichols Road
without major impacts to at least one of the clonal units in Subunit
1B.
Our Response: The City of Lake Elsinore informed us that the
Nichols Road expansion project will avoid the above-ground portion of
the Ambrosia pumila occurrence in that area (T. Weiner. pers. comm.
2009). Service biologists will continue to work with the City of Lake
Elsinore to avoid impacts to all parts of this occurrence of Ambrosia
pumila as the proposed Nichols Road expansion project goes forward. See
the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
section for further discussion on this exclusion analysis.
Comment 34: One commenter suggested that since Subunit 3A is not
proposed to be included within a reserve, further analysis on the
viability of this subunit should be provided. The commenter believes
there is no justification for excluding this locality from critical
habitat if it is not managed within a reserve because the site could be
developed (once Western Riverside County MSHCP provisions for Ambrosia
pumila have been met).
Our Response: We have determined that the benefits of excluding
Subunit 3A from this designation do not outweigh the benefits of
inclusion because this area has not been conserved and is not managed;
therefore the commenter's concern is no longer an issue (see the
``Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(Western Riverside County MSHCP)'' subsection under the Exclusions
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above).
Comment 35: One commenter requested clarification as to whether the
land in Subunit 3A is owned or under easement by Metropolitan Water
District or a private landowner.
Our Response: According to the best available information we have
regarding land ownership within Subunit 3A, these lands are not owned
or under easement held by Metropolitan Water District.
Comment 36: One commenter stated that the size and distribution of
Ambrosia pumila patches in Subunit 3A should be noted within the text.
Our Response: The boundaries of the critical habitat subunits
represent our estimation of the underground extent of the Ambrosia
pumila rhizome for each occurrence. Therefore, it is our estimation
that A. pumila occupies 100 percent of Subunit 3A (see Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat, and our responses to Comments 30 and 32
above).
Comment 37: One commenter stated that more explanation should be
provided on the implications of the last column in Table 2, as it
appears to the commenter that the majority of the proposed critical
habitat in Western Riverside County is not within an existing reserve
or proposed reserve area (criteria area), and thus there would be
little protection for any of these localities, except County-owned
lands in Subunit 1A, and the CNLM-managed lands in Unit 2. (The
commenter believes there is a potential argument for excluding the
lands within Unit 2 because there is current management at this
locality.)
Our Response: A more thorough explanation of protections afforded
habitat in each unit/subunit of proposed critical habitat for Ambrosia
pumila in Western Riverside County is provided in the final rule (see
the ``Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan'' section above). With regard to our exclusion analysis for the
Western Riverside County MSHCP, 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 complex analytical
process. We found the benefits of excluding lands covered by the
Western Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 2 to be greater than the
benefits of including these lands in the critical habitat designation
because this area has been conserved and is managed, and exclusion will
not result in extinction of Ambrosia pumila; the commenter's concern
is, therefore, no longer an issue. For more information, see the
Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above for a
detailed discussion.
Comment 38: One commenter stated that more details are required on
potential fragmentation, potential infrastructure impacts and the
``importance'' of the clonal populations on County of Riverside lands
versus private lands.
Our Response: We appreciate the information provided by the
commenter; however, the amount of detail requested by the commenter to
be added to the final rule was not necessary for the purpose of
designating critical habitat. Therefore, this additional information
was not incorporated.
Comment 39: One commenter stated that considering the current land
use management practices and proposed reserve protection of only 1.6
percent of the occupied acreage ``at this locality'', there appears to
be little justification for excluding this locality from critical
habitat designation. Further, the commenter states that the Western
Riverside County MSHCP is to conserve two known localities of Ambrosia
pumila (near Lake Street (within Subunit 1A) and near Nichols Road
(within Subunit 1B)), which could easily lead to the loss of the clones
at the other sites in western Riverside County considered suitable for
critical habitat designation. The commenter also states that landowner
participation within the Western Riverside County MSHCP is voluntary
and generally not requested for any property outside of the criteria
areas.
Our Response: It is unclear what specific area of Western Riverside
County the commenter was referring to as ``this locality''; however, we
appreciate the commenter's concerns regarding adequate protection of
Ambrosia pumila under the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Although not
specifically stated by the commenter, their comment indicates they
believe that the benefits of inclusion (non-redundant protections and
education provided by critical habitat designation) are greater than
the benefits of exclusion because conservation actions mandated by the
HCP are inadequate.
We have found the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
including land in the critical habitat designation only where lands are
both conserved and managed (Unit 2); therefore the commenter's concern
is no
[[Page 74579]]
longer an issue. Please refer to the Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act section, and our response to Comments 13 through 17 above
for further discussion on the benefits of exclusion for the Western
Riverside County MSHCP. We will continue to monitor the Western
Riverside County MSHCP implementation on the status of Ambrosia pumila.
Comment 40: One commenter asserted that the final critical habitat
rule may not exclude essential habitat covered by other conservation
mechanisms. The commenter stated that HCPs utilize a different part of
the Act--Section 10, and allow for the ``take'' of species including
Ambrosia pumila and are not a substitute for the designation of
critical habitat, which focuses on the recovery of species.
Our Response: We respectfully disagree with the comment. Section
4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate and revise
critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data
after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security
impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area
as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical
habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh
the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat,
unless he determines, based on the best scientific data available, that
the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in
the extinction of the species. In making that determination, the
legislative history is clear that the Secretary has broad discretion
regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any
factor.
It is appropriate under Section 4(b)(2) to consider the effect of
critical habitat designation on our ability to maintain existing
partnerships and encourage future partnerships to conserve listed
species, including partnerships with local jurisdictions and other
stakeholders to develop HCPs. We note that the Act does not prohibit
take of listed plant species and HCPs developed under Section 10 of the
Act in support issuance of incidental take permits for listed animal
species are not required to include protections for listed plant
species. Thus, we believe it is particularly relevant and appropriate
to evaluate the impacts of critical habitat designation under Section
4(b)(2) on our ability to encourage development of HCPs and other
management plans that voluntarily include protections for listed plant
species such as Ambrosia pumila. For more information, see response to
Comments 13 through 17 and the Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act section above for a detailed discussion.
Comment 41: One commenter stated that the Service should not
exclude habitat within the plan area of HCP permits that are not yet
issued such as the City of Oceanside's Subarea Plan under the
Northwestern San Diego County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan. They
argued draft plans provide no guarantee that the final HCPs will
provide adequate species conservation.
Our Response: We did not exclude any habitat from this 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
critical habitat designation (74 FR 44238) and the associated NOA
announcing the DEA (75 FR 27690, May 18, 2010).
Comment 42: One commenter stated that the draft proposed critical
habitat is not adequate to inform a decision as important as the
designation of critical habitat for A. pumila.
Our Response: Because little is known about the biology and life
history of Ambrosia pumila at this time, it is difficult to construct a
critical habitat designation that we can be certain fully addresses the
needs of the species. However, we are mandated to complete and publish
a critical habitat designation for this species by a court-ordered
deadline (see Previous Federal Actions section of this rule). This
final critical habitat designation is based on the best available
scientific and commercial data as well as information we obtained
during the public comment periods.
Comment 43: One commenter believes the proposed rule is fatally
flawed because the agency fails to consider all currently occupied
habitat. The commenter believes it is incumbent upon the Service to re-
examine all of the extant populations and include a critical habitat
designation for each of them, not just those known at the time of
listing, in the critical habitat designation. Another commenter stated
that no justification is given as to why all extant CNDDB Element
Occurrences were not included in the proposed critical habitat
designation.
Our Response: All currently occupied and formerly occupied habitat
(including all extant CNDDB Element Occurrences) was considered for
designation as critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila, and all
occurrences were included in the proposed 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).
Extant occurrences not proposed as critical habitat in the proposed
rule were reevaluated prior to publication of the NOA. Based on
additional information provided for our analysis, we determined that
one occurrence (Gird/Monserate Hill; Subunit 4D) previously analyzed
for the proposed rule meets the definition of critical habitat and it
was added to the proposed critical habitat designation as identified in
the NOA. Additionally, two occurrences of which we were not aware until
after the publication of the proposed rule were also added to the
proposed critical habitat designation as identified in the NOA.
We recognize that the designation of critical habitat may not
include all of the habitat that may eventually be determined to be
necessary for the recovery of Ambrosia pumila, and critical habitat
designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is
unimportant or may not contribute to recovery. Areas outside the final
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 A. pumila; these protections and
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this
species.
Comment 44: One commenter believes that all areas occupied by
Ambrosia pumila clearly support all of the PCEs, because they support
A. pumila.
Our Response: Critical habitat designations identify habitat areas
that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (areas on which
are found the PCEs laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial
arrangement essential to the conservation of the species). Based on the
best available commercial and scientific information available, we are
unable to be more specific about the PCEs for Ambrosia pumila due to
the lack of information available regarding the biology and life
history of the species. Therefore, we are unable to determine whether
areas containing transplant occurrences and occurrences highly impacted
by human
[[Page 74580]]
activities sufficiently support the biology and life history of the
species. For this reason, we have not included these areas in the final
critical habitat designation.
Comment 45: One commenter noted that according to the CNDDB (2009),
several extant occurrences of Ambrosia pumila are completely absent in
the critical habitat designation, including Element Occurrence 54
(which is 0.5 mi (0.8 km) southeast of Steele Peak) and Element
Occurrence 57 (which is adjacent to the west end of Santiago Road, just
west of Murrieta Creek).
Our Response: We were not aware of Element Occurrence 57 until
after the proposed critical habitat rule was completed. Upon evaluation
of the new information received and evaluated, we included a critical
habitat subunit (Subunit 3B) in the proposed critical habitat
designation, as described in the NOA that published on May 18, 2010 (75
FR 27690). Service and CDFG staff attempted to locate and map Element
Occurrence 54 during a site visit in 2009 (A. Folarin, pers. comm.
2009); however, the occurrence was not found and was thus presumed to
be extirpated. Other extant occurrences were not proposed as critical
habitat because they were 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).
Comment 46: One commenter believes the Service ignored the recovery
goal of critical habitat by failing to include additional and adjacent
habitat that may not currently be occupied, but could provide an
opportunity for Ambrosia pumila recovery. This commenter believes that
without critical habitat, A. pumila has a reduced chance of persisting
and recovering, citing Taylor et al. 2005. 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 rule).
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 Ambrosia pumila).
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.
Based on the best available commercial and scientific information
available, we are unable to be more specific about the PCEs for
Ambrosia pumila due to the paucity of information available regarding
the biology and life history of the species. We believe we have, to the
best of our ability, determined and designated all habitat areas that
are essential to the conservation of the species. We recognize that the
designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat that
may eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of A.
pumila, and critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat
outside the designation is unimportant or may not contribute to
recovery. Areas outside the 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 A. pumila; these
protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to
recovery of this species.
Comment 47: One commenter noted that models are available that
specifically address conservation designs to ensure rare species
persistence (Burgman et al. 2001). The commenter recommended
implementation of this type of modeling to improve the methodology used
to delineate the areas proposed as critical habitat. Another commenter
noted that a relatively recent scientific approach to identifying the
size of plant conservation areas takes into consideration multiple
variables including life strategy, disturbance probability, potential
habitat, population size, recovery from disturbance, habitat
suitability, predation, and competition (Burgman et al. 2001). This
commenter believes that these types of factors are all critical
components when establishing critical habitat needs for species and
strongly recommends that the Service implement a similar modeling
effort for Ambrosia pumila.
Our Response: Models such as those discussed by Burgman et al.
(2001) are useful in identifying target areas for conservation. We have
used different types of models to help us identify critical habitat for
several federally-listed species. For Ambrosia pumila, we have chosen
to identify areas where the species is known to occur rather than use a
model due to the fact that we would have had difficulty defining the
parameters of the model in a way that would have produced meaningful
results due to the of paucity of information available regarding the
biology and life history of the species. By using the methods described
in this final rule, the designation of critical habitat will contribute
to the conservation of this species (see Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat section).
Comment 48: One commenter believes that if an exclusion is
contemplated, then consideration must be given not only to the species
extinction thresholds, but also to species recovery standards during
critical habitat designations.
Our Response: The process for evaluating the exclusion of an area
from critical habitat is defined in and governed by Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act. As discussed above, that Section vests the Secretary with
broad discretion to consider any relevant factor in determining whether
the benefits of excluding a particular area from designation as
critical habitat outweigh the benefits of designating the area, so long
as exclusion of the area would not result in extinction of the species.
We recognize that the designation of critical habitat may not
include all of the habitat that may eventually be determined to be
necessary for the recovery of Ambrosia pumila, and critical habitat
designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is
unimportant or may not contribute to recovery. Areas outside the
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 A. pumila; these protections and
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this
species. 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 Ambrosia pumila). 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 (with
[[Page 74581]]
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, while critical habitat designations identify
specific areas that are essential for the species' conservation.
Comment 49: One commenter stated that connectivity needs to be
included and fragmentation avoided, and based on the paucity of
knowledge about the reproductive mechanisms, and the documented genetic
diversity within studied populations (McGlaughlin and Friar 2005), a
conservative approach to connectivity especially between adjacent
populations is prudent.
Our Response: To include areas in the critical habitat designation
that increase connectivity between areas occupied by Ambrosia pumila,
we would need to determine what unoccupied areas are essential to the
conservation of the species and the function of these areas in the life
history of the species. This rule describes our best understanding at
this time of the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of A. pumila. Due to the lack of information available
regarding the biology and life history of the species, we are unable to
determine how such unoccupied areas would support the biology and life
history of the species, and where they should be located. Therefore, we
are unable to include unoccupied areas in between adjacent populations.
Because relatively little is known about the biology and life
history of Ambrosia pumila at this time, it is difficult to construct a
critical habitat designation that we can be certain addresses every
need of the species. However, we are mandated to complete and publish a
critical habitat designation for this species by a court-ordered
deadline (see Previous Federal Actions section of this rule). This
final critical habitat designation is based on the best available
scientific and commercial data as well as information we obtained
during the public comment periods.
Comment 50: One commenter stated that the Service needs to include
all occupied habitat in the Economic Analysis (and final critical
habitat rule), and not rely on the proposed critical habitat as the
basis for the Economic Analysis.
Our Response: The purpose of the Economic Analysis is to identify
and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the
designation of critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila. Occupied areas not
proposed as critical habitat are outside the scope of the Economic
Analysis, as they are not expected to be impacted by the designation.
Comment 51: One commenter stated that areas that require special
management considerations that are covered or will be covered in the
future by management plans or conservation plans should not be excluded
pursuant to section 3(5)(A) or 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Our Response: 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 critical
habitat designation, because the associated HCPs and management plans
afford protection to the excluded areas, and because of the benefits of
preserving partnerships and encouraging development of additional HCPs
and other conservation plans in the future. For more information, see
the Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above for a
detailed discussion.
Comment 52: One commenter stated 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.
Our Response: In some instances, it may not be appropriate to
exclude areas from critical habitat based on a management plan. We
review each area that we consider for exclusion on an individual basis
and base our conclusion on the results of the analysis conducted in
accordance with a section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Our analysis is based on
weighing the benefits of excluding the area from the critical habitat
designation against the benefits of including the area in the critical
habitat designation, and typically includes consideration of the
conservation of the species and its habitat achieved under an HCP or
other management plan. Please see the Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act section for a detailed discussion of our analyses of those
areas we considered for exclusion in the proposed critical habitat
designation (74 FR 44238, August 27, 2009) and the NOA announcing the
availability of the DEA (75 FR 27690, May 18, 2010).
Comment 53: One commenter stated that whether habitat does or does
not require special management is not determinative of whether 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.
Our Response: We agree with the commenter that prong one of the
definition of critical habitat in Section 2 of the Act only requires
that an area contain an essential physical or biological feature that
``may require'' special management considerations; it does not require
an absolute finding that the area requires special management. Prong
two of the definition of critical habitat does not require a finding
that special management is 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 designation.
Comment 54: One commenter stated that recent scientific reports
support the conservation all of the Ambrosia pumila populations
(McGlaughlin and Friar 2005, Machearn et al. 2006, Hierl et al. 2007).
They stated that conservation of A. pumila should include the
maintenance of multiple populations throughout the species range.
Our Response: We believe we have designated all habitat areas that
we are able to determine are essential to the conservation of the
species at this time. We recognize that the designation of critical
habitat may not include all of the habitat that may eventually be
determined to be necessary for the recovery of Ambrosia pumila, and
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not contribute to recovery. Areas
outside the 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 A. pumila; these protections and
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this
species.
Comment 55: One commenter stated a belief that Ambrosia pumila
definitely needs critical habitat designated for it. The commenter goes
on to note that at Sweetwater Gorge, the County of San
[[Page 74582]]
Diego has an area fenced to preserve this plant which is full of weeds;
and the plant did not have a chance. The commenter believes that we
need not only designated habitat but a way to keep areas open for this
plant, so it will survive.
Our Response: We thank the commenter for the information provided
regarding this Ambrosia pumila occurrence. Over-competition from
nonnative plant species is a threat to A. pumila throughout its range.
Insuring the implementation of management actions needed to maintain A.
pumila habitat is beyond the scope of this critical habitat
designation. However, Service biologists are working with partners in
San Diego and Riverside counties to recover A. pumila and insure
management and monitoring of the species and its essential habitat.
Comments Regarding the Draft Economic Analysis
General Comments Regarding Assumptions
Comment 56: One comment states that assumptions in the draft
economic analysis (DEA), such as the discount rate, should be revised
in light of current economic conditions, citing reductions in home
prices and rates of development.
Our Response: The DEA quantifies reductions in private land values
associated with avoidance requirements, which reflects the market's
evaluation of the future development potential of a parcel given this
encumbrance. This expectation reflects long-term development potential,
periods over which housing market fluctuations historically have and
will continue to occur. The market value of parcels is determined by
adjusting assessed values to current values using the OFHEO Home Price
Index. Over the last three years the index indicates reductions in home
prices ranging from 7 to 32 percent in Riverside County and 8 to 18
percent in San Diego County. Thus, property values reflect current
housing market conditions in these areas. Finally, with respect to the
discount rate(s) applied in the analysis, 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). In the DEA these rates provide a means to present impacts on an
annual basis and do not affect their absolute magnitude.
Comment 57: One comment states that the DEA inappropriately
includes and does not clearly define potential costs associated with
time delays, regulatory uncertainty, and stigma.
Our Response: Chapter 2 of the DEA defines these categories of
costs to provide context for EAs in general. Data are not available to
investigate and quantify any potential costs associated with these
categories in the DEA. Rather, costs are associated directly with
avoidance requirements and associated reductions in developable land
value.
Comment 58: One comment states that the DEA understates
consultation costs in terms of costs, time and opportunity costs.
Our Response: The DEA presents a range of consultation costs based
on a broad review of consultation records from several Service field
offices around the country. Absent specific information on consultation
costs for the Ambrosia pumila, the average of this range of costs
represents the best available estimate at this time.
Impacts to Private Lands
Comment 59: One comment states in multiple sections that the DEA
fails to acknowledge planned, approved and ongoing development projects
in the Alberhill and Nichols Road subunits (1A and 1B). In addition,
the DEA does not rely on the most current property value information
for these areas, does not account for property value losses on parcels
adjacent to designated areas, does not quantify associated regional
economic impacts in terms of jobs and wages, and does not acknowledge
additional constraints such as affordable housing requirements.
Our Response: As suggested by the commenter, the City of Lake
Elsinore was contacted to determine the status of these projects and
relevance of ambrosia conservation measures. The planning department
was unable to readily identify these projects and provide requested
information regarding status, value, permitting, and the potential for
a Federal nexus in a reasonable timeframe. However, the DEA provides
estimates of potential losses in market value associated with these
parcels, which partially reflect any limitations on future development
potential. Additional text describing the concerns raised in the
comment and subsequent discussions with the City have been added to the
final economic analysis (FEA).
Impacts to Infrastructure Projects
Comment 60: One comment states that the DEA fails to recognize the
I-15 ``multi-modal widening project'' in the Alberhill and Nichols Road
subunits.
Our Response: The DEA estimates incremental impacts for all
properties, including those within Subunits 1A and 1B (Alberhill and
Nichols Road respectively). Although the project in question was not
discussed specifically, incremental impacts to properties in Subunits
1A and 1B that would occur in the event of a project with a Federal
nexus were calculated and included in the DEA.
Comment 61: One comment states that the Mission Trails Region Park
unit (Unit 6) overlaps with an infrastructure easement for a water
pipeline. The commenter is concerned that the designation may result in
additional section 7 consultations over and above those that would
result under its proposed HCP.
Our Response: While GIS data were not available to confirm overlap,
it does appear that a portion of the easement is within the boundaries
of the Mission Trails unit. Padre Dam Municipal Water District along
with Helix Water District, Sweetwater Authority, and Otay Water
District is in the process of developing a Joint Water Agencies Natural
Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP or
plan). The plan will govern project location, development, maintenance,
and operation of the parties' water delivery facilities. Ambrosia
pumila is identified as a covered species under the proposed plan. We
have not formally reviewed the proposed plan and determined whether to
issue an incidental take permit under Section 10 of the Act to the
water agencies. However, as part of our anticipated review of the water
agencies' permit application, we must conduct an internal consultation
under Section 7 of the Act to insure that the proposed permit is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of A. pumila, and will not
adversely modify any designated critical habitat for this species.
Assuming the project meets applicable statutory standards under Section
7 and Section 10, we will issue an incidental take permit based on the
protections provided under the plan for the covered species, including
A. pumila. Because we will have evaluated the effects of the water
agencies' anticipated activities on A. pumila and its designated
critical habitat within the plan area as part of our review of the
proposed NCCP/HCP, future Section 7 consultations, if any, that may
occur with regard to A. pumila designated critical habitat are not
anticipated to result in additional restrictions on or mitigation for
the water agencies' activities beyond the measures provided under the
NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the DEA does not forecast additional costs
[[Page 74583]]
associated with conservation efforts to maintain the district's water
delivery facilities.
Benefits of Designation
Comment 62: One comment states that the potential slowing of
development as a result of the designation and corresponding reduction
in infrastructure needs has a benefit in reducing greenhouse gases.
This benefit should be included in the DEA.
Our Response: Whether the proposed designation will have a
measurable impact on greenhouse gas emissions is uncertain, both
because of the absence of specific information on the nature and extent
of future development in designated areas and because projects may find
alternate locations, redistributing emissions geographically without
producing a net reduction. Finally, the Service has stated previously
that the underlying causes of climate change are complex global issues
that are beyond the scope of the Act (see 74 FR 56070). Thus, the
potential for such benefits is not discussed in the DEA.
Comment 63: One comment states that the DEA fails to quantify
benefits associated with open space, aesthetics, and educational
opportunities and does not recognize benefits associated with improving
water quality and quantity and preservation of habitat for other
species.
Our Response: As described in Chapter 4 of the DEA, the purpose of
critical habitat is to support the conservation of the Ambrosia pumila.
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 rule, other
ancillary benefits that are not the stated objective of critical
habitat (such as those identified by the commenter) may occur. However,
because these benefits are not associated with the stated goals of the
rule (i.e., conservation of the species) they do not inform the
designation decision.
Comment 64: One comment states that the DEA fails to identify
referenced studies that have estimated the public's willingness to pay
for endangered species and open space preservation.
Our Response: Richardson and Loomis (2009; Ecological Economics 68,
p. 1535-1548) present a meta-analysis of 31 studies that estimate the
value of threatened, endangered and rare species. Similarly, McConell
and Walls (2005) provide an overview of the extensive literature on the
value of open space: http://www.rff.org/Publications/Pages/PublicationDetails.aspx?PublicationID=9562.
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 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 (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA
amended RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In this final rule, we are certifying that the critical
habitat designation for Ambrosia pumila 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; as well as small businesses. 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 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 consider the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the 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 critical habitat for Ambrosia
pumila 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 only affects activities authorized,
funded, or carried out 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 authorize, fund, or carry out
that may affect Ambrosia pumila. Federal agencies also must consult
with us if their activities may affect critical
[[Page 74584]]
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 critical habitat designation,
we evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities
resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the
designation of critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila. The analysis is
based on the estimated impacts associated with the rulemaking as
described in sections 2 and 3 of the analysis and evaluates the
potential for economic impacts related to: Commercial and residential
development and transportation and utility projects (Industrial
Economics, Inc. 2010, p. 1-6). The FEA estimates the total incremental
impacts associated with development as a whole to be $0 to $8,990 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 (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2010, pp. A-3-A-5).
The other category of projects either will have no impacts
(transportation and utility) or are Federal, State, or public entities
not considered small or exceed the criteria for small business status.
Please refer to our final economic analysis of critical habitat
designation for A. pumila 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 annualized impact to each entity identified in the
analysis was estimated to be approximately $225. 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
as identified in the FEA (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2010, p. A-3-A-5).
Therefore, we are certifying that the designation of critical habitat
for Ambrosia pumila 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:
(a) 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 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.
(b) As discussed in the FEA of the proposed designation of critical
habitat for Ambrosia pumila, 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. Consequently, we do not believe that the 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 critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila in a takings
implications assessment. Critical habitat designation does not affect
landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits and
the removal or destruction of listed plant species such as A. pumila
does not require issuance of a Federal incidental take permit. The
designation of critical habitat for A. pumila 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 and Department of
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated
development of this proposed 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. This information does not alter where and what
federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist these
local governments in long-range planning.
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.
[[Page 74585]]
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 Ambrosia
pumila.
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 Ambrosia pumila. Therefore, critical
habitat for A. pumila is not being designated on tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O.
13211; Actions Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare
Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Based on
an analysis conducted for this designation, we determined that the
final designation of critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila 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 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
0
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 ``Ambrosia pumila (San Diego
ambrosia)'' under family Asteraceae to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
---------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Ambrosia pumila................ San Diego ambrosia U.S.A. (CA), Asteraceae......... E.................. 727 17.96 NA
Mexico.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 74586]]
0
3. In Sec. 17.96(a), add an entry for ``Ambrosia pumila (San Diego
ambrosia)'' in alphabetic order under family Asteraceae to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Asteraceae: Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia).
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Riverside and San Diego
Counties, California, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements (PCE) for
Ambrosia pumila are:
(i) PCE 1--Sandy loam or clay soils (regardless of disturbance
status), including (but not limited to) the Placentia (sandy loam),
Diablo (clay), and Ramona (sandy loam) soil series that occur on or
near (up to several hundred meters from but not directly adjacent to) a
river, creek, or other drainage, or within the watershed of a vernal
pool, and that occur on an upper terrace (flat or gently sloping areas
of 0 to 42 percent slopes are typical for terraces on which Ambrosia
pumila occurrences are found).
(ii) PCE 2--Grassland or ruderal habitat types, or openings within
coastal sage scrub, on the soil types and topography described in PCE
1, that provide adequate sunlight, and airflow for wind pollination.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures existing
on the effective date of this rule and not containing one of 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 Ambrosia pumila
(San Diego ambrosia) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 74587]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30NO10.213
(6) Unit 1: Santa Ana River Watershed, Riverside County,
California.
(i) Subunit 1A: Alberhill (Lake Street). From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle Alberhill, land bounded by the following Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)
coordinates (E, N): 463686, 3731715; 463700, 3731686; 463720, 3731646;
463716, 3731644; 463729, 3731595; 463760, 3731582; 463782, 3731595;
463814, 3731641; 463886, 3731662; 463886, 3731649; 463787, 3731553;
463823, 3731472; 463814, 3731470; 463800, 3731468; 463786, 3731467;
463772, 3731467; 463757, 3731467; 463743, 3731468; 463729, 3731470;
463715, 3731473; 463701, 3731476; 463687, 3731480; 463684, 3731482;
463668, 3731487; 463658, 3731491; 463653, 3731493; 463650, 3731494;
463643, 3731498; 463626, 3731504; 463609, 3731512; 463606, 3731513;
463589, 3731523; 463575, 3731532; 463568, 3731536; 463565, 3731539;
463559, 3731544; 463555, 3731547; 463546, 3731555; 463529, 3731572;
463521, 3731580; 463514, 3731589; 463501, 3731607; 463491, 3731625;
463483, 3731641; 463479, 3731650; 463477, 3731653; 463475, 3731658;
463471, 3731671; 463465, 3731693; 463464, 3731699; 463467, 3731698;
463480, 3731696; 463496, 3731713;
[[Page 74588]]
463509, 3731725; 463524, 3731739; 463548, 3731743; 463563, 3731732;
463661, 3731718; thence returning to 463686, 3731715. Continue to
463692, 3732048; 463718, 3732037; 463768, 3732026; 463824, 3732016;
463861, 3732009; 463916, 3732007; 463940, 3732008; 463960, 3732009;
464014, 3732012; 464040, 3732016; 464046, 3732009; 464054, 3731998;
464062, 3731986; 464068, 3731974; 464070, 3731971; 464071, 3731969;
464074, 3731962; 464080, 3731949; 464084, 3731936; 464088, 3731923;
464092, 3731910; 464094, 3731896; 464096, 3731883; 464097, 3731869;
464098, 3731856; 464098, 3731842; 464097, 3731828; 464095, 3731815;
464093, 3731802; 464090, 3731789; 464086, 3731776; 464081, 3731763;
464076, 3731751; 464071, 3731739; 464068, 3731734; 464064, 3731727;
464058, 3731715; 464056, 3731713; 464009, 3731786; 463961, 3731829;
463909, 3731858; 463881, 3731872; 463883, 3731805; 463875, 3731807;
463798, 3731811; 463797, 3731677; 463737, 3731653; 463731, 3731686;
463720, 3731746; 463718, 3731748; 463717, 3731750; 463718, 3731754;
463719, 3731756; 463690, 3731916; 463615, 3731934; 463595, 3731939;
463577, 3732046; 463573, 3732046; 463571, 3732055; 463582, 3732063;
463596, 3732066; 463615, 3732066; 463641, 3732062; 463665, 3732057;
thence returning to 463692, 3732048.
(ii) Subunit 1B: Nichols Road. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle Lake
Elsinore, land bounded by the following UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 466525, 3729671; 466527, 3729663; 466525, 3729648; 466520,
3729639; 466517, 3729631; 466515, 3729619; 466517, 3729609; 466525,
3729603; 466531, 3729605; 466542, 3729615; 466543, 3729628; 466542,
3729639; 466540, 3729658; 466538, 3729667; 466538, 3729671; 466544,
3729674; 466548, 3729670; 466551, 3729656; 466555, 3729647; 466561,
3729637; 466566, 3729631; 466569, 3729625; 466569, 3729622; 466565,
3729616; 466559, 3729613; 466555, 3729607; 466555, 3729600; 466558,
3729592; 466563, 3729586; 466573, 3729586; 466580, 3729589; 466589,
3729589; 466594, 3729586; 466603, 3729577; 466610, 3729562; 466611,
3729550; 466613, 3729539; 466622, 3729531; 466631, 3729528; 466621,
3729517; 466609, 3729506; 466596, 3729495; 466589, 3729490; 466549,
3729462; 466543, 3729457; 466528, 3729448; 466513, 3729440; 466498,
3729433; 466482, 3729427; 466466, 3729422; 466461, 3729420; 466437,
3729416; 466398, 3729412; 466363, 3729411; 466339, 3729413; 466254,
3729494; 466239, 3729510; 466203, 3729537; 466200, 3729537; 466191,
3729537; 466155, 3729497; 466153, 3729498; 466128, 3729522; 466109,
3729547; 466153, 3729578; 466204, 3729592; 466209, 3729593; 466229,
3729595; 466270, 3729602; 466302, 3729640; 466254, 3729669; 466206,
3729633; 466121, 3729614; 466103, 3729626; 466102, 3729659; 466095,
3729690; 466054, 3729701; 466046, 3729702; 466044, 3729730; 466043,
3729733; 466043, 3729740; 466042, 3729757; 466043, 3729774; 466044,
3729791; 466047, 3729808; 466051, 3729824; 466054, 3729834; 466064,
3729867; 466066, 3729873; 466072, 3729889; 466079, 3729904; 466087,
3729919; 466096, 3729934; 466106, 3729948; 466117, 3729961; 466128,
3729973; 466131, 3729976; 466157, 3730001; 466167, 3730011; 466180,
3730021; 466194, 3730031; 466208, 3730040; 466223, 3730048; 466239,
3730055; 466255, 3730061; 466260, 3730063; 466294, 3730073; 466305,
3730077; 466322, 3730081; 466338, 3730083; 466355, 3730085; 466357,
3730085; 466359, 3730079; 466361, 3730061; 466379, 3730040; 466384,
3730029; 466392, 3730021; 466402, 3730013; 466413, 3730002; 466421,
3729993; 466427, 3729983; 466433, 3729973; 466438, 3729964; 466441,
3729946; 466442, 3729922; 466439, 3729903; 466435, 3729886; 466432,
3729870; 466432, 3729866; 466430, 3729857; 466425, 3729842; 466422,
3729831; 466420, 3729819; 466420, 3729814; 466424, 3729812; 466446,
3729784; 466454, 3729740; 466456, 3729738; 466474, 3729727; 466486,
3729719; 466494, 3729711; 466509, 3729699; 466518, 3729688; 466522,
3729681; thence returning to 466525, 3729671. Continue to 466671,
3729914; 466713, 3729743; 466713, 3729740; 466713, 3729724; 466687,
3729719; 466666, 3729753; 466662, 3729760; 466636, 3729756; 466601,
3729723; 466601, 3729720; 466604, 3729684; 466609, 3729671; 466629,
3729620; 466637, 3729599; 466662, 3729569; 466654, 3729557; 466651,
3729566; 466639, 3729588; 466623, 3729610; 466616, 3729630; 466614,
3729636; 466611, 3729645; 466605, 3729660; 466603, 3729663; 466594,
3729679; 466590, 3729692; 466585, 3729699; 466584, 3729700; 466568,
3729709; 466550, 3729723; 466538, 3729743; 466517, 3729758; 466500,
3729775; 466487, 3729788; 466478, 3729801; 466470, 3729816; 466468,
3729836; 466473, 3729853; 466481, 3729871; 466486, 3729892; 466488,
3729922; 466489, 3729957; 466481, 3729991; 466469, 3730020; 466456,
3730035; 466447, 3730047; 466438, 3730059; 466432, 3730077; 466432,
3730082; 466448, 3730079; 466465, 3730075; 466481, 3730070; 466497,
3730064; 466511, 3730058; 466538, 3730045; 466554, 3730036; 466568,
3730027; 466582, 3730018; 466583, 3730016; 466595, 3730007; 466607,
3729995; 466619, 3729983; 466628, 3729972; 466642, 3729953; 466650,
3729943; 466652, 3729942; 466662, 3729928; thence returning to 466671,
3729914.
(iii) Note: Map of Unit 1: Santa Ana River Watershed (Map 2)
follows:
[[Page 74589]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30NO10.214
(7) Unit 3: Santa Margarita River Watershed, Riverside County,
California.
(i) Subunit 3A: Santa Gertrudis Creek. From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle Bachelor Mountain, land bounded by the following UTM Zone
11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 489149, 3711597; 489149, 3711584; 489149,
3711536; 489150, 3711526; 489182, 3711531; 489207, 3711536; 489206,
3711534; 489204, 3711530; 489150, 3711522; 489032, 3711505; 489029,
3711505; 489004, 3711496; 488986, 3711490; 488853, 3711446; 488773,
3711419; 488772, 3711420; 488762, 3711430; 488752, 3711440; 488743,
3711451; 488735, 3711462; 488727, 3711474; 488720, 3711486; 488714,
3711498; 488708, 3711511; 488703, 3711524; 488698, 3711537; 488695,
3711551; 488692, 3711565; 488690, 3711573; 488740, 3711573; 488761,
3711585; 488780, 3711661; 488930, 3711666; 488932, 3711728; 488940,
3711726; 488943, 3711766; 488947, 3711838; 488937, 3711846; 488946,
3712065; 488946, 3712074; 488957, 3712074; 488971, 3712072; 488984,
3712071; 488987, 3712071; 488990, 3712070; 489021, 3712064; 489021,
3712064; 489051, 3712053; 489080, 3712039; 489095, 3712029; 489094,
3712020; 489063, 3711973; 489021, 3711968; 489016, 3711967; 489020,
3711850; 489021, 3711849; 489029, 3711846;
[[Page 74590]]
489029, 3711830; 489071, 3711829; 489078, 3711826; 489096, 3711829;
489115, 3711828; 489118, 3711942; 489129, 3711946; 489173, 3711946;
489176, 3711940; 489179, 3711934; 489188, 3711925; 489197, 3711915;
489205, 3711904; 489212, 3711894; 489219, 3711882; 489224, 3711872;
489231, 3711772; 489227, 3711772; 489148, 3711771; 489032, 3711771;
489029, 3711742; 489031, 3711597; 489081, 3711597; 489094, 3711588;
489105, 3711597; 489136, 3711597; thence returning to 489149, 3711597.
(ii) Subunit 3B: Murrieta Creek. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
Temecula, land bounded by the following UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 486159, 3705522; 486130, 3705488; 486110, 3705464; 486117,
3705456; 486125, 3705449; 486155, 3705347; 486174, 3705279; 486208,
3705158; 486202, 3705156; 486186, 3705151; 486169, 3705147; 486165,
3705147; 486153, 3705145; 486140, 3705142; 486130, 3705142; 486123,
3705141; 486116, 3705140; 486104, 3705140; 486076, 3705140; 486058,
3705142; 486045, 3705144; 486030, 3705146; 486014, 3705150; 486008,
3705152; 485996, 3705155; 485986, 3705159; 485970, 3705165; 485960,
3705169; 485954, 3705172; 485959, 3705189; 485959, 3705209; 485945,
3705214; 485921, 3705201; 485918, 3705191; 485913, 3705194; 485902,
3705202; 485889, 3705211; 485876, 3705222; 485870, 3705227; 485861,
3705236; 485855, 3705242; 485843, 3705254; 485834, 3705265; 485827,
3705275; 485824, 3705277; 485815, 3705291; 485806, 3705306; 485803,
3705310; 485797, 3705321; 485791, 3705332; 485784, 3705347; 485780,
3705357; 485776, 3705369; 485774, 3705375; 485769, 3705391; 485765,
3705408; 485763, 3705420; 485760, 3705437; 485758, 3705453; 485758,
3705461; 485758, 3705473; 485758, 3705501; 485774, 3705498; 485777,
3705509; 485794, 3705516; 485793, 3705526; 485785, 3705556; 485769,
3705566; 485769, 3705568; 485773, 3705580; 485776, 3705591; 485781,
3705605; 485787, 3705618; 485794, 3705634; 485802, 3705649; 485811,
3705664; 485817, 3705673; 485825, 3705683; 485828, 3705688; 485839,
3705701; 485845, 3705707; 485853, 3705716; 485859, 3705722; 485871,
3705734; 485881, 3705742; 485891, 3705750; 485894, 3705752; 485908,
3705762; 485910, 3705763; 486004, 3705670; 486019, 3705644; 486044,
3705619; 486065, 3705600; 486086, 3705587; 486119, 3705557; thence
returning to 486159, 3705522.
(iii) Note: Map of Unit 3: Santa Margarita River Watershed (Map 3)
follows:
[[Page 74591]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30NO10.215
(8) Unit 4: San Luis Rey River Watershed. From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle Bonsall, San Diego County, California.
(i) Subunit 4A: Calle de la Vuelta. Land bounded by the following
UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 480305, 3685329; 480306,
3685327; 480308, 3685328; 480309, 3685328; 480311, 3685328; 480313,
3685329; 480315, 3685330; 480317, 3685330; 480320, 3685329; 480322,
3685328; 480323, 3685327; 480324, 3685326; 480326, 3685325; 480327,
3685324; 480329, 3685322; 480330, 3685320; 480331, 3685319; 480332,
3685317; 480333, 3685316; 480336, 3685314; 480337, 3685313; 480339,
3685311; 480340, 3685310; 480366, 3685285; 480367, 3685284; 480360,
3685275; 480359, 3685274; 480359, 3685272; 480356, 3685271; 480355,
3685269; 480336, 3685247; 480331, 3685240; 480296, 3685207; 480296,
3685206; 480289, 3685200; 480288, 3685202; 480285, 3685211; 480277,
3685232; 480274, 3685237; 480263, 3685253; 480275, 3685262; 480329,
3685305; 480324, 3685305; 480323, 3685305; 480321, 3685305; 480319,
3685304; 480317, 3685303; 480315, 3685302; 480313, 3685302; 480312,
3685301; 480311, 3685301; 480309, 3685300; 480307, 3685299; 480305,
3685298; 480302, 3685297; 480300, 3685296; 480298, 3685296; 480296,
3685296;
[[Page 74592]]
480298, 3685298; 480298, 3685300; 480298, 3685301; 480297, 3685303;
480298, 3685305; 480298, 3685306; 480299, 3685307; 480298, 3685308;
480294, 3685308; 480292, 3685308; 480291, 3685307; 480291, 3685308;
480291, 3685311; 480292, 3685312; 480294, 3685312; 480296, 3685314;
480296, 3685315; 480297, 3685317; 480298, 3685318; 480300, 3685321;
480298, 3685322; 480297, 3685323; 480295, 3685324; 480295, 3685326;
480294, 3685328; 480294, 3685330; 480294, 3685332; 480294, 3685334;
480294, 3685336; 480294, 3685337; 480295, 3685339; 480295, 3685342;
480295, 3685343; 480295, 3685345; 480295, 3685346; 480295, 3685348;
480296, 3685349; 480296, 3685350; 480297, 3685351; 480299, 3685351;
480300, 3685351; 480301, 3685350; 480301, 3685348; 480302, 3685347;
480302, 3685345; 480302, 3685343; 480303, 3685341; 480303, 3685340;
480304, 3685338; 480304, 3685336; 480304, 3685335; 480304, 3685333;
480304, 3685331; 480305, 3685330; thence returning to 480305, 3685329.
Continue to 480281, 3685448; 480265, 3685444; 480258, 3685449; 480259,
3685460; 480259, 3685463; 480266, 3685476; 480280, 3685473; 480282,
3685470; 480291, 3685457; 480288, 3685454; 480284, 3685450; thence
returning to 480281, 3685448. Continue to 480471, 3685448; 480481,
3685448; 480488, 3685448; 480488, 3685439; 480489, 3685426; 480491,
3685416; 480496, 3685411; 480501, 3685405; 480503, 3685395; 480503,
3685383; 480503, 3685369; 480504, 3685363; 480505, 3685359; 480506,
3685357; 480503, 3685356; 480493, 3685354; 480473, 3685347; 480450,
3685339; 480438, 3685334; 480433, 3685338; 480433, 3685339; 480426,
3685349; 480422, 3685367; 480423, 3685373; 480422, 3685375; 480422,
3685375; 480421, 3685377; 480421, 3685380; 480422, 3685382; 480423,
3685383; 480423, 3685385; 480424, 3685414; 480424, 3685429; 480418,
3685444; 480418, 3685445; 480407, 3685469; 480413, 3685469; 480434,
3685478; 480439, 3685478; 480446, 3685474; 480450, 3685465; 480454,
3685459; 480457, 3685457; 480463, 3685450; thence returning to 480471,
3685448. Continue to 480206, 3685424; 480222, 3685406; 480227, 3685407;
480242, 3685411; 480241, 3685409; 480240, 3685408; 480236, 3685404;
480234, 3685402; 480233, 3685401; 480229, 3685397; 480228, 3685396;
480226, 3685393; 480185, 3685351; 480185, 3685341; 480185, 3685341;
480176, 3685316; 480175, 3685315; 480165, 3685301; 480158, 3685312;
480155, 3685316; 480155, 3685318; 480149, 3685342; 480146, 3685367;
480146, 3685375; 480147, 3685393; 480159, 3685450; 480160, 3685475;
480157, 3685495; 480156, 3685498; 480152, 3685510; 480146, 3685517;
480150, 3685520; 480165, 3685512; 480167, 3685505; 480170, 3685495;
480175, 3685478; thence returning to 480206, 3685424. Continue to
480632, 3685486; 480641, 3685475; 480652, 3685481; 480655, 3685484;
480659, 3685481; 480675, 3685473; 480676, 3685472; 480688, 3685465;
480679, 3685457; 480637, 3685427; 480565, 3685379; 480560, 3685386;
480559, 3685387; 480557, 3685389; 480551, 3685391; 480546, 3685396;
480544, 3685402; 480539, 3685413; 480534, 3685422; 480534, 3685431;
480530, 3685442; 480526, 3685450; 480552, 3685443; 480557, 3685447;
480565, 3685457; 480567, 3685477; 480568, 3685489; 480566, 3685510;
480566, 3685518; 480568, 3685524; 480571, 3685531; 480578, 3685533;
480588, 3685535; 480607, 3685520; 480621, 3685509; 480632, 3685499;
thence returning to 480632, 3685486. Continue to 480543, 3685580;
480538, 3685577; 480549, 3685584; 480549, 3685596; 480549, 3685637;
480548, 3685669; 480553, 3685667; 480559, 3685665; 480566, 3685661;
480575, 3685657; 480578, 3685655; 480579, 3685655; 480583, 3685653;
480594, 3685647; 480600, 3685642; 480606, 3685638; 480612, 3685634;
480615, 3685632; 480598, 3685617; 480596, 3685616; 480592, 3685612;
480588, 3685609; 480583, 3685606; 480579, 3685602; 480579, 3685602;
480575, 3685599; 480570, 3685596; 480566, 3685593; 480561, 3685590;
480557, 3685587; 480552, 3685585; 480548, 3685582; thence returning to
480543, 3685580. Continue to 480521, 3685637; 480528, 3685571; 480524,
3685570; 480518, 3685568; 480496, 3685558; 480406, 3685519; 480399,
3685517; 480398, 3685516; 480397, 3685515; 480392, 3685513; 480390,
3685517; 480387, 3685522; 480384, 3685523; 480304, 3685547; 480318,
3685574; 480331, 3685590; 480351, 3685594; 480357, 3685595; 480360,
3685629; 480360, 3685634; 480361, 3685647; 480367, 3685674; 480372,
3685675; 480376, 3685632; 480378, 3685620; 480378, 3685613; 480439,
3685629; 480436, 3685656; 480435, 3685661; 480432, 3685687; 480435,
3685687; 480439, 3685688; 480446, 3685688; 480454, 3685688; 480461,
3685688; 480465, 3685688; 480480, 3685686; 480487, 3685685; 480488,
3685685; 480502, 3685683; 480510, 3685681; 480516, 3685680; thence
returning to 480521, 3685637.
(ii) Subunit 4B: Olive Hill Road. Land bounded by the following UTM
Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 478735, 3683078; 478770, 3683404;
478753, 3683404; 478723, 3683406; 478682, 3683412; 478683, 3683413;
478685, 3683416; 478689, 3683422; 478693, 3683429; 478702, 3683441;
478716, 3683458; 478723, 3683466; 478729, 3683475; 478737, 3683483;
478753, 3683499; 478761, 3683506; 478770, 3683514; 478776, 3683518;
478774, 3683498; 478770, 3683407; thence returning to 478770, 3683404.
Continue to 478854, 3683318; 478868, 3683273; 478920, 3683299; 478923,
3683301; 478925, 3683303; 478929, 3683306; 478929, 3683310; 478933,
3683309; 478936, 3683312; 478940, 3683314; 478944, 3683315; 478950,
3683319; 478954, 3683322; 478915, 3683171; 478919, 3683133; 478923,
3683087; 478929, 3683027; 478936, 3682992; 478924, 3682992; 478912,
3682993; 478907, 3682992; 478896, 3682993; 478892, 3682993; 478870,
3682995; 478858, 3682996; 478847, 3682999; 478844, 3683000; 478825,
3683005; 478815, 3683008; 478805, 3683012; 478784, 3683022; 478774,
3683026; 478763, 3683033; 478744, 3683046; 478742, 3683048; 478739,
3683051; 478735, 3683053; 478724, 3683062; 478708, 3683079; 478694,
3683096; 478681, 3683114; 478674, 3683124; 478669, 3683134; 478659,
3683154; 478655, 3683164; 478652, 3683175; 478646, 3683197; 478642,
3683219; 478639, 3683242; 478639, 3683253; 478639, 3683256; 478639,
3683259; 478639, 3683271; 478641, 3683293; 478645, 3683316; 478650,
3683337; 478658, 3683358; 478659, 3683361; 478664, 3683373; 478667,
3683380; 478670, 3683386; 478676, 3683399; 478721, 3683395; 478718,
3683381; 478737, 3683377; 478836, 3683359; thence returning to 478854,
3683318.
(iii) Subunit 4C: Jeffries Ranch. Land bounded by the following UTM
Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 477180, 3679339; 477189, 3679340;
477202, 3679341; 477218, 3679343; 477236, 3679323; 477240, 3679318;
477245, 3679320; 477249, 3679321; 477248, 3679320; 477247, 3679319;
477244, 3679316; 477232, 3679315; 477228, 3679315; 477221, 3679318;
477202, 3679329; thence returning to 477180, 3679339. Continue to
477347, 3679308; 477347, 3679303; 477338, 3679320; 477327, 3679331;
477325, 3679333; 477322, 3679335; 477310, 3679356; 477305, 3679360;
477305, 3679360; 477307, 3679372; 477305, 3679382; 477306, 3679382;
477313, 3679367; 477314, 3679365; 477324, 3679343; 477326, 3679341;
477328, 3679338;
[[Page 74593]]
477336, 3679332; 477349, 3679324; 477349, 3679323; thence returning to
477347, 3679308. Continue to 477180, 3679339; 477179, 3679339; 477177,
3679338; 477176, 3679337; 477178, 3679332; 477179, 3679311; 477180,
3679306; 477179, 3679299; 477179, 3679275; 477177, 3679247; 477177,
3679233; 477179, 3679233; 477181, 3679233; 477185, 3679232; 477189,
3679232; 477193, 3679232; 477197, 3679232; 477201, 3679232; 477205,
3679232; 477209, 3679231; 477213, 3679231; 477217, 3679231; 477221,
3679231; 477225, 3679231; 477229, 3679231; 477233, 3679231; 477238,
3679231; 477242, 3679231; 477245, 3679231; 477257, 3679223; 477316,
3679212; 477317, 3679212; 477310, 3679201; 477303, 3679189; 477294,
3679178; 477285, 3679167; 477275, 3679156; 477265, 3679146; 477254,
3679137; 477243, 3679128; 477231, 3679120; 477219, 3679113; 477207,
3679106; 477194, 3679100; 477180, 3679094; 477179, 3679094; 477167,
3679090; 477164, 3679089; 477153, 3679086; 477139, 3679083; 477125,
3679080; 477111, 3679079; 477097, 3679078; 477083, 3679078; 477070,
3679072; 477058, 3679067; 477045, 3679062; 477032, 3679058; 477018,
3679055; 477005, 3679052; 476991, 3679051; 476977, 3679049; 476970,
3679049; 476963, 3679049; 476949, 3679049; 476935, 3679050; 476922,
3679052; 476913, 3679054; 476909, 3679055; 476896, 3679057; 476883,
3679061; 476871, 3679066; 476857, 3679070; 476844, 3679074; 476831,
3679079; 476818, 3679085; 476806, 3679091; 476793, 3679097; 476780,
3679103; 476778, 3679104; 476775, 3679106; 476775, 3679111; 476776,
3679141; 476776, 3679173; 476776, 3679195; 476777, 3679200; 476778,
3679204; 476778, 3679212; 476778, 3679213; 476776, 3679215; 476776,
3679222; 476776, 3679223; 476769, 3679223; 476766, 3679225; 476759,
3679227; 476761, 3679268; 476763, 3679301; 476765, 3679328; 476766,
3679328; 476769, 3679327; 476772, 3679326; 476772, 3679333; 476772,
3679356; 476776, 3679373; 476777, 3679376; 476780, 3679385; 476782,
3679422; 476765, 3679423; 476765, 3679424; 476797, 3679423; 476810,
3679428; 476839, 3679438; 476866, 3679437; 476870, 3679436; 476874,
3679435; 476866, 3679427; 476864, 3679429; 476862, 3679431; 476853,
3679434; 476845, 3679429; 476842, 3679426; 476842, 3679426; 476837,
3679420; 476837, 3679415; 476837, 3679411; 476836, 3679407; 476836,
3679406; 476835, 3679403; 476834, 3679400; 476833, 3679398; 476830,
3679396; 476826, 3679394; 476824, 3679393; 476821, 3679392; 476816,
3679391; 476808, 3679381; 476799, 3679375; 476787, 3679367; 476785,
3679365; 476785, 3679365; 476785, 3679362; 476786, 3679360; 476786,
3679356; 476785, 3679354; 476783, 3679351; 476782, 3679348; 476784,
3679345; 476786, 3679343; 476784, 3679323; 476780, 3679305; 476779,
3679300; 476780, 3679295; 476781, 3679279; 476784, 3679265; 476785,
3679260; 476790, 3679238; 476797, 3679220; 476808, 3679196; 476817,
3679171; 476825, 3679161; 476834, 3679155; 476837, 3679153; 476843,
3679150; 476849, 3679151; 476851, 3679155; 476850, 3679159; 476847,
3679167; 476842, 3679174; 476829, 3679187; 476820, 3679205; 476812,
3679230; 476804, 3679260; 476799, 3679289; 476799, 3679312; 476800,
3679317; 476825, 3679309; 476827, 3679321; 476828, 3679322; 476832,
3679332; 476841, 3679342; 476849, 3679349; 476857, 3679352; 476864,
3679354; 476871, 3679346; 476879, 3679344; 476885, 3679346; 476886,
3679345; 476891, 3679344; 476897, 3679342; 476904, 3679344; 476907,
3679347; 476909, 3679354; 476909, 3679359; 476907, 3679365; 476903,
3679372; 476899, 3679383; 476896, 3679393; 476897, 3679401; 476899,
3679407; 476902, 3679414; 476904, 3679422; 476911, 3679419; 476936,
3679408; 476958, 3679401; 476963, 3679400; 476972, 3679397; 477007,
3679382; 477018, 3679377; 477030, 3679373; 477041, 3679369; 477047,
3679368; 477063, 3679358; 477062, 3679364; 477065, 3679363; 477076,
3679361; 477088, 3679359; 477100, 3679357; 477112, 3679356; 477125,
3679355; 477137, 3679355; 477149, 3679355; 477161, 3679356; 477165,
3679352; 477172, 3679345; 477179, 3679339; thence returning to 477180,
3679339.
(iv) Subunit 4D: Gird Road/Monserate Hill. Land bounded by the
following UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 482662, 3686370;
482664, 3686368; 482667, 3686364; 482670, 3686360; 482677, 3686352;
482680, 3686347; 482689, 3686335; 482693, 3686329; 482701, 3686316;
482704, 3686309; 482710, 3686295; 482713, 3686288; 482718, 3686274;
482719, 3686271; 482707, 3686267; 482696, 3686261; 482680, 3686257;
482666, 3686254; 482650, 3686251; 482642, 3686248; 482640, 3686242;
482638, 3686238; 482634, 3686226; 482631, 3686222; 482624, 3686213;
482583, 3686199; 482566, 3686188; 482563, 3686187; 482511, 3686179;
482469, 3686178; 482449, 3686178; 482429, 3686181; 482416, 3686180;
482389, 3686180; 482344, 3686184; 482323, 3686183; 482302, 3686181;
482294, 3686181; 482290, 3686180; 482260, 3686179; 482237, 3686178;
482208, 3686183; 482193, 3686186; 482193, 3686194; 482193, 3686200;
482193, 3686201; 482193, 3686209; 482193, 3686213; 482194, 3686228;
482195, 3686231; 482196, 3686239; 482197, 3686246; 482199, 3686254;
482200, 3686257; 482204, 3686272; 482205, 3686277; 482208, 3686286;
482210, 3686291; 482212, 3686295; 482213, 3686299; 482216, 3686305;
482217, 3686308; 482222, 3686319; 482225, 3686324; 482232, 3686336;
482236, 3686341; 482244, 3686354; 482247, 3686357; 482250, 3686361;
482251, 3686363; 482256, 3686368; 482261, 3686374; 482264, 3686377;
482268, 3686381; 482286, 3686374; 482325, 3686376; 482352, 3686373;
482384, 3686368; 482397, 3686358; 482421, 3686349; 482446, 3686348;
482467, 3686353; 482493, 3686354; 482507, 3686353; 482521, 3686352;
482526, 3686350; 482529, 3686349; 482529, 3686349; 482530, 3686349;
482533, 3686349; 482537, 3686349; 482539, 3686347; 482539, 3686347;
482584, 3686340; 482595, 3686333; 482602, 3686317; 482610, 3686315;
482613, 3686332; 482611, 3686335; 482604, 3686346; 482599, 3686352;
482598, 3686367; 482597, 3686370; 482595, 3686369; 482595, 3686371;
482593, 3686392; 482595, 3686409; 482596, 3686422; 482604, 3686417;
482606, 3686416; 482609, 3686414; 482617, 3686409; 482621, 3686406;
482631, 3686399; 482636, 3686395; 482642, 3686390; 482648, 3686384;
482649, 3686383; 482652, 3686380; thence returning to 482662, 3686370.
(v) Note: Map of Unit 4, San Luis Rey River Watershed (Map 4)
follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 74594]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30NO10.216
(9) Unit 5: San Dieguito River Watershed, San Diego County,
California.
(i) Subunit 5A: Lake Hodges East Unit. From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle Escondido, land bounded by the following UTM Zone 11, NAD83
coordinates (E, N): 493490, 3658493; 493465, 3658587; 493409, 3658642;
493384, 3658647; 493357, 3658702; 493353, 3658702; 493349, 3658704;
493347, 3658705; 493346, 3658708; 493340, 3658712; 493338, 3658714;
493335, 3658716; 493334, 3658719; 493334, 3658721; 493335, 3658722;
493338, 3658722; 493340, 3658723; 493342, 3658726; 493344, 3658727;
493340, 3658734; 493338, 3658733; 493336, 3658736; 493336, 3658738;
493337, 3658740; 493322, 3658771; 493287, 3658855; 493261, 3658917;
493249, 3658947; 493290, 3658913; 493335, 3658913; 493339, 3658882;
493358, 3658839; 493375, 3658814; 493376, 3658816; 493379, 3658816;
493380, 3658812; 493379, 3658812; 493381, 3658810; 493383, 3658809;
493386, 3658808; 493387, 3658806; 493387, 3658805; 493386, 3658802;
493382, 3658803; 493414, 3658753; 493470, 3658649; 493496, 3658550;
thence returning to 493490, 3658493. Continue to 493410, 3658814;
493412, 3658812; 493413, 3658809; 493414, 3658806; 493414, 3658805;
493412, 3658805; 493410, 3658808; 493407,
[[Page 74595]]
3658810; 493405, 3658813; 493402, 3658812; 493397, 3658813; 493394,
3658814; 493392, 3658815; 493394, 3658816; 493398, 3658817; 493399,
3658820; 493398, 3658822; 493398, 3658824; 493398, 3658826; 493401,
3658824; 493401, 3658822; 493403, 3658822; 493404, 3658821; 493406,
3658819; 493408, 3658817; 493409, 3658814; thence returning to 493410,
3658814. Continue to 493770, 3658577; 493770, 3658565; 493770, 3658561;
493770, 3658554; 493770, 3658547; 493769, 3658542; 493770, 3658539;
493770, 3658537; 493766, 3658542; 493762, 3658547; 493758, 3658553;
493756, 3658555; 493755, 3658556; 493753, 3658557; 493751, 3658559;
493747, 3658562; 493730, 3658577; 493727, 3658573; 493719, 3658565;
493716, 3658565; 493709, 3658564; 493705, 3658564; 493700, 3658563;
493697, 3658561; 493693, 3658560; 493688, 3658560; 493680, 3658559;
493674, 3658555; 493670, 3658552; 493665, 3658549; 493662, 3658546;
493658, 3658544; 493655, 3658542; 493650, 3658540; 493648, 3658538;
493643, 3658537; 493641, 3658536; 493639, 3658535; 493635, 3658533;
493631, 3658533; 493628, 3658533; 493626, 3658533; 493624, 3658533;
493620, 3658534; 493617, 3658535; 493616, 3658541; 493616, 3658543;
493616, 3658547; 493616, 3658558; 493618, 3658566; 493621, 3658572;
493623, 3658577; 493624, 3658582; 493624, 3658586; 493623, 3658589;
493622, 3658594; 493622, 3658599; 493640, 3658593; 493661, 3658584;
493690, 3658573; 493702, 3658586; 493739, 3658624; 493683, 3658667;
493678, 3658671; 493732, 3658756; 493735, 3658749; 493739, 3658740;
493740, 3658737; 493748, 3658716; 493752, 3658701; 493754, 3658694;
493756, 3658684; 493758, 3658668; 493759, 3658647; 493762, 3658636;
493765, 3658615; 493766, 3658608; 493767, 3658599; 493768, 3658586;
thence returning to 493770, 3658577. Continue to 493574, 3658234;
493567, 3658232; 493570, 3658252; 493572, 3658311; 493575, 3658321;
493594, 3658404; 493592, 3658411; 493590, 3658421; 493589, 3658432;
493588, 3658442; 493588, 3658451; 493588, 3658460; 493589, 3658472;
493591, 3658482; 493591, 3658493; 493591, 3658502; 493592, 3658512;
493593, 3658523; 493593, 3658533; 493593, 3658541; 493595, 3658547;
493596, 3658552; 493595, 3658559; 493596, 3658563; 493597, 3658569;
493598, 3658574; 493597, 3658577; 493597, 3658582; 493597, 3658588;
493598, 3658591; 493599, 3658596; 493601, 3658600; 493603, 3658602;
493603, 3658600; 493604, 3658599; 493605, 3658597; 493606, 3658596;
493608, 3658594; 493609, 3658592; 493611, 3658588; 493612, 3658585;
493612, 3658580; 493612, 3658572; 493610, 3658568; 493609, 3658561;
493609, 3658555; 493609, 3658549; 493610, 3658541; 493611, 3658536;
493612, 3658528; 493613, 3658523; 493615, 3658516; 493617, 3658513;
493618, 3658510; 493620, 3658507; 493624, 3658498; 493628, 3658487;
493632, 3658478; 493636, 3658470; 493639, 3658463; 493642, 3658457;
493645, 3658450; 493647, 3658442; 493648, 3658435; 493650, 3658429;
493651, 3658422; 493654, 3658416; 493657, 3658411; 493661, 3658405;
493664, 3658402; 493667, 3658400; 493669, 3658397; 493672, 3658394;
493674, 3658390; 493676, 3658385; 493678, 3658379; 493680, 3658372;
493683, 3658364; 493684, 3658359; 493685, 3658351; 493686, 3658343;
493686, 3658334; 493685, 3658326; 493683, 3658310; 493681, 3658298;
493679, 3658291; 493676, 3658288; 493663, 3658278; 493654, 3658272;
493636, 3658259; 493634, 3658258; 493626, 3658253; 493610, 3658246;
493605, 3658244; 493584, 3658236; 493581, 3658236; thence returning to
493574, 3658234. Continue to 493505, 3658583; 493507, 3658582; 493509,
3658583; 493510, 3658581; 493509, 3658579; 493509, 3658576; 493509,
3658573; 493508, 3658571; 493506, 3658569; 493509, 3658565; 493511,
3658562; 493511, 3658559; 493508, 3658558; 493507, 3658558; 493505,
3658560; 493506, 3658564; 493506, 3658566; 493502, 3658565; 493499,
3658566; 493497, 3658566; 493496, 3658568; 493497, 3658570; 493502,
3658572; 493497, 3658575; 493496, 3658579; 493496, 3658580; 493497,
3658582; 493496, 3658584; 493498, 3658585; 493499, 3658585; 493502,
3658587; 493503, 3658588; 493505, 3658585; thence returning to 493505,
3658583. Continue to 493492, 3658487; 493493, 3658490; 493496, 3658491;
493496, 3658494; 493498, 3658496; 493498, 3658498; 493498, 3658501;
493498, 3658504; 493499, 3658507; 493499, 3658509; 493499, 3658511;
493500, 3658513; 493499, 3658515; 493499, 3658517; 493499, 3658519;
493499, 3658521; 493497, 3658523; 493499, 3658525; 493499, 3658528;
493502, 3658529; 493506, 3658530; 493508, 3658530; 493508, 3658526;
493510, 3658525; 493512, 3658523; 493511, 3658519; 493511, 3658516;
493511, 3658513; 493510, 3658511; 493511, 3658509; 493510, 3658507;
493510, 3658506; 493510, 3658503; 493509, 3658500; 493507, 3658498;
493507, 3658495; 493507, 3658493; 493508, 3658492; 493509, 3658489;
493507, 3658486; 493506, 3658483; 493497, 3658486; 493496, 3658486;
thence returning to 493492, 3658487. Continue to 493492, 3658487;
493507, 3658446; 493509, 3658440; 493508, 3658433; 493497, 3658322;
493498, 3658242; 493498, 3658230; 493499, 3658224; 493495, 3658224;
493486, 3658225; 493472, 3658226; 493468, 3658227; 493452, 3658230;
493448, 3658231; 493434, 3658234; 493425, 3658237; 493415, 3658240;
493410, 3658242; 493398, 3658247; 493377, 3658256; 493360, 3658266;
493356, 3658269; 493367, 3658284; 493417, 3658415; 493405, 3658433;
493480, 3658486; 493490, 3658493; thence returning to 493492, 3658487.
(ii) Subunit 5B: Lake Hodges West (Crosby Estates). From USGS
1:24,000 quadrangle Rancho Santa Fe, land bounded by the following UTM
Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 486068, 3656371; 486163, 3656336;
486256, 3656332; 486280, 3656334; 486338, 3656338; 486341, 3656338;
486358, 3656339; 486365, 3656339; 486384, 3656338; 486394, 3656338;
486406, 3656337; 486411, 3656336; 486428, 3656334; 486445, 3656330;
486449, 3656328; 486467, 3656323; 486479, 3656319; 486496, 3656313;
486602, 3656268; 486668, 3656246; 486770, 3656215; 486780, 3656211;
486784, 3656210; 486800, 3656204; 486809, 3656200; 486816, 3656197;
486819, 3656195; 486823, 3656193; 486829, 3656190; 486837, 3656186;
486846, 3656181; 486853, 3656177; 486867, 3656168; 486881, 3656159;
486885, 3656155; 486894, 3656148; 486905, 3656138; 486917, 3656126;
486918, 3656125; 486924, 3656119; 486936, 3656106; 486947, 3656093;
486957, 3656079; 486966, 3656065; 486972, 3656054; 486983, 3656031;
486985, 3656027; 486992, 3656012; 486998, 3656002; 486998, 3655997;
486999, 3655993; 487001, 3655988; 487004, 3655982; 487003, 3655980;
487007, 3655963; 487009, 3655953; 487013, 3655929; 487014, 3655922;
487015, 3655905; 487016, 3655888; 487015, 3655871; 487015, 3655865;
487000, 3655865; 486984, 3655864; 486962, 3655863; 486950, 3655864;
486936, 3655865; 486922, 3655866; 486905, 3655866; 486896, 3655866;
486884, 3655865; 486874, 3655866; 486862, 3655867; 486853, 3655867;
486839, 3655870; 486825, 3655871; 486808, 3655874; 486793, 3655877;
486782, 3655879; 486766, 3655884; 486756, 3655887; 486746, 3655890;
486736, 3655893; 486726, 3655896; 486719, 3655898; 486710, 3655901;
486698,
[[Page 74596]]
3655904; 486683, 3655910; 486669, 3655915; 486657, 3655920; 486643,
3655925; 486631, 3655930; 486611, 3655936; 486601, 3655939; 486593,
3655941; 486583, 3655945; 486574, 3655949; 486553, 3655955; 486551,
3655958; 486552, 3655960; 486556, 3655961; 486559, 3655964; 486562,
3655966; 486566, 3655968; 486565, 3655971; 486568, 3655975; 486570,
3655978; 486571, 3655981; 486567, 3655982; 486563, 3655981; 486559,
3655978; 486555, 3655977; 486552, 3655977; 486549, 3655979; 486546,
3655980; 486543, 3655981; 486539, 3655982; 486534, 3655979; 486535,
3655974; 486538, 3655972; 486540, 3655970; 486540, 3655966; 486538,
3655965; 486536, 3655966; 486532, 3655967; 486528, 3655968; 486524,
3655969; 486520, 3655971; 486516, 3655975; 486511, 3655974; 486508,
3655972; 486502, 3655973; 486493, 3655976; 486482, 3655981; 486467,
3655986; 486454, 3655989; 486441, 3655992; 486428, 3655995; 486419,
3655997; 486400, 3656001; 486390, 3656001; 486379, 3656002; 486368,
3656002; 486356, 3656002; 486344, 3656002; 486332, 3656001; 486321,
3656000; 486308, 3655999; 486287, 3655996; 486270, 3655995; 486257,
3655995; 486248, 3655995; 486237, 3655994; 486231, 3655994; 486223,
3655995; 486217, 3655996; 486207, 3655997; 486194, 3655998; 486185,
3655999; 486178, 3656000; 486170, 3656001; 486164, 3656001; 486159,
3656003; 486154, 3656002; 486149, 3656002; 486143, 3656002; 486136,
3656004; 486124, 3656007; 486118, 3656008; 486115, 3656010; 486111,
3656012; 486108, 3656011; 486106, 3656010; 486103, 3656009; 486098,
3656009; 486092, 3656008; 486086, 3656008; 486078, 3656009; 486070,
3656010; 486062, 3656012; 486052, 3656015; 486040, 3656018; 486027,
3656021; 486013, 3656025; 486001, 3656030; 485990, 3656034; 485978,
3656039; 485967, 3656042; 485953, 3656046; 485936, 3656048; 485928,
3656050; 485921, 3656054; 485914, 3656058; 485907, 3656061; 485900,
3656063; 485882, 3656070; 485865, 3656074; 485845, 3656080; 485839,
3656081; 485833, 3656082; 485809, 3656085; 485802, 3656086; 485791,
3656088; 485770, 3656089; 485762, 3656089; 485754, 3656088; 485748,
3656086; 485747, 3656083; 485743, 3656083; 485738, 3656083; 485731,
3656083; 485724, 3656083; 485718, 3656082; 485715, 3656082; 485711,
3656082; 485708, 3656081; 485705, 3656081; 485701, 3656081; 485695,
3656080; 485692, 3656079; 485689, 3656079; 485686, 3656078; 485683,
3656078; 485681, 3656078; 485679, 3656077; 485676, 3656077; 485674,
3656076; 485672, 3656076; 485669, 3656075; 485666, 3656074; 485663,
3656074; 485658, 3656072; 485655, 3656071; 485652, 3656071; 485650,
3656070; 485647, 3656069; 485645, 3656068; 485433, 3655998; 485429,
3655997; 485427, 3655996; 485419, 3655994; 485417, 3655993; 485415,
3655992; 485413, 3655991; 485411, 3655990; 485408, 3655989; 485404,
3655987; 485401, 3655986; 485399, 3655985; 485397, 3655984; 485392,
3655982; 485390, 3655981; 485386, 3655979; 485384, 3655978; 485381,
3655977; 485376, 3655974; 485374, 3655973; 485372, 3655972; 485370,
3655971; 485368, 3655969; 485366, 3655968; 485364, 3655967; 485361,
3655965; 485358, 3655963; 485354, 3655960; 485351, 3655958; 485349,
3655957; 485346, 3655955; 485344, 3655953; 485337, 3655948; 485332,
3655943; 485329, 3655942; 485328, 3655940; 485325, 3655938; 485323,
3655936; 485322, 3655941; 485318, 3655958; 485316, 3655958; 485299,
3655965; 485282, 3655974; 485270, 3655972; 485249, 3655959; 485247,
3655965; 485228, 3655975; 485256, 3656022; 485249, 3656033; 485216,
3656048; 485172, 3656059; 485151, 3656049; 485124, 3656007; 485074,
3656016; 485040, 3656047; 485016, 3656037; 484987, 3656037; 484984,
3656046; 485023, 3656092; 485025, 3656095; 485034, 3656104; 485042,
3656112; 485045, 3656115; 485058, 3656127; 485103, 3656167; 485111,
3656174; 485125, 3656186; 485139, 3656196; 485156, 3656207; 485170,
3656216; 485183, 3656223; 485281, 3656271; 485317, 3656290; 485484,
3656374; 485497, 3656380; 485504, 3656383; 485508, 3656384; 485515,
3656387; 485589, 3656415; 485597, 3656418; 485614, 3656423; 485630,
3656427; 485645, 3656430; 485682, 3656435; 485700, 3656437; 485717,
3656437; 485734, 3656437; 485742, 3656436; 485858, 3656425; 485867,
3656424; 485881, 3656422; 485896, 3656419; 485913, 3656415; 486038,
3656381; 486055, 3656376; 486064, 3656373; thence returning to 486068,
3656371; excluding land bounded by 485418, 3656210; 485473, 3656204;
485522, 3656211; 485590, 3656193; 485677, 3656187; 485720, 3656187;
485731, 3656348; 485724, 3656348; 485576, 3656356; 485534, 3656359;
485509, 3656315; 485472, 3656290; 485448, 3656272; 485411, 3656271;
485411, 3656267; 485411, 3656234; returning to 485418, 3656210.
Continue to 484991, 3655391; 484981, 3655385; 484974, 3655382; 484970,
3655379; 484965, 3655377; 484962, 3655375; 484959, 3655373; 484955,
3655371; 484951, 3655368; 484909, 3655368; 484840, 3655368; 484812,
3655429; 484837, 3655419; 484864, 3655408; 484886, 3655406; 484920,
3655406; 484946, 3655409; 484973, 3655417; 485009, 3655435; 485034,
3655461; 485019, 3655477; 485026, 3655483; 485041, 3655495; 485049,
3655503; 485057, 3655510; 485065, 3655518; 485070, 3655523; 485075,
3655527; 485080, 3655529; 485084, 3655529; 485088, 3655530; 485091,
3655528; 485094, 3655526; 485098, 3655523; 485105, 3655525; 485104,
3655534; 485099, 3655536; 485092, 3655538; 485087, 3655538; 485083,
3655538; 485078, 3655537; 485070, 3655534; 485062, 3655530; 485058,
3655527; 485054, 3655523; 485052, 3655521; 485048, 3655517; 485041,
3655510; 485031, 3655500; 485026, 3655503; 485026, 3655505; 485028,
3655508; 485026, 3655511; 485025, 3655516; 485026, 3655520; 485026,
3655523; 485028, 3655526; 485031, 3655530; 485033, 3655533; 485035,
3655536; 485050, 3655544; 485064, 3655553; 485071, 3655572; 485075,
3655599; 485073, 3655618; 485103, 3655632; 485107, 3655634; 485110,
3655635; 485112, 3655636; 485115, 3655637; 485109, 3655633; 485143,
3655562; 485112, 3655511; 485106, 3655504; 485101, 3655497; 485061,
3655449; thence returning to 484991, 3655391. Continue to 486546,
3655942; 486553, 3655942; 486557, 3655941; 486569, 3655937; 486577,
3655933; 486584, 3655930; 486599, 3655925; 486606, 3655922; 486614,
3655920; 486622, 3655918; 486628, 3655916; 486643, 3655911; 486650,
3655909; 486659, 3655905; 486665, 3655903; 486674, 3655900; 486721,
3655884; 486729, 3655882; 486738, 3655878; 486741, 3655877; 486751,
3655874; 486755, 3655872; 486763, 3655870; 486774, 3655869; 486781,
3655867; 486790, 3655865; 486809, 3655860; 486817, 3655858; 486820,
3655857; 486824, 3655856; 486832, 3655855; 486839, 3655855; 486854,
3655855; 486865, 3655855; 486874, 3655854; 486883, 3655854; 486901,
3655853; 486910, 3655854; 486943, 3655854; 486949, 3655853; 486993,
3655855; 487014, 3655856; 487014, 3655854; 487013, 3655848; 487011,
3655836; 487010, 3655828; 487006, 3655830; 486999, 3655832; 486993,
3655833; 486987, 3655834; 486982, 3655831; 486978, 3655828; 486975,
3655825; 486970, 3655821; 486964, 3655817; 486960, 3655813; 486957,
3655810; 486955, 3655806; 486954, 3655803; 486952, 3655799; 486950,
3655794; 486947,
[[Page 74597]]
3655790; 486944, 3655787; 486941, 3655784; 486939, 3655782; 486935,
3655781; 486932, 3655781; 486928, 3655781; 486923, 3655782; 486918,
3655784; 486913, 3655786; 486910, 3655788; 486907, 3655785; 486902,
3655785; 486899, 3655786; 486896, 3655788; 486893, 3655791; 486891,
3655794; 486889, 3655798; 486885, 3655804; 486882, 3655805; 486879,
3655805; 486876, 3655804; 486872, 3655802; 486869, 3655800; 486866,
3655797; 486864, 3655794; 486862, 3655791; 486860, 3655788; 486857,
3655786; 486854, 3655786; 486852, 3655787; 486850, 3655787; 486846,
3655788; 486843, 3655791; 486840, 3655788; 486835, 3655787; 486832,
3655786; 486827, 3655786; 486822, 3655786; 486817, 3655786; 486812,
3655786; 486806, 3655787; 486802, 3655788; 486798, 3655788; 486794,
3655787; 486786, 3655785; 486780, 3655786; 486776, 3655787; 486771,
3655787; 486767, 3655788; 486762, 3655790; 486760, 3655793; 486760,
3655798; 486763, 3655802; 486763, 3655806; 486764, 3655809; 486760,
3655810; 486757, 3655813; 486759, 3655817; 486762, 3655821; 486764,
3655823; 486766, 3655826; 486764, 3655828; 486758, 3655828; 486755,
3655828; 486751, 3655828; 486748, 3655829; 486745, 3655831; 486742,
3655830; 486739, 3655827; 486739, 3655823; 486739, 3655817; 486735,
3655815; 486732, 3655814; 486729, 3655816; 486728, 3655819; 486725,
3655822; 486721, 3655822; 486721, 3655820; 486720, 3655818; 486716,
3655815; 486712, 3655811; 486712, 3655808; 486709, 3655805; 486708,
3655802; 486704, 3655802; 486700, 3655802; 486696, 3655802; 486693,
3655803; 486689, 3655804; 486685, 3655804; 486680, 3655806; 486675,
3655808; 486672, 3655813; 486671, 3655817; 486668, 3655821; 486666,
3655823; 486662, 3655824; 486659, 3655824; 486655, 3655824; 486650,
3655824; 486646, 3655824; 486645, 3655828; 486641, 3655833; 486638,
3655837; 486634, 3655842; 486630, 3655846; 486625, 3655851; 486621,
3655853; 486617, 3655853; 486612, 3655853; 486607, 3655853; 486602,
3655854; 486599, 3655855; 486595, 3655858; 486593, 3655862; 486591,
3655867; 486588, 3655871; 486585, 3655875; 486582, 3655877; 486578,
3655879; 486573, 3655880; 486567, 3655880; 486562, 3655877; 486559,
3655874; 486556, 3655873; 486553, 3655874; 486552, 3655878; 486550,
3655881; 486547, 3655884; 486543, 3655885; 486539, 3655887; 486531,
3655892; 486525, 3655897; 486520, 3655900; 486514, 3655903; 486508,
3655905; 486503, 3655907; 486498, 3655910; 486495, 3655914; 486493,
3655917; 486490, 3655920; 486492, 3655922; 486493, 3655924; 486496,
3655924; 486500, 3655924; 486504, 3655924; 486508, 3655925; 486511,
3655926; 486512, 3655929; 486513, 3655933; 486517, 3655934; 486520,
3655934; 486523, 3655929; 486525, 3655926; 486528, 3655925; 486533,
3655925; 486539, 3655923; 486540, 3655918; 486542, 3655912; 486545,
3655909; 486549, 3655906; 486552, 3655904; 486556, 3655903; 486561,
3655903; 486566, 3655904; 486571, 3655905; 486575, 3655908; 486578,
3655911; 486580, 3655915; 486579, 3655919; 486576, 3655923; 486571,
3655926; 486567, 3655930; 486561, 3655933; 486555, 3655937; 486550,
3655940; thence returning to 486546, 3655942. Continue to 486546,
3655942; 486540, 3655943; 486536, 3655944; 486531, 3655946; 486529,
3655949; 486533, 3655948; 486537, 3655947; 486542, 3655945; thence
returning to 486546, 3655942. Continue to 484970, 3656030; 484990,
3656022; 484994, 3656022; 485035, 3656004; 485080, 3655965; 485109,
3655914; 485144, 3655848; 485127, 3655839; 485113, 3655820; 485105,
3655815; 485103, 3655818; 485091, 3655792; 485079, 3655765; 485085,
3655752; 485121, 3655742; 485122, 3655723; 485133, 3655703; 485087,
3655665; 485055, 3655683; 485033, 3655727; 484990, 3655682; 485016,
3655631; 485015, 3655619; 484956, 3655584; 484867, 3655543; 484773,
3655500; 484705, 3655465; 484700, 3655476; 484694, 3655492; 484689,
3655508; 484687, 3655516; 484691, 3655525; 484725, 3655575; 484752,
3655566; 484792, 3655552; 484841, 3655562; 484863, 3655612; 484890,
3655679; 484927, 3655762; 484963, 3655846; 484965, 3655851; 484955,
3655884; 484931, 3655906; 484897, 3655930; 484903, 3655940; 484915,
3655960; 484920, 3655967; 484927, 3655977; 484934, 3655987; 484937,
3655992; 484945, 3656001; thence returning to 484970, 3656030. Continue
to 486197, 3655653; 486184, 3655747; 486164, 3655904; 486168, 3655904;
486172, 3655905; 486177, 3655903; 486182, 3655901; 486187, 3655901;
486193, 3655901; 486199, 3655900; 486207, 3655899; 486213, 3655898;
486220, 3655899; 486228, 3655903; 486240, 3655908; 486245, 3655909;
486254, 3655910; 486263, 3655911; 486273, 3655914; 486282, 3655916;
486291, 3655919; 486300, 3655920; 486312, 3655920; 486321, 3655919;
486334, 3655919; 486344, 3655919; 486352, 3655919; 486360, 3655920;
486369, 3655920; 486376, 3655920; 486384, 3655920; 486392, 3655919;
486402, 3655919; 486412, 3655919; 486418, 3655918; 486424, 3655914;
486430, 3655912; 486437, 3655909; 486442, 3655907; 486447, 3655904;
486451, 3655902; 486453, 3655901; 486456, 3655900; 486459, 3655901;
486462, 3655902; 486466, 3655903; 486469, 3655906; 486469, 3655909;
486468, 3655913; 486471, 3655911; 486475, 3655908; 486491, 3655899;
486496, 3655897; 486501, 3655895; 486507, 3655894; 486513, 3655893;
486516, 3655892; 486519, 3655890; 486522, 3655886; 486526, 3655882;
486530, 3655880; 486533, 3655879; 486537, 3655877; 486541, 3655875;
486550, 3655869; 486555, 3655866; 486561, 3655862; 486567, 3655859;
486574, 3655856; 486581, 3655853; 486588, 3655850; 486595, 3655848;
486604, 3655845; 486611, 3655844; 486619, 3655842; 486624, 3655840;
486628, 3655837; 486634, 3655831; 486639, 3655826; 486644, 3655822;
486646, 3655819; 486647, 3655816; 486651, 3655813; 486655, 3655813;
486660, 3655812; 486665, 3655808; 486670, 3655809; 486672, 3655806;
486675, 3655803; 486680, 3655801; 486686, 3655799; 486690, 3655797;
486697, 3655793; 486702, 3655790; 486706, 3655790; 486708, 3655789;
486711, 3655788; 486716, 3655784; 486721, 3655783; 486726, 3655782;
486734, 3655781; 486739, 3655779; 486744, 3655777; 486750, 3655774;
486756, 3655772; 486761, 3655768; 486766, 3655765; 486772, 3655765;
486776, 3655765; 486783, 3655764; 486788, 3655763; 486794, 3655762;
486799, 3655762; 486804, 3655761; 486809, 3655760; 486815, 3655759;
486820, 3655759; 486824, 3655760; 486827, 3655760; 486831, 3655760;
486834, 3655757; 486838, 3655754; 486856, 3655753; 486862, 3655752;
486870, 3655752; 486878, 3655753; 486884, 3655754; 486892, 3655754;
486898, 3655754; 486904, 3655753; 486911, 3655753; 486925, 3655753;
486932, 3655753; 486939, 3655754; 486946, 3655754; 486953, 3655753;
486959, 3655752; 486964, 3655751; 486968, 3655750; 486974, 3655749;
486977, 3655749; 486981, 3655748; 486985, 3655747; 486983, 3655743;
486979, 3655736; 486973, 3655724; 486966, 3655711; 486957, 3655696;
486947, 3655682; 486936, 3655669; 486925, 3655658; 486907, 3655639;
486895, 3655628; 486881, 3655617; 486868, 3655607; 486853, 3655598;
486842, 3655592; 486826, 3655583; 486820, 3655581; 486814, 3655577;
486800, 3655572; 486785, 3655566; 486768, 3655561; 486752, 3655557;
486742, 3655555;
[[Page 74598]]
486735, 3655554; 486727, 3655552; 486710, 3655549; 486694, 3655548;
486681, 3655548; 486677, 3655547; 486660, 3655548; 486643, 3655549;
486633, 3655551; 486608, 3655555; 486601, 3655556; 486584, 3655560;
486572, 3655564; 486517, 3655581; 486514, 3655583; 486469, 3655596;
486434, 3655609; 486378, 3655627; 486374, 3655628; 486367, 3655631;
486351, 3655636; 486310, 3655654; 486289, 3655652; 486285, 3655652;
486268, 3655651; 486257, 3655651; 486245, 3655652; thence returning to
486197, 3655653. Continue to 485696, 3655719; 485694, 3655718; 485691,
3655727; 485680, 3655734; 485680, 3655743; 485680, 3655753; 485670,
3655762; 485654, 3655771; 485642, 3655777; 485627, 3655773; 485614,
3655766; 485595, 3655752; 485585, 3655751; 485570, 3655748; 485560,
3655740; 485546, 3655725; 485539, 3655714; 485534, 3655715; 485526,
3655719; 485516, 3655722; 485506, 3655724; 485498, 3655726; 485491,
3655728; 485483, 3655732; 485477, 3655735; 485483, 3655745; 485490,
3655759; 485539, 3655844; 485664, 3655792; 485668, 3655784; 485672,
3655776; 485677, 3655767; 485684, 3655755; 485688, 3655742; 485695,
3655728; thence returning to 485696, 3655719. Continue to 485125,
3655282; 485161, 3655336; 485197, 3655388; 485188, 3655448; 485200,
3655465; 485201, 3655467; 485236, 3655453; 485265, 3655443; 485268,
3655437; 485269, 3655424; 485260, 3655418; 485249, 3655409; 485237,
3655398; 485222, 3655388; 485211, 3655375; 485210, 3655358; 485214,
3655341; 485230, 3655328; 485226, 3655316; 485220, 3655313; 485204,
3655306; 485187, 3655299; 485168, 3655293; 485156, 3655302; 485136,
3655286; 485133, 3655281; 485128, 3655280; thence returning to 485125,
3655282.
(iii) Note: Map of Unit 5, San Dieguito River Watershed (Map 5)
follows:
[[Page 74599]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30NO10.217
(10) Unit 6: San Diego River Watershed (Mission Trails Regional
Park), San Diego County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle La Mesa. Land bounded by the
following UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 497416, 3633563;
497433, 3633542; 497440, 3633534; 497486, 3633525; 497490, 3633524;
497564, 3633515; 497623, 3633447; 497653, 3633437; 497667, 3633426;
497667, 3633425; 497665, 3633424; 497664, 3633423; 497663, 3633421;
497661, 3633420; 497660, 3633419; 497659, 3633418; 497658, 3633417;
497657, 3633415; 497656, 3633415; 497653, 3633416; 497641, 3633406;
497622, 3633389; 497502, 3633282; 497501, 3633282; 497500, 3633281;
497499, 3633280; 497498, 3633279; 497496, 3633277; 497494, 3633275;
497493, 3633272; 497492, 3633270; 497491, 3633268; 497490, 3633266;
497490, 3633265; 497489, 3633263; 497488, 3633261; 497487, 3633259;
497486, 3633257; 497486, 3633255; 497485, 3633253; 497484, 3633251;
497483, 3633250; 497483, 3633248; 497482, 3633247; 497482, 3633246;
497481, 3633244; 497480, 3633243; 497480, 3633241; 497478, 3633241;
497476, 3633242; 497474, 3633242; 497436, 3633248; 497321, 3633266;
497291, 3633271; 497255, 3633277; 497253, 3633277; 497251, 3633278;
497250, 3633279; 497248, 3633279; 497247, 3633279;
[[Page 74600]]
497245, 3633280; 497244, 3633280; 497242, 3633281; 497241, 3633281;
497239, 3633281; 497238, 3633282; 497236, 3633282; 497235, 3633283;
497234, 3633283; 497232, 3633284; 497231, 3633284; 497229, 3633284;
497228, 3633285; 497226, 3633285; 497225, 3633286; 497223, 3633286;
497222, 3633287; 497220, 3633287; 497219, 3633288; 497218, 3633288;
497216, 3633289; 497215, 3633289; 497213, 3633290; 497212, 3633290;
497210, 3633291; 497209, 3633291; 497207, 3633291; 497206, 3633292;
497204, 3633292; 497203, 3633293; 497202, 3633293; 497200, 3633294;
497199, 3633294; 497197, 3633295; 497195, 3633296; 497193, 3633297;
497192, 3633297; 497190, 3633298; 497189, 3633298; 497187, 3633299;
497186, 3633299; 497185, 3633300; 497183, 3633301; 497182, 3633301;
497181, 3633302; 497179, 3633303; 497178, 3633304; 497176, 3633304;
497175, 3633305; 497174, 3633305; 497172, 3633306; 497171, 3633307;
497169, 3633307; 497168, 3633308; 497167, 3633309; 497165, 3633309;
497129, 3633325; 497132, 3633327; 497145, 3633339; 497105, 3633342;
497094, 3633342; 497094, 3633344; 497094, 3633345; 497095, 3633347;
497095, 3633348; 497109, 3633363; 497119, 3633374; 497159, 3633420;
497163, 3633424; 497166, 3633429; 497170, 3633433; 497173, 3633437;
497177, 3633442; 497180, 3633446; 497183, 3633451; 497186, 3633456;
497189, 3633460; 497192, 3633465; 497195, 3633470; 497198, 3633475;
497200, 3633480; 497203, 3633485; 497206, 3633490; 497208, 3633495;
497210, 3633500; 497213, 3633505; 497215, 3633510; 497217, 3633515;
497219, 3633520; 497222, 3633530; 497240, 3633585; 497267, 3633572;
497316, 3633562; 497347, 3633594; 497350, 3633597; 497359, 3633637;
497395, 3633637; 497391, 3633607; thence returning to 497416, 3633563.
Continue to 497667, 3633724; 497706, 3633658; 497714, 3633643; 497746,
3633579; 497750, 3633570; 497745, 3633571; 497666, 3633595; 497632,
3633604; 497609, 3633598; 497597, 3633594; 497568, 3633623; 497468,
3633685; 497478, 3633726; 497513, 3633712; 497537, 3633722; 497518,
3633746; 497463, 3633780; 497456, 3633786; 497466, 3633785; 497473,
3633785; 497491, 3633784; 497507, 3633782; 497517, 3633781; 497548,
3633775; 497582, 3633764; 497606, 3633759; 497614, 3633757; 497618,
3633756; 497630, 3633752; 497642, 3633747; 497654, 3633742; 497658,
3633740; thence returning to 497667, 3633724. Continue to 497734,
3633375; 497757, 3633359; 497793, 3633362; 497815, 3633364; 497811,
3633356; 497804, 3633344; 497797, 3633332; 497791, 3633336; 497713,
3633382; 497683, 3633399; 497685, 3633402; 497691, 3633408; 497709,
3633394; 497722, 3633383; thence returning to 497734, 3633375.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 6, San Diego River Watershed (Map 6)
follows:
[[Page 74601]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30NO10.218
(11) Unit 7: Sweetwater River Watershed. From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle Jamul Mountains, San Diego County, California.
(i) Subunit 7A: Jamul Drive, land bounded by the following UTM Zone
11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 508257, 3622795; 508265, 3622710; 508240,
3622721; 508243, 3622534; 508294, 3622538; 508280, 3622534; 508265,
3622522; 508263, 3622516; 508252, 3622510; 508248, 3622507; 508235,
3622498; 508230, 3622497; 508186, 3622467; 508145, 3622409; 508096,
3622372; 508090, 3622382; 508083, 3622382; 508075, 3622386; 508071,
3622393; 508069, 3622400; 508066, 3622405; 508059, 3622409; 508055,
3622415; 508055, 3622423; 508060, 3622431; 508034, 3622474; 508071,
3622495; 508095, 3622462; 508148, 3622529; 508173, 3622590; 508168,
3622714; 508145, 3622769; 508138, 3622783; 508090, 3622755; 508081,
3622750; 508081, 3622720; 508081, 3622701; 508032, 3622672; 508025,
3622712; 508024, 3622721; 508014, 3622716; 508003, 3622710; 508014,
3622722; 508026, 3622734; 508040, 3622745; 508053, 3622755; 508068,
3622764; 508076, 3622768; 508089, 3622775; 508105, 3622782; 508121,
3622788; 508137, 3622793; 508153, 3622797; 508170, 3622800; 508182,
3622801; 508188, 3622802; 508196, 3622802; 508229, 3622802; 508246,
[[Page 74602]]
3622800; 508259, 3622798; thence returning to 508257, 3622795. Continue
to 508468, 3622646; 508485, 3622630; 508517, 3622630; 508534, 3622638;
508542, 3622640; 508558, 3622642; 508542, 3622609; 508536, 3622576;
508559, 3622577; 508651, 3622578; 508673, 3622575; 508700, 3622571;
508702, 3622561; 508702, 3622558; 508705, 3622544; 508705, 3622536;
508706, 3622527; 508707, 3622510; 508706, 3622494; 508705, 3622476;
508702, 3622460; 508699, 3622448; 508697, 3622439; 508696, 3622434;
508694, 3622427; 508691, 3622417; 508688, 3622409; 508682, 3622392;
508675, 3622377; 508667, 3622362; 508658, 3622348; 508654, 3622341;
508647, 3622332; 508642, 3622325; 508634, 3622316; 508631, 3622312;
508619, 3622299; 508607, 3622288; 508594, 3622277; 508581, 3622267;
508567, 3622257; 508553, 3622248; 508538, 3622240; 508522, 3622233;
508506, 3622227; 508490, 3622222; 508478, 3622220; 508469, 3622218;
508464, 3622216; 508448, 3622214; 508439, 3622213; 508427, 3622212;
508419, 3622211; 508402, 3622210; 508385, 3622211; 508382, 3622211;
508368, 3622213; 508355, 3622215; 508356, 3622218; 508355, 3622222;
508348, 3622263; 508314, 3622305; 508310, 3622320; 508322, 3622341;
508344, 3622369; 508355, 3622382; 508379, 3622440; 508382, 3622447;
508385, 3622455; 508391, 3622474; 508385, 3622478; 508381, 3622480;
508369, 3622497; 508367, 3622516; 508373, 3622533; 508379, 3622539;
508392, 3622541; 508423, 3622547; 508428, 3622548; 508424, 3622568;
508421, 3622582; 508427, 3622592; 508448, 3622625; thence returning to
508468, 3622646.
(ii) Subunit 7B: San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, land bounded
by the following UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 506785,
3622518; 506776, 3622486; 506773, 3622483; 506782, 3622480; 506803,
3622474; 506850, 3622458; 506889, 3622450; 506892, 3622450; 506929,
3622425; 506979, 3622418; 506982, 3622418; 507036, 3622402; 507095,
3622387; 507102, 3622386; 507118, 3622390; 507118, 3622415; 507212,
3622399; 507220, 3622440; 507278, 3622444; 507298, 3622453; 507360,
3622474; 507401, 3622441; 507434, 3622417; 507474, 3622397; 507478,
3622395; 507513, 3622372; 507520, 3622374; 507527, 3622376; 507574,
3622389; 507587, 3622323; 507587, 3622311; 507593, 3622117; 507596,
3622028; 507593, 3622026; 507580, 3622020; 507575, 3622017; 507560,
3622010; 507544, 3622004; 507527, 3621999; 507511, 3621995; 507494,
3621992; 507477, 3621991; 507460, 3621990; 507454, 3621990; 507450,
3621985; 507438, 3621973; 507426, 3621961; 507413, 3621950; 507399,
3621940; 507385, 3621932; 507370, 3621924; 507354, 3621917; 507338,
3621911; 507322, 3621906; 507306, 3621902; 507289, 3621899; 507280,
3621898; 507266, 3621897; 507259, 3621896; 507242, 3621896; 507225,
3621896; 507208, 3621898; 507191, 3621901; 507175, 3621904; 507159,
3621909; 507143, 3621916; 507127, 3621923; 507112, 3621930; 507109,
3621932; 507088, 3621945; 507077, 3621952; 507063, 3621962; 507050,
3621973; 507039, 3621983; 507011, 3621999; 507008, 3622000; 506993,
3622009; 506979, 3622020; 506925, 3622061; 506917, 3622068; 506908,
3622075; 506901, 3622078; 506855, 3622075; 506838, 3622074; 506832,
3622074; 506783, 3622076; 506771, 3622076; 506755, 3622078; 506744,
3622079; 506729, 3622075; 506708, 3622069; 506692, 3622065; 506675,
3622062; 506658, 3622061; 506641, 3622060; 506624, 3622061; 506608,
3622062; 506591, 3622065; 506574, 3622069; 506558, 3622074; 506542,
3622080; 506527, 3622087; 506512, 3622095; 506498, 3622104; 506484,
3622114; 506471, 3622124; 506458, 3622136; 506447, 3622149; 506436,
3622162; 506426, 3622175; 506417, 3622190; 506409, 3622205; 506402,
3622220; 506399, 3622229; 506394, 3622241; 506392, 3622248; 506387,
3622264; 506383, 3622281; 506380, 3622297; 506379, 3622314; 506378,
3622331; 506379, 3622348; 506380, 3622365; 506383, 3622382; 506387,
3622398; 506392, 3622414; 506398, 3622430; 506405, 3622446; 506413,
3622461; 506422, 3622475; 506427, 3622482; 506432, 3622488; 506440,
3622498; 506447, 3622508; 506460, 3622526; 506470, 3622541; 506479,
3622551; 506488, 3622546; 506494, 3622543; 506515, 3622535; 506552,
3622521; 506562, 3622517; 506579, 3622493; 506649, 3622502; 506714,
3622510; 506714, 3622576; 506758, 3622587; 506759, 3622593; 506764,
3622590; 506771, 3622582; 506773, 3622578; 506775, 3622574; 506776,
3622571; 506779, 3622557; 506780, 3622551; 506783, 3622529; thence
returning to 506785, 3622518. Continue to 506785, 3622517; 506850,
3622515; 506895, 3622524; 506928, 3622512; 506953, 3622496; 506982,
3622483; 507015, 3622475; 507026, 3622438; 506994, 3622434; 506908,
3622466; 506838, 3622491; thence returning to 506785, 3622517.
(iii) Subunit 7C: Steele Canyon Bridge, land bounded by the
following UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 505615, 3621882;
505571, 3621844; 505579, 3621869; 505578, 3621878; 505576, 3621904;
505573, 3621960; 505572, 3621967; 505583, 3621969; 505599, 3621972;
505618, 3621974; 505622, 3621974; 505635, 3621975; 505647, 3621975;
505664, 3621974; 505679, 3621973; 505695, 3621971; 505712, 3621968;
505716, 3621967; 505701, 3621940; 505673, 3621923; 505636, 3621910;
505620, 3621886; thence returning to 505615, 3621882. Continue to
505971, 3621723; 505975, 3621707; 505976, 3621702; 505978, 3621690;
505980, 3621678; 505981, 3621666; 505982, 3621661; 505982, 3621650;
505983, 3621637; 505982, 3621615; 505980, 3621597; 505979, 3621584;
505976, 3621569; 505974, 3621561; 505973, 3621554; 505962, 3621558;
505932, 3621570; 505832, 3621575; 505808, 3621562; 505797, 3621556;
505794, 3621554; 505794, 3621549; 505794, 3621533; 505792, 3621514;
505797, 3621512; 505860, 3621488; 505867, 3621487; 505877, 3621491;
505918, 3621454; 505928, 3621452; 505927, 3621449; 505919, 3621439;
505917, 3621435; 505912, 3621428; 505901, 3621415; 505894, 3621408;
505890, 3621404; 505855, 3621395; 505851, 3621395; 505827, 3621394;
505802, 3621402; 505756, 3621431; 505732, 3621455; 505715, 3621480;
505674, 3621484; 505616, 3621483; 505592, 3621487; 505589, 3621487;
505563, 3621491; 505522, 3621511; 505472, 3621540; 505484, 3621544;
505529, 3621540; 505534, 3621540; 505550, 3621556; 505571, 3621577;
505574, 3621598; 505571, 3621603; 505567, 3621615; 505565, 3621627;
505564, 3621634; 505564, 3621639; 505566, 3621652; 505569, 3621664;
505574, 3621675; 505581, 3621686; 505590, 3621694; 505599, 3621702;
505609, 3621708; 505622, 3621713; 505634, 3621716; 505647, 3621716;
505662, 3621714; 505673, 3621710; 505677, 3621709; 505705, 3621718;
505762, 3621747; 505805, 3621785; 505882, 3621851; 505883, 3621858;
505885, 3621867; 505888, 3621871; 505899, 3621860; 505910, 3621846;
505914, 3621840; 505918, 3621835; 505927, 3621823; 505936, 3621808;
505940, 3621801; 505946, 3621790; 505949, 3621782; 505956, 3621767;
505962, 3621753; 505966, 3621740; thence returning to 505971, 3621723.
Continue to 505319, 3621677; 505307, 3621669; 505309, 3621682; 505309,
3621686; 505310, 3621694; 505312, 3621702; 505315, 3621718; 505316,
3621722; 505320, 3621734;
[[Page 74603]]
505321, 3621737; 505323, 3621745; 505374, 3621776; 505397, 3621757;
505403, 3621748; 505355, 3621707; 505342, 3621694; 505338, 3621692;
505321, 3621679; thence returning to 505319, 3621677. Continue to
505603, 3621450; 505617, 3621446; 505666, 3621446; 505691, 3621443;
505707, 3621414; 505716, 3621406; 505721, 3621394; 505728, 3621377;
505790, 3621349; 505839, 3621359; 505831, 3621354; 505817, 3621344;
505812, 3621342; 505801, 3621336; 505791, 3621331; 505787, 3621329;
505776, 3621324; 505764, 3621319; 505752, 3621315; 505748, 3621314;
505732, 3621308; 505714, 3621305; 505701, 3621302; 505686, 3621300;
505670, 3621298; 505660, 3621298; 505648, 3621297; 505633, 3621298;
505623, 3621298; 505607, 3621299; 505595, 3621301; 505577, 3621304;
505561, 3621308; 505555, 3621309; 505543, 3621312; 505533, 3621316;
505517, 3621322; 505506, 3621327; 505494, 3621332; 505490, 3621334;
505475, 3621342; 505460, 3621352; 505449, 3621359; 505437, 3621368;
505423, 3621379; 505418, 3621384; 505412, 3621389; 505408, 3621393;
505402, 3621399; 505403, 3621404; 505428, 3621436; 505456, 3621474;
505464, 3621503; 505478, 3621505; 505485, 3621507; 505488, 3621505;
505518, 3621482; 505571, 3621458; 505597, 3621452; thence returning to
505603, 3621450.
(iv) Note: Map of Unit 7, Sweetwater River Watershed (Map 7)
follows:
[[Page 74604]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30NO10.219
* * * * *
Dated: November 17, 2010.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-29692 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C