[Federal Register: November 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 219)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66373-66423]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14no06-9]
[[Page 66373]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii; Final Rule
[[Page 66374]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AU51
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
designating critical habitat for the Astragalus brauntonii (Braunton's
milk-vetch) and Pentachaeta lyonii (Lyon's pentachaeta) pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). For A. brauntonii,
approximately 3,300 acres (ac) (1,337 hectares (ha)) fall within the
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The critical habitat
for A. brauntonii is located in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange
Counties, California. For P. lyonii, approximately 3,396 ac (1,372 ha)
fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The
critical habitat for P. lyonii is located in Ventura and Los Angeles
Counties, California.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on December 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, in
the branch of Endangered Species, at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003. The final rule,
economic analysis, and map are also available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ventura
.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, Ventura
Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address in ADDRESSES (telephone 805/
644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958). Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339, 7 days a week and 24 hours a day.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and
Implementing the Act
Attention to and protection of habitat are paramount to successful
conservation actions. The role that designation of critical habitat
plays in protecting habitat of listed species, however, is often
misunderstood. As discussed in more detail below in the discussion of
exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, there are significant
limitations on the regulatory effect of designation under section
7(a)(2) of the Act. In brief, (1) designation provides additional
protection to habitat only where there is a federal nexus; (2) the
protection is relevant only when, in the absence of designation,
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat would in
fact take place (in other words, other statutory or regulatory
protections, policies, or other factors relevant to agency decision-
making would not prevent the destruction or adverse modification); and
(3) designation of critical habitat triggers the prohibition of
destruction or adverse modification of that habitat, but it does not
require specific actions to restore or improve habitat.
Currently, only 476 species, or 36 percent of the 1,311 listed
species in the United States under the jurisdiction of the Service,
have designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all
1,311 listed species through conservation mechanisms such as listing,
section 7 consultations, the section 4 recovery planning process, the
section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6
funding to the States, the section 10 incidental take permit process,
and cooperative, nonregulatory efforts with private landowners. The
Service believes that it is these measures that may make the difference
between extinction and survival for many species.
In considering exclusions of areas originally proposed for
designation, we evaluated the benefits of designation in light of
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) (hereinafter Gifford Pinchot). In that
case, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the Service's regulation defining
``destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.'' In
response, on December 9, 2004, the Director issued guidance to be
considered in making section 7 adverse modification determinations.
This critical habitat designation does not use the invalidated
regulation in our consideration of the benefits of including areas in
this final designation. The Service will carefully manage future
consultations that analyze impacts to designated critical habitat,
particularly those that appear to be resulting in an adverse
modification determination. Such consultations will be reviewed by the
Regional Office prior to finalizing to ensure that an adequate analysis
has been conducted that is informed by the Director's guidance.
On the other hand, to the extent that designation of critical
habitat provides protection, that protection can come at significant
social and economic cost. In addition, the mere administrative process
of designation of critical habitat is expensive, time-consuming, and
controversial. The current statutory framework of critical habitat,
combined with past judicial interpretations of the statute, make
critical habitat the subject of excessive litigation. As a result,
critical habitat designations are driven by litigation and courts
rather than biology, and made at a time and under a time frame that
limits our ability to obtain and evaluate the scientific and other
information required to make the designation most meaningful.
In light of these circumstances, the Service believes that
additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those
actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need
of protection.
Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat
We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct
scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most
biologically urgent species conservation needs.
The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to
Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to
comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result,
listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list
critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on
existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left
the Service with limited ability to provide for public participation or
to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions on
listing and critical habitat proposals, due to the risks associated
with noncompliance with judicially imposed deadlines. This in turn
fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse
[[Page 66375]]
impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those
designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, and is
expensive, thus diverting resources from conservation actions that may
provide relatively more benefit to imperiled species.
The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; U.S.C. 4371 et seq.). These
costs, which are not required for many other conservation actions,
directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible
conservation actions.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat in this rule. For more information
on Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii, refer to the proposed
critical habitat published in the Federal Register on November 10, 2005
(70 FR 68982), and the final listing rule published on January 29, 1997
(62 FR 4172).
Previous Federal Actions
For more information concerning previous Federal actions concerning
Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii, refer to the proposed
designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on
November 10, 2005 (70 FR 68982). On January 27, 2003, our decision not
to designate critical habitat for A. brauntonii and P. lyonii was
challenged in Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton (Case No. 03-
CV-0198-IEG (S.D.Cal.). On July 28, 2003, the Court entered a
settlement agreement, in which the Service agreed to submit for
publication a proposal to withdraw the existing ``not prudent''
determination together with a new proposed critical habitat
determination for both species by November 1, 2005. On November 10,
2005, we published a proposed rule to designate approximately 3,638 ac
(1,471 ha) of critical habitat in 6 units in Ventura, Los Angeles, and
Orange Counties, California, for A. brauntonii, and approximately 4,212
ac (1,703 ha) of critical habitat in 7 units in Ventura and Los Angeles
Counties, California for P. lyonii (70 FR 68982). On July 21, 2006, we
published a notice announcing the availability of the draft economic
analysis (DEA), and reopening of the public comment period (71 FR
41410). This comment period closed on August 21, 2006.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Astragalus brauntonii and
Pentachaeta lyonii in the proposed rule published on November 10, 2005
(70 FR 68982). We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and
invited them to comment on the proposed rule. The initial comment
period ended January 9, 2006. We published newspaper notices on July 6,
2006, in the Ventura County Star, Ventura, California; and in the Yorba
Linda Star, Orange County, California, inviting public comment on the
economic analysis and proposed critical habitat designation. We did not
receive any requests for a public hearing.
During the comment period that opened on November 10, 2005, and
closed on January 9, 2006, we received 10 comments directly addressing
the proposed critical habitat designation: 5 from peer reviewers, 1
from a Federal agency, and 4 from organizations or individuals. During
the comment period that opened on July 21, 2006, and closed on August
21, 2006, we received five comments directly addressing the proposed
critical habitat designation and the draft economic analysis. Of these
latter comments, one was from a Federal agency, one was from a State
agency, and three were from organizations or individuals. Fourteen
commenters supported the designation of critical habitat for Astragalus
brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii, and one commenter did not express
support or opposition to the designation but requested that the lands
under their ownership be excluded from the designation of critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. All comments and new
information relating to the proposed critical habitat designation for
A. brauntonii and P. lyonii are addressed in the following summary and
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from seven knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and
conservation biology principles. We received responses from five of the
peer reviewers. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods
and conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications,
and suggestions to improve the final critical habitat rule. Peer
reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information regarding critical
habitat for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii, and address
them in the following summary.
Peer Reviewer Comments
1. Comment: A peer reviewer disagreed with our assertion that fire
suppression was a threat to Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta
lyonii. He stated that despite efforts to suppress fires in coastal
southern California, the present frequency of fires, which is every 15
years or less, is substantially higher than historically, which is
thought to be every 50 to 100 years. This current fire frequency has
resulted in displacing native shrubs with non-native grasses that are
competitively superior to A. brauntonii and P. lyonii. Therefore, he
recommended that management of critical habitat areas emphasize the
need for preventing excessive fires.
Our Response: We agree that excessive fires should be prevented in
critical habitat areas. We note that Astragalus brauntonii responds
favorably to fire because it triggers germination of dormant seeds.
However, if fires are too frequent, this benefit may be outweighed by
the risk of conversion to non-native grasslands. We recognize that the
long dormant period for seeds suggests that frequent fires are not
necessary to ensure persistence, and thus frequent fires should not be
encouraged. Instead, the management goal should be to maintain those
conditions to which the species is adapted. Contrary to the reviewer's
assertion, we did not list fire suppression as a threat to Pentachaeta
lyonii. Invasion of non-native plants and annual grasses is a major
threat to both species, and therefore, excessive fires should be
prevented in critical habitat for both species. We have removed fire
suppression as a threat to A. brauntonii in the final designation.
2. Comment: A peer reviewer disagreed with the Service's statement
that ``critical habitat provides relatively little additional
protection to listed species,'' because designation of critical habitat
includes information about the primary constituent elements the species
needs for persistence and
[[Page 66376]]
recovery. This information can be used by Federal and non-Federal
agencies to develop a basic landscape scale long-term conservation
strategy for the species.
Our Response: The section referenced by the reviewer is intended to
be a general statement regarding our position on the designation of
critical habitat. As discussed in the preamble of this and other
critical habitat designation rules, we believe that, in most cases,
conservation mechanisms provided through section 7, the section 4
recovery planning process, the section 9 protective prohibitions of
unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the States, the section 10
incidental take permit process, and cooperative programs with private
and public landowners and Tribes provide greater incentives and
conservation benefits than does the designation of critical habitat.
Furthermore, while we agree critical habitat designations include
species specific information that can be used by Federal and non-
Federal agencies to develop a basic landscape scale long-term
conservation strategy for a species, agencies may obtain similar types
of information from other Service documents, such as species recovery
plans.
3. Comment: A peer reviewer commented that the proposed critical
habitat rule did not discuss the Incidental Take permit for Pentachaeta
lyonii pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1081 that is currently
being processed for the Lake Sherwood Area Plan in Ventura County. The
peer reviewer stated that most of the western portion of Unit 3c is
addressed in the plan.
Our Response: We are aware of the State of California's pending
Incidental Take permit for the Lake Sherwood Area Plan. However, as of
this final designation, the plan is not finished and thus has not yet
been approved. Therefore, we did not consider the potential impacts of
the proposed activities on Pentachaeta lyonii or critical habitat
within the Lake Sherwood Area Plan for this designation.
4. Comment: A peer reviewer stated that we did not include in our
records a location of Astragalus brauntonii that occurs on the ``old
Ahmanson property.''
Our Response: The reviewer is referring to occurrence number 29 in
the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) record for Astragalus
brauntonii. The exact location of this occurrence is not known. After
careful review and inquiries to several individuals who are familiar
with the occurrences for this species, we have concluded that this
occurrence is probably incorrect and may not exist. We welcome any
further information about this occurrence.
5. Comment: A peer reviewer stated that the ``historic Stunt Ranch
site'' should be included for recovery purposes for potential
reintroduction. The reviewer is referring to occurrence number 3 in the
CNDDB database record for Pentachaeta lyonii.
Our Response: We did not include this occurrence because it
currently does not appear to be suitable habitat for Pentachaeta
lyonii. The species has not been present on the site since it burned in
1993. The soil in that area has been heavily disturbed by gophers, and
this has made the area very favorable for non-native annual grasses.
Despite the fact that this occurrence was not included in critical
habitat, we recognize that there may be reintroduction potential for
this site, and would consider this a valid recovery effort for the
species.
6. Comment: A peer reviewer thought that the designation of
critical habitat for Astragalus brauntonii should be postponed until
the portions of proposed critical habitat that were burned by a
wildfire in 2005 (subunits 1a-1d and subunits 2a-2f) could be surveyed.
The fires may have stimulated dormant seeds of A. brauntonii in areas
where the plant was not known to occur. The purpose of these surveys
would be to determine if there are additional areas that contain A.
brauntonii for inclusion into critical habitat.
Our Response: We were unable to postpone designation of critical
habitat to wait for the results of post-fire surveys because a July 28,
2003, settlement agreement and resulting court order mandated that we
propose critical habitat by November 1, 2005, and finalize the critical
habitat designation by November 1, 2006. However, we did fund post-fire
surveys for Astragalus brauntonii in those areas that were burned. The
results of those surveys revealed several new locations of A.
brauntonii outside of proposed critical habitat. One location was found
along a firebreak extending up to 2,297 feet (ft) (700 meters (m)) from
subunit 2a in Oakbrook Regional Park, and at least four new locations
were found between subunits 2d and 2e. These locations are within areas
similar in habitat, and within the known distribution of the species.
This highlights the difficulty in determining every occurrence of the
species because the locations of dormant seeds may be unknown until a
disturbance occurs. However critical habitat does not reflect every
population or occurrence of A. brauntonii. We are designating habitat
that we have determined contains the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species arranged in the quantity
and spatial characteristics necessary for conservation (see section
titled ``Critical Habitat'' below for more information on the
determination of critical habitat).
7. Comment: A peer reviewer thought that PCE 1 for Astragalus
brauntonii, which was ``carbonate limestone soils derived from marine
sediment,'' was not the best description of the soil type associated
with the plant. A recent study in which soil samples were taken at most
locations of A. brauntonii revealed that the plant occurs in areas with
calcium carbonate soils (a broader range of soils), and not necessarily
where soils are derived from limestone (Landis 2005). The reviewer
suggested that the original PCE could lead researchers to only look for
A. brauntonii in soils that are obviously derived from limestone.
Our Response: We have changed this PCE by removing the reference to
limestone soils and adding calcium carbonate to the soils description.
This change is also reflected in ``Areas that Provide the Basic
Requirements for Growth (Such as Water, Light, and Minerals).''
8. Comment: A peer reviewer commented that he is aware of
occurrences of Astragalus brauntonii between Units 3 and 4 but is
unable to disclose the locations because he entered into a
``confidentiality clause'' with the clients that commissioned surveys.
Our Response: We are not entirely surprised that additional
populations occur in the area between units 3 and 4, because this
intervening area has similar features and PCEs to the two units. The
Service has made a diligent effort to gather all sources of information
concerning the distribution of this species, including surveys and
other studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, and
the personal knowledge of experts. Our proposed critical habitat was
based on the best information available to us at the time.
9. Comment: A peer reviewer wanted to know why there were
discussions of 4 PCEs for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii
throughout the proposed rule, but only 3 PCEs were listed in the PCE
section of the proposed rule.
Our Response: Only three PCEs were included in the proposed rule.
The reference to 4 PCEs in the proposed rule
[[Page 66377]]
was an error, which has been corrected in this final rule.
10. Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that a population
viability analyses would assist us in designing critical habitat units
that are large enough to assure persistence of sufficiently sized
populations. Another peer reviewer thought that most of the units are
too small and should be increased in size to reduce potential impacts
of Argentine ant invasions on pollinators. Argentine ants are
associated with manmade structures, and research has shown that they
reduce native arthropod populations (e.g., bees and wasps) up to 656 ft
(200 m) from their nests. The peer reviewer commented that Argentine
ants could threaten the persistence of the plants because they would be
expected to displace the pollinator community and suggested that we
should include an additional ``ant buffer'' of 656 ft (200 m) around
each unit, which would make the minimum unit size about 180 ac (73 ha).
Our Response: We used the best scientific information available for
this designation, and the Service does not typically conduct population
viability analyses to assist in determining critical habitat. We
acknowledge the potential indirect negative impacts of Argentine ants
on the pollinators of these plant species and agree that a 656-ft (200-
m) distance from the nearest edge of manmade structure may reduce any
potential impacts. The impacts of Argentine ants on a rare native plant
were discussed in a study by Conservation Biology Institute (2000).
However, critical habitat, within the geographical range occupied by
the species at the time it was listed, is defined by those physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species (see
Primary Constituent Elements section) which may require special
management or protection. Physical and biological features essential to
the conservation means PCEs arranged in the quantity and spatial
characteristics necessary for conservation of the species. Critical
habitat is not intended to create a preserve or other conservation
area, or to include buffers in order to reduce impacts from manmade
structures. The potential direct and indirect impacts to critical
habitat and listed plants as a result of development of manmade
structures would presumably be addressed through section 7 or other
regulatory means. Therefore, while we recognize the reviewer's
position, we believe that any identifiable impacts will be addressed
through other regulatory means.
Comments From the State
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for failure to adopt regulations
consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) provided the following comments
concerning the proposed critical habitat designation for Astragalus
brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii.
11. Comment: CDFG provided several corrections to our habitat
description for Pentachaeta lyonii. They stated that P. lyonii is not
always confined to flat slopes but is known to occur on slopes 20-30
percent or greater, and said it can occur on thin volcanic surface
soils underlaid by near-surface volcanic rock, and in localized flat
areas on steep slopes, dirt hiking trails, and old roadbeds.
Our Response: We based our habitat description on the best
available information to us at the time, but acknowledge that
Pentachaeta lyonii may occur in a broader range of habitat preferences
than was described in the proposed critical habitat.
12. Comment: CDFG stated that PCE 2 for Astragalus brauntonii,
``Low proportion (< 10%) of shrub cover directly around the plant,'' was
not entirely correct because the species may persist in the form of
dormant seeds within mature stands of chaparral between episodes of
fire. Therefore, occupied habitat would only contain PCE 2 at some
points in successional time.
Our Response: We recognize that Astragalus brauntonii occurrences
may not contain PCE 2 all of the time, but this PCE is essential for
the plant to be able to complete a necessary life history component--
seed germination and plant growth. It is not necessary for all three
PCEs to be present at a site at all times for it to be considered
critical habitat.
13. Comment: CDFG said that we were incorrect in stating that
Pentachaeta lyonii does not maintain a dormant seed bank, and that the
species responds to favorable growing conditions with dramatic
increases in population numbers and occupied acreage, suggesting that
the species maintains some type of seed bank between years.
Our Response: Keeley (1995) found that seeds buried more that \1/4\
inch under the soil for more than 6 months did not germinate, leading
to his conclusion that the species does not maintain a dormant seed
bank. However, in a later study, he acknowledged that seeds likely
remain dormant during drought years (Fotheringham and Keeley 1998), and
hypothesized that seeds may need to be buried less than \1/4\ inch to
germinate following long-term dormancy periods. This hypothesis
contradicted his previous conclusion that the species does not maintain
a seed bank. We have corrected the final rule to reflect this
information.
14. Comment: CDFG employees have observed Pentachaeta lyonii in
habitat that does not appear to contain a biotic crust, so biotic crust
should not be considered essential for all populations. In this
critical habitat designation, PCE 2 is listed as ``Exposed soils that
exhibit a microbiotic crust which may inhibit invasion by other plant
competitors.''
Our Response: Although there has not been a specific study on
biotic crusts and Pentachaeta lyonii, the habitat of this species was
characterized in the listing rule by ``a low percentage of total plant
cover and exposed soils with a microbiotic crust, partially assisting
with reducing competition with other species.'' Crusts can be seen at
many occupied sites of P. lyonii, and it is believed that these crusts
reduce the ability of other plants to invade areas where P. lyonii
occurs. We believe that this is an important PCE because it highlights
a special management consideration for this species, which is that
disturbance of the soil's surface crust should be avoided to prevent
invasion by other plant species. We recognize that not every occurrence
may contain microbiotic crusts, and it is not necessary for all three
PCEs to be present at a site for it to be considered critical habitat.
15. Comment: CDFG noted that the minimum distance from one edge of
a proposed unit to the other edge is insufficient to reduce potential
adverse edge effects. They stated that Argentine ants, which are
associated with manmade structures, are known to reduce native
arthropod populations, including known insect pollinators of these
species, such as bees and wasps. According to research, a distance of
328-656 ft (100-200 m) from the urban edge to core habitat is needed to
ensure that core habitats remain free of Argentine ants.
Our Response: As discussed in our response to comment 10, we
acknowledge that there is the potential for indirect negative impacts
of Argentine ants associated with manmade structures on the pollinators
of these plant species, and agree that an additional 328-656 ft (100-
200 m) distance beyond the proposed units and from the nearest urban
edge may reduce
[[Page 66378]]
these impacts. However, in defining critical habitat, we believe that
we have identified those areas that contain the PCEs essential to the
conservation of the species which may require special management
considerations or protections. The potential direct and indirect
impacts to critical habitat and listed plants as a result of
development of manmade structures would presumably be addressed through
section 7 or other regulatory means.
16. Comment: CDFG commented that the true distribution of
Astragalus brauntonii is not known because of the species' dormant
seeds that may persist undetected in the soil for many years, and
recommended using soil and geologic maps to capture additional
potentially suitable habitat in the vicinity of known locations.
Our Response: We included additional suitable habitat up to 935 ft
(285 m) from known occurrences in order to capture areas that are
likely to contain an undetected seed bank and to allow for genetic
exchange between patches. We did not include habitat beyond the 935 ft
(285 m) distance, because those areas are not known to be occupied by
the species nor do we have evidence to support that this habitat is
essential to the conservation of the species. We recognize that
designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat
areas that may ultimately be necessary for the recovery of the species,
and therefore, critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat
outside the designation is unimportant or not required for recovery.
17. Comment: CDFG commented that many of the units for both species
lack connectivity to other units; suggested connecting units where
there is potentially suitable geology or soils; and gave specific
examples of units that could be connected.
Our Response: We connected occurrences that were within 1,968 ft
(600 m) of each other into single units to allow for genetic exchange
between populations. We did not connect occurrences beyond that
distance because they were not likely to be genetically connected. In
some cases, units closer than 1,968 ft (600 m) from each other were not
connected because the intervening habitat was developed and lacked the
PCEs.
Public Comments on the Process of Designating Critical Habitat
18. Comment: One commenter stated that the ``historic Stunt Ranch
site'' should be included for recovery purposes for potential
reintroduction. This commenter is referring to occurrence number 3 in
the CNDDB database record for Pentachaeta lyonii.
Our Response: As explained in our response to peer review comment
5, we did not include this occurrence because it currently does not
appear to be suitable habitat for Pentachaeta lyonii. Despite the fact
that this occurrence was not included in critical habitat, we recognize
that there may be reintroduction potential for this site, and would
consider reintroduction to be a valid recovery effort for the species.
19. Comment: One commenter disagreed with the Service's statement
that ``critical habitat provides relatively little additional
protection to listed species'' and asserted that critical habitat
designations include information about the primary constituent elements
the species needs for persistence and recovery. This information can be
used by Federal and non-Federal agencies to develop a basic landscape
scale long-term conservation strategy for the species.
Our Response: As discussed in our response to peer review comment
2, the section referenced by the commenter is intended to be a general
statement regarding our position on the designation of critical
habitat. Although it is our position that the conservation and recovery
of listed species are better served through other conservation
mechanisms, we agree with the commenter's assertion that the
information contained in this designation can be used to develop long-
term conservation strategies for the species.
20. Comment: Several commenters thought that many of the units for
both species were too small for a variety of reasons. They commented
that we failed to account for areas needed for pollinator reproduction,
which are different from pollinator foraging areas and may require
larger patch sizes to support the pollinator population. One commenter
asserted that additional area is needed to provide for pollinator
persistence and pollinator linkages between populations of Pentachaeta
lyonii, and that the minimum size needed to ensure persistence depends
on local habitat conditions and the degree of isolation between patch
sizes. The commenter noted that P. lyonii requires a low proportion of
vegetative cover to persist, suggesting that patches should be larger
to contain enough flowering plants to support pollinators. Similarly, a
commenter thought critical habitat should be enlarged and merged to
include appropriate soils and potential habitat and provide
opportunities for pollinator dispersal. In the opinion of the
commenter, this would provide corridors of connectivity, reducing
habitat fragmentation and genetic isolation. Larger areas would also
better support populations that shift in time and space, allow for
ecosystem processes (including fire or fire-like disturbances) to
function at appropriate scales, and minimize edge effects.
Our Response: We generally agree with the conservation biology
principles and rationale presented by the commenters. However, the Act
states that critical habitat is ``the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species * * * on which are found
those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species'' (i.e., PCEs (see Primary Constituent Elements section)).
Furthermore, based on the Act, we only designate critical habitat in
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing when the best available information indicates that it is
essential to the conservation of the species.
We used the best scientific information available to determine the
necessary habitat to ensure persistence of individual populations. In
order to reduce fragmentation and preserve genetic connectivity, we
connected populations within 1,968 ft (600 m) of each other because
they are likely to be visited by the same pollinators. We also
designated suitable habitat to allow for important life-history
functions such as seed dispersal and presence of pollinators, and
included areas that likely contain a seed bank and/or unmapped patches
within populations. We believe that our critical habitat design
captures the areas essential to the conservation to the species based
on the best scientific information currently available. We believe that
by capturing entire populations within single critical habitat units
and by connecting populations within 1,968 ft (600 m) of each other
into single units, the species will persist and pollination will
continue.
21. Comment: One commenter thought that surveys should be conducted
for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii because of a wildfire
that burned areas within the known distribution of the species, and any
additional locations discovered should be included in critical habitat.
Our Response: As discussed in our response to comment 6, we were
unable to postpone our proposed designation of critical habitat further
to incorporate the results of these surveys, although we funded post-
fire surveys for Astragalus brauntonii in those areas that were burned
and found additional locations
[[Page 66379]]
of the species. We determined that the fire did not burn within the
known distribution of Pentachaeta lyonii, so there was no need for
post-fire surveys.
22. Comment: One commenter thought that PCE 1 for Astragalus
brauntonii, ``carbonate limestone soils derived from marine sediment,''
was not the best description of the soil type associated with the
plant. A recent study in which soil samples were taken at locations of
A. brauntonii revealed that the plant occurs with calcium carbonate
soils (a broader range of soils), and not necessarily with limestone-
derived soils (Landis 2005). The PCE as originally proposed could lead
researchers to only look for A. brauntonii on soils that are obviously
derived from limestone.
Our Response: As stated in our response to comment 7, we have
changed this PCE by removing the reference to limestone soils and
adding calcium carbonate to the soils description. This change is also
reflected in ``Areas that Provide the Basic Requirements for Growth
(Such as Water, Light, and Minerals)''.
23. Comment: Two commenters thought that an occurrence of
Astragalus brauntonii located within the City of Oak Park should have
been included within critical habitat because it contains the largest
known seed bank in the Simi Hills. The commenters noted that inclusion
of this occurrence, if a 3,281-ft (1,000-m) zone to protect pollinator
habitat was incorporated, would link units 2c and 2d. In addition, one
of the commenters stated that a ``Rare Plant Conservation Plan'' is in
effect in the Oak Park area that covers three tiny preserves within
open space and a ``demonstration garden'' that contains A. brauntonii,
on land owned and managed by the Rancho Simi Recreation and Parks
District. The commenter states that the plan does not adequately ensure
the conservation and persistence of A. brauntonii, and should not be
used as a basis to exclude this occurrence from critical habitat.
Our Response: The commenters are referring to occurrence 20 in the
CNDDB record for Astragalus brauntonii. We did not include this
occurrence because it does not contain the PCEs. A large portion of
this occurrence was removed by Rancho Simi Recreation and Parks
District to create a city park, other portions were removed by urban
development, and very small remaining portions are surrounded by or
directly adjacent to urban development. It is difficult to determine
the size of a seed bank, and there is no clear evidence that this
occurrence contains the largest known seed bank in the Simi Hills,
although small numbers of plants and a seed bank may remain within open
space areas along the periphery of developed areas. Remaining portions
of this occurrence are almost completely surrounded by urban
development; therefore, we would be unable to link units 2c and 2d
because we do not intentionally include developed areas such as
buildings, paved areas, and other areas that lack the PCEs. Because
this occurrence does not contain the PCEs, we did not evaluate the
existing conservation plan as a basis for excluding this occurrence
from critical habitat.
24. Comment: Several commenters identified portions of Pentachaeta
lyonii populations that were not included in the designation (e.g., in
subunit 2a, and Unit 4), and also thought that intervening habitat
between subunits should have been included (e.g., between subunits 2b
and 2c, and between the two parts of subunit 3c).
Our Response: We do not intentionally include developed areas such
as buildings, paved areas, and other areas that lack the PCEs in our
critical habitat designations. Based on aerial photos of those areas
(PhotoMapper 3.50, AirPhoto USA, NW Los Angeles Map 1999), we
determined that those portions of populations and intervening habitat
were previously removed by urban development.
25. Comment: A commenter thought we should have included
Pentachaeta lyonii occurrences 9 and 19 from the CNDDB records in
critical habitat.
Our Response: We only included extant occurrences that contain the
PCEs within critical habitat. We did not include occurrence 9 within
the nearby Unit 7 (Malibu Lake unit) because, based on the CNDDB
records, this occurrence has been extirpated since 1992. We did not
include occurrence 19 because three of the four patches of Pentachaeta
lyonii within this occurrence were removed by construction of a golf
course. The fourth and only remaining patch is within approximately a
500 square-foot (46-square-meter) area, and is surrounded by the golf
course. We believe that this remaining occurrence contains a population
size of fewer than 10 individuals and may have even been extirpated.
This location lacks the PCEs and has little recovery or conservation
value; therefore, it was not included in the critical habitat
designation.
26. Comment: There were several suggestions of simple management
strategies for protecting both species that would not result in
economic hardship on any jurisdiction or management agency, as well as
suggestions for additional new criteria for delisting. For Astragalus
brauntonii, suggested management techniques include: Lifting the blade
of bulldozers at least 18 inches in the air when clearing roads or
creating firebreaks; using weed-whackers to clear weeds around the
plant; and leaving cut stalks and seedpods on the side of the road
rather than removing A. brauntonii plant material. For Pentachaeta
lyonii, suggested management techniques include routing roads around
critical habitat areas and controlling non-native weeds invading
critical habitat areas without the use of herbicides and without
disturbing the soil. For both species, suggested management techniques
include not transplanting plants as a conservation tool because both
species are dependent on specific soil characteristics and performing
road maintenance, fuel modification, and other management activities
after fruiting.
Our Response: We have incorporated some of the management
strategies into the section titled ``Special Management Considerations
or Protections'' in this rule. We may also provide these suggestions,
in the form of best management practices, to local agencies when we
provide technical assistance regarding ways to reduce impacts to listed
species, and to Federal agencies through the section 7 consultation
process. The suggested new criteria for delisting are valid recovery
actions that we may attempt to accomplish in future recovery actions
for the species. These criteria may also be incorporated into a revised
recovery plan at some point in the future.
27. Comment: One commenter thought that the proposed critical
habitat only maintains both species at their current level with no
opportunity for recovery because we do not propose unoccupied suitable
habitat. Other commenters thought that we should have included
unoccupied suitable habitat on land owned by the National Park Service
(NPS) or by local open space agencies because they represent
opportunities for population expansion for the species. They noted that
an experimental population of Pentachaeta lyonii was recently
introduced at Paramount Ranch on NPS land, illustrating the potential
for reintroductions into other areas.
Our Response: We disagree with the commenter that our proposal and
designation do not provide opportunities for recovery of the species.
Our critical habitat designation noted the fact that both plants occur
in patchy distributions both physically and temporally. In order to
incorporate
[[Page 66380]]
entire populations, we conducted a nearest neighbor analysis and
determined that the average distance between patches of plants was 275
m (902 ft) for Pentachaeta lyonii and 285 m (935 ft) for Astragalus
brauntonii. Therefore, in areas where the habitat was contiguous and
PCEs were present, we included suitable habitat up to 275 m (902 ft)
and 285 m (935 ft) from known patches of P. lyonii and A. brauntonii,
respectively, to ensure that we captured the entire population
(including the seed bank) within one critical habitat unit and
minimized fragmentation. Furthermore, where we had populations within
600 m (1,968 ft) of one another and the habitat was contiguous and
contained the PCEs, we connected those populations together in one unit
to facilitate genetic exchange between populations through pollinator
activity. We expect that these areas contain a seed bank, and/or
additional suitable habitat for population expansion through seed
dispersal. Both of these strategies capture recovery opportunities for
the species and, through these strategies, we believe we have captured
the entire area necessary to ensure persistence of the species. For
further information, please refer to the ``Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat'' section. Although we did not designate specific
areas of unoccupied habitat for potential reintroductions, we believe
that this can be an important recovery tool for P. lyonii, particularly
on Federal Lands, and we support these types of actions. We recognize
that designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat
areas that are necessary for the recovery of the species, and
therefore, critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat
outside the designation is unimportant or not required for recovery.
28. Comment: A researcher commented that we were incorrect in
stating that Pentachaeta lyonii does not maintain a dormant seed bank.
Surveys conducted in multiple years at the same site show large
fluctuations in population size, and this would likely be impossible
unless the species maintains a seed bank for at least 5 to 10 years.
Our Response: As discussed in our response to comment 13 from the
State, we have corrected the final rule to reflect this information.
29. Comment: A researcher commented that the role of biotic crusts
is unsupported by data and that this should not be used for PCE 2 for
Pentachaeta lyonii because it suggests that crust is a required element
for P. lyonii habitat. In the proposed designation, PCE 2 was listed as
``Exposed soils that exhibit a microbiotic crust which may inhibit
invasion by other plant competitors.''
Our Response: As discussed in our response to comment 14, we
recognize that not every occurrence may contain microbiotic crusts, and
it is not necessary for all three PCEs to be present at a site for it
to be considered critical habitat.
30. Comment: A researcher commented that PCE 3 for Pentachaeta
lyonii should focus on the presence of bare ground rather than on
proportion of vegetative cover. In the proposed designation, PCE 3 was
listed as ``low proportion of total vegetative cover (< 25%).'' The
commenter asserted that this PCE can be misleading because, based on
research, P. lyonii is found in areas with 20 to 60 percent cover of
native vegetation at a larger scale (i.e., 538 to 2,153 square foot
patch sizes (50 to 200 square meter)). Although the species can be
found in areas with a larger proportion of total vegetative cover,
there needs to be small openings of bare ground for the plant to grow
in (i.e., > 10% bare ground on a small scale of less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) because it does not compete well with other species. In
addition, the researcher found that plant litter accumulation
associated with annual grass invasion reduces P. lyonii populations.
The commenter indicated that this finding further highlights that bare
ground is an essential component of this species' habitat.
Our Response: We agree with the researcher's comment, and have
changed P. lyonii PCE 3 to read: ``a mosaic of bare ground (>10%)
patches in an area with less than 60 percent cover.'' We believe this
more accurately reflects the physical and biological needs essential to
the conservation of the species.
31. Comment: A researcher commented that we should have a PCE that
addresses habitat quality based on presence of Pentachaeta lyonii-
associated native plant species and the absence of non-native invasive
plants. P. lyonii habitat that is in decline shows increased presence
of non-native species, build-up of litter cover and loss of bare
ground, and slow loss of associated species.
Our Response: We agree that presence of non-native invasive plants
indicates poor habitat quality for Pentachaeta lyonii, and that
presence of some associated native species can be a good indicator of
good habitat quality, and this concept was discussed in the proposed
and final rule. However, we believe that PCEs 2 and 3 adequately
capture habitat quality, because it is unlikely that either PCE would
exist if the unit became overtaken with non-native invasive plants.
Comments Related to the Draft Economic Analysis
32. Comment: Two commenters stated that economic analysis
overestimates the cost of critical habitat designation because it will
affect real estate development on private lands only where there is a
Federal nexus. Such a nexus will not exist for most projects in the
area proposed as critical habitat.
Our Response: We recognize that real estate development on private
lands does not come under the purview of the section 7 consultation
process unless there is a Federal nexus. However, it is difficult to
predict which future actions may bare a Federal nexus. The methodology
of the analysis quantifies future costs when it is possible to isolate
and measure them and then calculates the economic surplus resulting
from future activities that may take place within proposed critical
habitat. This approach avoids speculation about regulatory impacts. It
is, however, possible to calculate the value added from development
activities within areas of critical habitat. By using this methodology,
we believe we have appropriately captured potential costs to the real
estate development sector.
33. Comment: One commenter stated that costs that occurred prior to
designation should not be included in the cost of critical habitat
designation.
Our Response: Based on the 10th Circuit Court's ruling in New
Mexico Cattle Growers Association v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
248 F.3d 1277, 128 (10th Cir. 2001) the Service conducts a full
analysis of all the economic impacts of a critical habitat designation,
regardless of whether those impacts are attributable co-extensively to
other causes. Accordingly, here, the economic analysis specifies that
it considers the future economic impacts associated with critical
habitat designation and past costs that have resulted from efforts to
conserve the species within areas of critical habitat. As explained in
section III.1, past costs are defined as costs that occurred between
when the species was listed under the Endangered Species Act and the
present. These past costs are not attributable to critical habitat.
34. Comment: One commenter suggested that past development projects
in areas of critical habitat should be analyzed to determine the
limitations on development arising from critical habitat.
Our Response: The economic analysis uses consultation history to
determine how many future development projects
[[Page 66381]]
will have a Federal nexus and what the recommended restriction on
development will be. For both species in question, the number of
available consultations on private development projects is highly
limited or nonexistent. The available evidence, however, suggests that
total avoidance of the species has been required in the past; for
example, the 1999 consultation with Lennar Homes referenced in the
report.
35. Comment: One commenter stated that that local zoning and other
restrictions limit the pace of development, thus reducing the costs of
critical habitat.
Our Response: We agree that local regulation plays a large role in
determining the timing and intensity of development. The development
projections from the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) that form the basis of the economic modeling incorporate these
restrictions.
36. Comment: One commenter stated that there are many additional
benefits of critical habitat designation beyond just the conservation
of habitat for the listed species, and that these should be included in
the economic analysis.
Our Response: In the context of a critical habitat designation, the
primary purpose of the rulemaking (i.e., the direct benefit) is to
designate areas in need of special management that contain the features
that are essential to the conservation of listed species.
The designation of critical habitat may result in two distinct
categories of benefits to society: (1) Use; and (2) non-use benefits.
Use benefits are simply the social benefits that accrue from the
physical use of a resource. Visiting critical habitat to see endangered
species in their natural habitat would be a primary example. Non-use
benefits, in contrast, represent welfare gains from ``just knowing'
that a particular listed species'' natural habitat is being specially
managed for the survival and recovery of that species. Both use and
non-use benefits may occur unaccompanied by any market transactions.
A primary reason for conducting this analysis is to provide
information regarding the economic impacts associated with a proposed
critical habitat designation. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the
Secretary to designate critical habitat based on the best scientific
data available after taking into consideration the economic impact, and
any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as
critical habitat. Economic impacts can be both positive and negative
and by definition, are observable through market transactions.
Where data are available, the analysis attempt to recognize and
measure the net economic impact (i.e., the increased regulatory burden
less any discernable offsetting market gains), of species conservation
efforts imposed on regulated entities and the regional economy.
Under Executive Order 12866, OMB directs Federal agencies to
provide an assessment of both the social costs and benefits of proposed
regulatory actions. OMB's Circular A-4 distinguishes two types of
economic benefits: direct benefits and ancillary benefits. Ancillary
benefits are defined as favorable impacts of a rulemaking that are
typically unrelated, or secondary, to the statutory purpose of the
rulemaking. In the context of critical habitat, the primary purpose of
the rulemaking (i.e., the direct benefit) is the potential to enhance
conservation of the species. The published economics literature has
documented that social welfare benefits can result from the
conservation and recovery of endangered and threatened species. In its
guidance for implementing Executive Order 12866, OMB acknowledges that
it may not be feasible to monetize, or even quantify, the benefits of
environmental regulations due to either an absence of defensible,
relevant studies or a lack of resources on the implementing agency's
part to conduct new research. Rather than rely on economic measures,
the Service believes that the direct benefits of the proposed rule are
best expressed in biological terms that can be weighed against the
expected cost impacts of the rulemaking.
We have accordingly considered, in evaluating the benefits of
excluding versus including specific areas, the biological benefits that
may occur to a species from designation (see below, Exclusions Under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act), but these biological benefits are not
addressed in the economic analysis.
37. Comment: One commenter stated that Section 9 of the ESA is
flawed, and allows extirpation of plants in areas outside federal
jurisdiction. The comment asserts that critical habitat is important to
the conservation of the species by prohibiting take, requiring
mitigation and facilitating the development of recovery plans.
Our Response: Critical habitat does not prohibit take of plants on
private lands, or require mitigation for private activities. Critical
Habitat only affects private activities when a project requires a
Federal permit, approval or funding. The Act requires the Service to
develop recovery plans independent of critical habitat designations.
38. Comment: One commenter thought that the cost estimated in the
economic analysis was too high because it includes costs attributable
to listing as opposed to costs of critical habitat designation. A
second commenter asserted that it was unlawful to report the
coextensive costs of conserving the species and that only the
incremental costs resulting from critical habitat should be reported.
Our Response: The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to
estimate the potential economic impacts associated with the designation
of critical habitat for these two species. We interpret the Act to
require that the economic analysis include all of the economic impacts
associated with the conservation of the species, which may include some
of the effects associated with listing. We note that the Act generally
requires critical habitat to be designated at the time of listing, and
if we had conducted an economic analysis at that time, the impacts
associated with listing would not be readily distinguishable from those
associated with critical habitat designation.
39. Comment: One commenter indicated that the majority of lands
designated as critical habitat are already conserved as open space and
thus not likely to be developed.
Our Response: We agree that a significant amount of land within the
areas proposed as critical habitat has been conserved as open space via
long-term agreements. We have detailed these agreements for each unit
of proposed critical habitat. Projected development in the economic
analysis is limited to areas that fall outside these conservation
commitments.
40. Comment: One commenter asserted that SCAG projections are
inadequate since they fail to consider local zoning requirements and
capture only the potential for development in various regions.
Our Response: The SCAG development projections are the best
information available on the extent, timing and placement of real
estate development in the Los Angeles metropolitan region. These
forecasts are based on aggregate projections of economic activity and
employment, as well as location-specific factors such as zoning and
other local factors.
41. Comment: One commenter stated that the costs presented in Table
1 of the Draft Economic Analyses are overstated because portions of
proposed critical habitat are public lands.
Our Response: The totals presented in Table 1 are associated with
development occurring on private land only.
[[Page 66382]]
42. Comment: One public comment stated that there is a discrepancy
in the ``Surplus per Developed Acre'' between Table 1 and the text.
Our Response: Table 1 is correct, however, the corresponding figure
presented in the text ($2,714,359) is not. This has been corrected in
the final economic analysis.
43. Comment: One commenter stated that the small business analyses
are incomplete.
Our Response: These sections have been expanded in the final
economic analyses.
44. Comment: One commenter stated that it is unclear how the IMPLAN
(economic modeling software) analyses calculated such a high number
when the designation of critical habitat does not prevent development.
Our Response: The regional economic analysis considers the
secondary effects of housing construction within the areas proposed as
critical habitat. We note, however, that estimated secondary effects
are small when considered as a fraction of the total contribution of
the housing industry to the Southern California economy.
45. Comment: One commenter stated that it is unclear how the IMPLAN
Analyses evaluates the secondary effects of critical habitat
designation on other industries.
Our Response: Section V Regional Economic Impacts contains an
explanation of how IMPLAN, which is an input-output model, computes
indirect and induced effects. See also Table 3, which breaks down the
secondary effects of designation to each industry.
46. Comment: One commenter asserted that the costs presented in
Table 1 are significantly higher than they should be because they are
associated with the designation on public and private lands.
Our Response: The costs presented in the reports are estimated
based on the private land projected for development, not the public and
private land proposed for critical habitat designation.
47. Comment: One commenter stated that there are other
discrepancies between the text and Table 1, including the ``Projected
Households''.
Our Response: Table 1 presents the projected households, which is
consistent with the projected households in the text. Table 3 presents
the households allowed by zoning, which is also consistent with the
zoning allowances in the text.
48. Comment: One commenter requested to be excluded under 4(b)(2)
of the Act based on economic impacts of critical habitat on their
property. The landowner owns the property within the proposed Unit 6
for Pentachaeta lyonii and has proposed to develop 81 residential units
on the property.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary to
designate critical habitat based on the best scientific data available
after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national
security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat. We received additional information from the
landowner in a Memorandum, dated March 3, 2006, which estimated that
the lost revenue as a result of critical habitat on their proposed
development, if they avoided impacts to the species, would be
approximately $78 million. As a result, Unit 6 in its entirety has been
excluded from the final rule. See Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act section below for more details.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
(1) We modified our criteria for delineating the outer boundaries
of each unit resulting in minor reductions in unit sizes. In the
proposed rule, the outer boundaries of each unit or subunit extended to
984 ft (300 m) on all sides of each mapped patch, which would
presumably incorporate the minimum size habitat necessary to support
associated insect pollinators. However, A. brauntonii and P. lyonii are
known to be pollinated by several insect pollinators, and nonspecific
pollinators are not a Primary Constituent Element (PCE) for either
species. Upon further consideration, we felt we needed to better define
and map the critical habitat boundaries. In looking at the mapping
information from all mapped records (i.e., from the CNDDB database and
from records collected from other sources), we noticed that the
distribution of plants was often patchy, both at any one moment in time
and over time. In other words, the plants were often expressed at
different locations within a single area or population. This evidence
supports the presence of a seed bank. In order to define when patches
were within a single population and include areas with a seed bank, we
conducted a nearest neighbor analysis for both species using all
available mapped occurrences. To do this, we used GIS to determine the
distance from the centroid of each mapped occurrence or ``patch'' to
the centroid of the nearest mapped occurrence. We determined that the
average distance between patches within populations was 935 ft (285 m)
for Astragalus brauntonii and 902 ft (275 m) for Pentachaeta lyonii.
Therefore, in the final designation, we designated additional suitable
habitat up to 935 ft (285 m) from each mapped patch of A. brauntonii to
incorporate the patchy expression of populations in space and over
time, include unmapped patches within populations, incorporate the
existing seed bank, and include areas for seed dispersal and genetic
exchange through pollinator activity. For P. lyonii, we designated
additional suitable habitat up to 902 ft (275 m) from each mapped patch
to incorporate the patchy expression of the plant in space and time,
include unmapped patches within populations, incorporate the existing
seed bank, and include areas for seed dispersal and genetic exchange
through pollinator activity. See the Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat section for details on the revised criteria. Table 1 for A.
brauntonii and Table 3 for P. lyonii shows the proposed and final
acreages of each unit that were changed based on the new criteria.
(2) We made corrections on ownership of lands within several units.
The ownership of subunit 1c for Pentachaeta lyonii was misidentified as
being entirely owned by Calleguas Municipal Water District. We
determined that, in the proposed rule, the ownership of the land within
this subunit is 49 ac (19 ha) of private land and only 2 ac (1 ha) of
land owned by Calleguas Municipal Water District. After applying the
revised criteria, in this final rule, the entire unit (33 ac (13 ha))
is on private land. The ownership of subunit 2b for P. lyonii was
misidentified as 31 ac (13 ha) owned by Conejo Open Space Conservation
Agency (COSCA), and 16 ac (6 ha) of private land; after identifying the
correct ownership and applying the revised criteria, 22 ac (9 ha) is
owned by COSCA and 18 ac (7 ha) is on private land. The ownership of
subunit 1d for Astragalus brauntonii was misidentified as being owned
by Rocketdyne. However, Rocketdyne sold this property to Boeing. In
addition, it was determined that a small portion of this subunit is
owned by a local agency. After identifying the correct ownership and
applying the revised criteria, 68 ac (27 ha) is owned by Boeing and 2
ac (1 ha) is owned by a local agency (Santa Monica Mountains
Conservancy). The ownership of subunit 2a for A. brauntonii was
misidentified as 235 ac (95 ha) owned by COSCA, and 217 ac (88 ha) of
private land; after identifying the correct ownership and applying the
revised criteria, 118 ac (48 ha) is owned by the State, 221 ac (89 ha)
is owned by COSCA, and 71 ac (29 ha) is on private land.
[[Page 66383]]
(3) We corrected the reference to soils in PCE 1 for Astragalus
brauntonii from ``carbonate limestone soils derived from marine
sediment'' to ``calcium carbonate soils derived from marine sediment,''
because we believe that this is a more accurate description of the soil
type. A recent study in which soil samples were taken at most locations
of A. brauntonii revealed that the plant occurs in areas with calcium
carbonate soils (a broader range of soils), and not necessarily where
soils are derived from limestone (Landis 2005). This correction is also
reflected in the discussion of Areas that Provide the Basic
Requirements for Growth (Such as Water, Light, and Minerals).
(4) We changed PCE 3 for Pentachaeta lyonii from ``low proportion
of total vegetative cover (<25%)'' to ``a mosaic of bare ground (>10%)
patches in an area with less than 60 percent cover,'' because we
believe that this is a more accurate and complete description of the
habitat. This is based on a recent habitat study of the species
conducted by Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. This
correction is also reflected in the discussion of Areas that Provide
the Basic Requirements for Growth (Such as Water, Light, and Minerals).
(5) We changed PCE 3 Astragalus brauntonii from ``periodic
disturbances that stimulate seed germination (e.g., fire, flooding,
erosion) and reduce vegetative cover'' to ``chaparral and coastal sage
scrub communities characterized by periodic disturbances that stimulate
seed germination (e.g., fire, flooding, erosion) and reduce vegetative
cover,'' because we believe that a PCE should not be a physical
process, but a habitat condition that occurs in part as a result of the
physical process. The revised PCE allows for easier identification of
its presence because it would be expected to be present at any point in
time, whereas the original PCE is more difficult to identify because it
occurs only periodically.
(6) We excluded Unit 6 for Pentachaeta lyonii (223 ac (94 ha))
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat
designation based on economic impacts to the landowner. See Exclusions
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section for a detailed discussion.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas have features that are essential for
the conservation of the species. Conservation, as defined under section
3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened
species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act
are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are
not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources
management, such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat
acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat
does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness,
reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does
not allow government or public access to private lands. Section 7 is a
purely protective measure and does not require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat
within the area occupied by the species must first have features that
are essential to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat
designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific
data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs
of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent
elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical
habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special
management or protection. Areas outside of the geographic area occupied
by the species at the time of listing may only be included in critical
habitat if they are essential for the conservation of the species.
Accordingly, when the best available scientific data do not demonstrate
that the conservation needs of the species require additional areas, we
will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing. An area currently
occupied by the species but was not known to be occupied at the time of
listing will likely, but not always, be essential to the conservation
of the species and, therefore, typically included in the critical
habitat designation.
The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271), and Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)
and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the
Service, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance
to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best
scientific data available. They require Service 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
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of
information is generally the listing package for the species.
Additional information sources 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. All information is used in
accordance with the provisions of Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines
issued by the Service.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time.
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons,
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical
habitat
[[Page 66384]]
designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory
protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as
determined on the basis of the best available information at the time
of the 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, or other species
conservation planning efforts if new information available to these
planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to designate as critical
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (PCEs) that
are essential to the conservation of the species, and within areas
occupied by the species at the time of listing, that may require
special management considerations and protection. These include, but
are not limited to, space for individual and population growth and for
normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for
breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and
habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of
the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
The specific PCEs required for Astragalus brauntonii and
Pentachaeta lyonii are derived from the physical and biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species as
described below.
Astragalus brauntonii
Space for Individual and Population Growth, Including Sites for
Germination, Pollination, Reproduction, and Seed Bank
Seeds of Astragalus brauntonii are enclosed in dense hairy pods and
require heat or physical scarification (breaking, scratching, or
mechanically altering the seed coat) to germinate. Disturbances such as
fire, erosion, and human activities such as mechanical scraping of soil
(e.g., during road or trail maintenance) are known to stimulate
germination (Fotheringham and Keeley 1998). Each seed pod produces
between three and six seeds, and each plant may support upwards of
several hundred flowers (Barneby 1964). Therefore, plants may produce a
large number of seeds before dying back, depositing a seed ``bank'' in
the soil that has the ability to remain dormant for many years until
the next disturbance. Plant seeds are frequently dispersed by a variety
of vectors, some which result in short-distance dispersal, and others
which result in long-distance dispersal (Cain et al. 2000; Nathan and
Muller-Landau 2000). Because the seeds of A. brauntonii have no
specialized adaptations to facilitate seed dispersal by wind, it is
likely that most seed fall within a short distance of the parent plant
(Cain et al. 2000). Long-distance dispersal, however, is likely
achieved by water (during rainstorms), and by transport of seeds by
wildlife. Seeds from species within the Fabaceae family are known to be
transported by small seed-eating mammals, including ground squirrels
(Citellus sp.) pocket mice (Perognathus sp.), kangaroo rats (Dipodomys
sp.), and birds, including quail (Lophortyx sp.) (Martin et al. 1961).
Small mammals facilitate seed dispersal through consumption and
elimination of undigested seed and through seed caching (Cain et al.
2000; Sieg 1987).
The presence of a persistent seed bank makes it difficult to
determine the complete distribution of the species at any one point in
time. Where a dormant seed bank is present, Astragalus brauntonii
establishes quickly after a disturbance that removes other plant
competitors and stimulates germination of dormant seeds (Fotheringham
and Keeley 1998). Individual plants have a lifespan of two to three
years, although some individuals may live five years or more if
conditions are favorable, and then plants may not be visible again
until the next disturbance (Fotheringham and Keeley 1998).
Like many other Astragalus species, Astragalus brauntonii is self-
fertile, and also produces seed through cross-pollination (Fotheringham
and Keeley 1998). Insect pollinators of A. brauntonii are polylectic,
meaning that they utilize several plant species within an area (Karron
1987), and a variety of plants may be necessary to sustain populations
of pollinators. Insect visitors include megachilid bees and bumblebees
(Fotheringham and Keeley 1998). Gathmann and Tscharntke (2002)
determined that maximum foraging distance of several species of
solitary bees was positively correlated with body length. The body
length of megachilid bees ranges 0.24-0.47 inches (in) (6-12
millimeters (mm)). Based on the linear regression model calculated by
Gathmann and Tscharntke (2002), the maximum foraging distance of
megachilid bees is 492-1,968 ft (150-600 m). The body length of
bumblebees (Bombus sp.) ranges 0.51-0.98 in (13-25 mm), giving them a
maximum foraging distance of 1,968-3,937 ft (600-1,200 m) (Gathmann and
Tscharntke 2002). Therefore, known pollinators of P. lyonii have the
ability to pollinate individual plants up to 1,968 ft (600 m) from the
pollen source, suggesting that genetic connectivity can occur between
populations that are up to 1,968 ft (600 m) apart from each other.
Areas That Provide the Basic Requirements for Growth (Such as Water,
Light, and Minerals)
Astragalus brauntonii may be limited to shallow calcium carbonate
soils derived from marine substrates (Mistretta 1992, Fotheringham and
Keeley 1998, Betsey Landis, California Native Plant Society, in litt.
2005). It occasionally occurs on non-carbonate soils at down-wash sites
near other known occurrences, although survivorship of plants may be
reduced on non-carbonate soils (Fotheringham and Keeley 1998; B.
Landis, in litt. 2005).
Habitat of Astragalus brauntonii has been described as scrub
dominated by chaparral with a high overall percentage (< 80%) of
vegetative cover, however, the species does not tolerate shading and is
associated with bare ground directly around the plant (Carroll 1987,
Fotheringham and Keeley 1998). It may persist for several years on
sites where microsite conditions inhibit or are hostile to shrub
growth, or it may be gradually crowded out by more robust and tough-
woody chaparral plants until the next disturbance event that removes
plant cover (Carroll 1987; Fotheringham and Keeley 1998). Common
species associated with chaparral communities in this region of
California are chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), California lilacs
(Ceanothus spp.), manzanitas (Arctostaphylos spp.), sages (Salvia
spp.), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), laurel sumac
(Malosma laurina), sugar bush (Rhus ovata), and yucca (Yucca whipplei)
(Hanes 1988). Common species associated with coastal sage scrub are
California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), sages, California
buckwheat, lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), encelia (Encelia
californica), and goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii) (Mooney 1988). The
above-ground expression of A. brauntonii populations are patchy over
time and space as a result of the dormant seed
[[Page 66385]]
bank and dynamic habitat conditions and physical processes where it
occurs.
Primary Constituents for Astragalus brauntonii
Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify the known
physical and biological features (PCEs) essential to the conservation
of Astragalus brauntonii. All areas designated as critical habitat for
A. brauntonii are occupied, within the species' historic geographic
range, and contain sufficient PCEs to support at least one life history
function.
Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and
ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain
the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined
that the PCEs for Astragalus brauntonii are:
(1) Calcium carbonate soils derived from marine sediment;
(2) Low proportion (< 10%) of shrub cover directly around the plant;
and
(3) Chaparral and coastal sage scrub communities characterized by
periodic disturbances that stimulate seed germination (e.g., fire,
flooding, erosion) and reduce vegetative cover.
This designation is designed for the conservation of those areas
containing PCEs necessary to support the life history functions that
were the basis for the proposal. Because not all life history functions
require all the PCEs, not all critical habitat will contain all of the
PCEs.
Units are designated based on sufficient PCEs being present to
support one or more of the species's life history functions. Some units
contain all PCEs and support multiple life processes, while some units
contain only a portion of the PCEs necessary to support the species'
particular use of that habitat. Where a subset of the PCEs is present
at the time of designation, this rule protects those PCEs and thus the
conservation function of the habitat.
Pentachaeta lyonii
Space for Individual and Population Growth, Including Sites for
Germination, Pollination, Reproduction, and Seed Bank
Pentachaeta lyonii is an annual plant that may exhibit large
fluctuations in population size between years (Keeley and Baer-Keeley
1992). Population boundaries exhibit annual fluctuations, although the
plants generally remain within core areas that contain suitable
microsite characteristics (Keeley and Baer-Keeley 1992). Each flower
produces 30 or more seed heads, and each seed head produces 20 to 40
seeds; therefore, in a favorable year, an individual plant may produce
on the order of 1,000 seeds. The seeds likely persist in the soil for
several years during extended dry spells (Fotheringham and Keeley
1998). Plant seeds are frequently dispersed by a variety of vectors,
some which result in short-distance dispersal, and others which result
in long-distance dispersal (Cain et al. 2000; Nathan and Muller-Landau
2000). The presence of deciduous pappus bristles on the seeds indicates
that the plant does not exhibit long-distance dispersal by wind, as do
many other species in this family, reducing the likelihood of
colonization of new areas and contributing to the limited distribution
by this method (Keeley and Baer-Keeley 1992; Fotheringham and Keeley
1998). Long-distance dispersal, however, is likely achieved by
transport of seeds by wildlife. Seeds from species within the
Asteraceae family are known to be transported by small seed-eating
mammals, including ground squirrels (Citellus sp.) pocket mice
(Perognathus sp.), kangaroo rats (Dipodomys sp.), and birds, including
quail (Lophortyx sp.) (Martin et al. 1961). Small mammals facilitate
seed dispersal through consumption and elimination of undigested seed
and through seed caching (Cain et al. 2000; Sieg 1987).
Pentachaeta lyonii is not capable of self-pollination, but is
dependent upon insect pollinators for successful seed production
(Fotheringham and Keeley 1998). Pollinators of P. lyonii include digger
bees, andrenid bees, and megachilid bees (Braken and Verhoeven 1998;
Fotheringham and Keeley 1998). These pollinators are polylectic,
meaning that they utilize several plant species within an area (Braken
and Verhoeven 1998), and a variety of plants are necessary to sustain
pollinator populations. Based on the linear regression model calculated
by Gathmann and Tscharntke (2002), the maximum foraging distance of
digger bees (body length 0.51-0.75 in; 13-19 mm) is approximately 1,968
ft (600 m), and the maximum foraging distance of megachilid bees (body
length 0.24-0.47 in; 6-12 mm) is 492-1,968 ft (150-600 m). The maximum
foraging distance of andrenid bees is 853-1,640 ft (260-500 m)
(Gathmann and Tscharntke 2002). Therefore, known pollinators of P.
lyonii have the ability to pollinate individual plants up to 1,968 ft
(600 m) from the pollen source, suggesting that genetic connectivity
occurs between populations that are up to 1,968 ft (600 m) apart from
each other.
Areas That Provide the Basic Requirements for Growth (Such as Water,
Light, and Minerals)
Pentachaeta lyonii tends to occur on rocky clay soils of volcanic
origin (Baier & Associates 1991; Impact Sciences 2003). It has been
recorded in areas with a large percentage of bare ground (>60%), a low
proportion of vegetative cover (< 25%), and it does not compete well
with dense annual grasses or shrubs (Keeley 1995, Fotheringham and
Keeley 1998). P. lyonii will persist in stable populations without
disturbance if site conditions such as exposed soils that exhibit a
microbiotic crust (Belnap 1990) inhibit invasion by shrubs and annual
grasses, or it may require periodic disturbances to remove plant
competitors (Fotheringham and Keeley 1998). The chaparral and coastal
sage plant communities are similar to those described above for
Astragalus brauntonii. The pocket grasslands within these shrub
communities that support P. lyonii are comprised of native and
nonnative grasses including purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra), wild
oat (Avena spp.), and bromes (Bromus spp.); as well as a variety of
herbs.
Primary Constituents for Pentachaeta lyonii
Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify the known
physical and biological features (PCEs) essential to the conservation
of Pentachaeta lyonii. All areas designated as critical habitat for P.
lyonii are occupied, within the species' historic geographic range, and
contain sufficient PCEs to support at least one life history function.
Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and
ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain
the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined
that the PCEs for Pentachaeta lyonii are:
(1) Clay soils of volcanic origin;
(2) Exposed soils that exhibit a microbiotic crust which may
inhibit invasion by other plant competitors; and
(3) A mosaic of bare ground (>10%) patches in an area with less
than 60 percent cover.
This designation is designed for the conservation of the PCEs
necessary to support the life history functions that were the basis for
the proposal. Because not all life history functions require all the
PCEs, not all critical habitat will contain all of the PCEs.
Units are designated based on sufficient PCEs being present to
support one or more of the species's life history functions. Some units
contain all PCEs and support multiple life processes,
[[Page 66386]]
while some units contain only a portion of the PCEs necessary to
support the species' particular use of that habitat. Where a subset of
the PCEs is present at the time of designation, this rule protects
those PCEs and thus the conservation function of the habitat.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best
scientific and commercial data available in determining areas that
contain the features that are essential to the conservation of
Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii. We have also reviewed
available information that pertains to the habitat requirements of
these species. This includes information from Service documents,
including the final rule listing these taxa as endangered (62 FR 4172;
January 29, 1997) and the recovery plan (USFWS 1999); information from
the CNDD (2003); data in reports submitted during section 7
consultations; recent biological surveys; regional GIS coverages;
information from research published in peer-reviewed articles and
presented in agency reports; aerial photos; and discussions with
botanical experts. We designated no areas outside the geographic area
presently occupied by the species.
We used agency and academic reports to describe the ecology,
habitat, and pollination biology of Astragalus brauntonii and other
related Astragalus species (Carroll 1987; Karron 1987; Fotheringham and
Keeley 1998; Gathmann and Tscharntke 2002). We used agency and academic
reports to describe the ecology, habitat, and pollination biology of
Pentachaeta lyonii (Belnap 1990; Keeley and Baer-Keeley 1992; Keeley
1995; Braker and Verhoeven 1998; Fotheringham and Keeley 1998; Gathmann
and Tscharntke 2002).
We designated critical habitat on lands that were occupied at the
time of listing, are currently known to be occupied, and contain
sufficient PCEs to support life history functions essential for the
conservation of Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii, and may
be in need of special management considerations or protections. In a
few instances, we designated occupied areas that were identified after
listing, but which we determined to be essential to the conservation of
A. brauntonii and P. lyonii.
We reevaluated the proposed designations based on public comment,
peer review, the economic analysis of the proposed rule, public
comments on the economic analysis, and other available and new
information to ensure that the designation accurately reflects habitat
containing the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii.
Astragalus brauntonii
We designated critical habitat for Astragalus brauntonii--
supporting areas that were known to be occupied at the time of listing
and contain the features essential to the conservation of the species.
We also designated occurrences not known to be occupied at the time of
listing but which are currently occupied, and were determined to be
essential to the conservation of the species. We included occurrences
not known to be occupied at the time of listing because this species is
extremely limited in distribution and often occurs in very small
disjunct populations, making it particularly vulnerable to extinction.
According to Noss et al. (1997), a species distributed across multiple
sites within its range is less susceptible to extinction than another
similar species confined to far fewer sites. As a result, being
restricted to small, isolated locations makes the species more
vulnerable to threats such as loss of genetic variation, extremely
small or declining population sizes, and increased vulnerability to
stochastic (i.e., random or less predictable) events. Inclusion of all
known occurrences that still contain the PCEs was deemed necessary in
this instance to reduce fragmentation and helps to maintain genetic
connectivity between populations and increase the chance of
recolonization from neighboring patches if one patch becomes
extirpated.
We designated critical habitat for Astragalus brauntonii in areas
that contained known populations and additional surrounding suitable
habitat that likely supports unmapped or unknown patches present but
missed during surveys within populations, and likely incorporates the
existing seed bank. We included patches of surrounding suitable
habitat, using the method described below, around known plant locations
because of the difficulty of knowing the full distribution given the
long dormancy of this species' seed bank and the aboveground expression
of the plant in different portions of the species' range over time.
Inclusion of this surrounding suitable habitat allows for necessary
life history functions such as seed dispersal, support of associated
insect pollinators, and appropriate periodic ground disturbances in
order to stimulate dormant seeds within the soil to germinate. We also
connected units within close geographic proximity to each other to
maintain genetic connectivity between populations, reduce
fragmentation, and to include contiguous habitat for pollinators and
seed dispersal. A detailed description of how we determined areas
appropriate for inclusion follows.
We used a multi-step process to map critical habitat units. First,
we mapped all CNDDB records of Astragalus brauntonii in a GIS format.
These data consist of polygons (figures made up of several line
segments) depicting the results of field surveys for A. brauntonii.
Additional records from recent surveys that are not in the CNDDB
records were also mapped in a GIS format. To determine areas where
unmapped or unknown patches within populations are likely to occur, and
to include areas that contain an unknown or unexpressed seed bank, we
measured the distance from the centroid of each known occurrence or
``patch'' to the centroid of the nearest neighboring patch, and found
that the average distance between nearest patches was 935 ft (285 m).
Therefore, we included additional suitable habitat up to 935 ft (285 m)
from known occurrences to incorporate entire populations that are
patchy in time and space.
Then, we connected areas that were within 1,968 ft (600 m) of each
other, because this is the distance between populations that could be
traversed by important insect pollinators, and this approach allows for
genetic exchange and connectivity between populations and reduces
fragmentation. As discussed in the PCEs section, known pollinators of
Astragalus brauntonii include megachilid bees and bumblebees. Based on
body length, foraging ranges are approximately 492-1,968 ft (150-600 m)
for megachilid bees and 1,968-3,937 ft (600-1,200 m) for bumblebees
(Gathmann and Tscharntke 2002). We chose 1,968 ft (600 m) as the
maximum distance to connect known populations because 1,968 ft (600 m)
is the minimum foraging range for bumblebees, and megachilid bees also
fall within this foraging range. Plant communities between these areas
would also support insect pollinators and seed dispersers of A.
brauntonii, and may also contain unknown or unmapped populations and/or
a dormant seed bank.
Pentachaeta lyonii
We designated critical habitat for areas that support occurrences
of Pentachaeta lyonii that were known to be occupied at the time of
listing and contain the features essential to the conservation of the
species. We also designated occurrences not known to be
[[Page 66387]]
occupied at the time of listing but which are currently occupied;
however, these occurrences are within the geographic range of
occurrences known to be occupied at the time of listing and contain the
features essential to the conservation of the species. With the
exception of Unit 6, we included all known occurrences that still
contain the PCEs because this species is extremely limited in
distribution, and patches exhibit large annual fluctuations in
population numbers and area, making it particularly vulnerable to
extinction. According to Noss et al. (1997), a species distributed
across multiple sites within its range is less susceptible to
extinction than another similar species confined to far fewer sites. As
a result, being restricted to small, isolated locations makes the
species more vulnerable to threats such as loss of genetic variation,
extremely small or declining population sizes, and increased
vulnerability to stochastic (i.e., random or less predictable) events.
Inclusion of all known occurrences, with the exception of Unit 6, that
still contain the PCEs reduces fragmentation, maintains genetic
connectivity between populations, and increases the chance of
recolonization from neighboring patches if one patch becomes
extirpated.
We designated critical habitat for Pentachaeta lyonii in areas that
contained known populations and additional surrounding suitable habitat
that likely includes unmapped or unknown patches present but missed
during surveys within populations, and incorporates the existing seed
bank. We included surrounding habitat around known plant locations,
using the method described below, because the boundaries of patches
fluctuate between years, and this species' ability to maintain a seed
bank during extended dry spells makes it difficult to know the full
distribution of the species. Inclusion of surrounding suitable habitat
allows for support of associated insect pollinators. We also connected
units within close geographic proximity to each other to maintain
genetic connectivity between populations, reduce fragmentation, and
include contiguous habitat for pollinators and allow for population
boundaries to expand.
We used a multi-step process to map critical habitat units. First,
we mapped all CNDDB records of Pentachaeta lyonii in a GIS format.
These data consist of polygons depicting the results of field surveys
for P. lyonii. Additional records from recent surveys that are not in
the CNDDB records were also mapped in a GIS format. To determine areas
where unmapped or unknown patches within populations are likely to
occur, and to include areas that contain an unknown or unexpressed seed
bank, we measured the distance from the centroid of each known
occurrence or ``patch'' to the centroid of the nearest neighboring
patch, and found that the average distance between nearest patches was
902 ft (275 m). Therefore, we included additional suitable habitat up
to (902 ft (275 m) from known occurrences. Population boundaries are
known to fluctuate, so this approach also includes areas into which
populations could expand.
Then, we connected areas that were within 1,968 ft (600 m) of each
other because this is the distance between populations that could be
traversed by important insect pollinators, and this approach allows for
genetic exchange and connectivity between populations and reduces
fragmentation. As discussed in the PCEs section, known pollinators of
Pentachaeta lyonii include digger bees, megachilid bees, and andrenid
bees. Based on body length, foraging ranges are approximately 1,968 ft
(600 m) for digger bees, 492-1,968 ft (150-600 m) for megachilid bees
and 853-1,640 ft (260-500 m) for andrenid bees (Gathmann and Tscharntke
2002). We chose 1,968 ft (600 m) as the maximum distance to connect
known populations because 1,968 ft (600 m) is the foraging range for
digger bees, and megachilid bees, and andrenid bees also fall within
this foraging range. Plant communities between these areas would also
support insect pollinators, include areas for population boundaries to
expand, and may also contain unknown or unmapped populations and/or a
seed bank.
When determining final critical habitat boundaries, we made every
effort to avoid including developed areas such as buildings, paved
areas, and other structures that lack PCEs for Astragalus brauntonii
and Pentachaeta lyonii. Because of their small scale, the maps prepared
under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal
Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed areas. Any
such structures and the land under them inadvertently left inside
critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have
been excluded by text and are not designated as critical habitat.
Therefore, Federal actions limited to these excluded areas would not
trigger section 7 consultation, unless they affect the species and/or
primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
We are designating critical habitat in areas that contain
sufficient primary constituent elements (PCEs) to support life history
functions essential for the conservation of the species. Lands are
proposed for designation based on sufficient PCEs being present to
support the life processes of the species. Some lands contain all PCEs
and support multiple life processes. Some lands contain only a portion
of the PCEs necessary to support the particular use of that habitat.
A brief discussion of each area designated as critical habitat is
provided in the unit descriptions below. Additional detailed
documentation concerning the essential nature of these areas is
contained in our supporting record for this rulemaking.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas
determined to be occupied at the time of listing and containing the
PCEs may require special management considerations or protections. As
discussed in the listing rule, throughout our proposed rule published
on November 10, 2006 (70 FR 68982), and in this final rule, most of the
known occurrences of Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii occur
within the direct vicinity of urban areas and are threatened by direct
and indirect effects of habitat fragmentation and loss resulting from
urban development. The most significant threat to both species is
direct loss of plants from urban development. In addition, indirect
effects associated with urban development include habitat
fragmentation, which reduces gene flow between sites; reduction in
insect pollinators; increases in nonnative plants and animals; and
changes in local hydrology that affect plant communities (Conservation
Biology Institute 2000).
Known threats to both species include but are not limited to: Weed
control such as herbicide application, mowing, and direct removal of
plants; increased fire frequencies associated with human activities
that contribute to the conversion of native shrubland to grassland;
competition from nonnative plant species; and cattle grazing and
recreational activities such as off-road vehicle use and equestrian and
foot traffic that results in trampling of plants. Other known threats
specific to Astragalus brauntonii include land use activities that
result in frequent disturbances and removal of plants before they
replenish the seed bank, such as yearly road maintenance. Other known
threats specific to Pentachaeta lyonii include soil-disturbing
activities such as discing associated with fire suppression activities
and changes to
[[Page 66388]]
the structure and composition of pocket grassland communities that
displace P. lyonii (i.e., introduction of nonnative annual grasses,
changes in local hydrology, and increased gopher activity). As such, we
believe that each area designated as critical habitat may require some
level of management and/or protection to address the current and future
threats to the species. Threats specific to each unit that may require
special management considerations or protection are further discussed
in the Unit Descriptions section.
Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 3,300 ac (1337 ha) within six units as critical
habitat for Astragalus brauntonii. The critical habitat areas described
below constitute our best assessment at this time of areas determined
to be occupied at the time of listing, that contain the PCEs and may
require special management, and those additional areas that were not
known at the time of listing but were found to be essential to the
conservation of A. brauntonii. With the exception of Units 1 and 3, all
areas not known at the time of listing are within the same geographic
areas and part of the same populations as those areas known at the time
of listing. For reasons described previously (see Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat section), we have determined that inclusion
of all known locations that still contain the PCEs, including those not
known at the time of listing, is essential to the conservation of the
species because this species is extremely limited in distribution, has
a very small overall population size, and often occurs in very small
disjunct populations, making it particularly vulnerable to extinction
(Noss et al. 1997). Inclusion of these populations reduces
fragmentation, prevents range collapse of the species, maintains
genetic connectivity between populations, and increases the chance of
recolonization from neighboring populations if one patch becomes
extirpated (Noss et al. 1997).
Table 1 shows the proposed and final critical habitat units for
Astragalus brauntonii. Table 2 shows the approximate area designated as
critical habitat for A. brauntonii by land ownership.
Table 1.--Proposed and Final Critical Habitat Units for Astragalus brauntonii (ac (ha))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed rule
Critical habitat units/subunits County (Nov. 10, 2005) Final rule ac
ac (ha) (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Northern Simi Hills................ Ventura...................... 471 (191) 434 (175)
Subunit 1a............................. ............................. 196 (79) 183 (74)
Subunit 1b............................. ............................. 80 (32) 73 (29)
Subunit 1c............................. ............................. 118 (48) 108 (44)
Subunit 1d............................. ............................. 77 (32) 70 (28)
Unit 2: Southern Simi Hills................ Ventura/Los Angeles.......... 1,128 (456) 1,019 (414)
Subunit 2a............................. ............................. 452 (183) 410 (166)
Subunit 2b............................. ............................. 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5)
Subunit 2c............................. ............................. 173 (70) 144 (58)
Subunit 2d............................. ............................. 121 (49) 111 (45)
Subunit 2e............................. ............................. 157 (63) 146 (60)
Subunit 2f............................. ............................. 224 (90) 207 (84)
Unit 3: Santa Monica Mountains............. Los Angeles.................. 243 (98) 228 (93)
Unit 4: Pacific Palisades.................. Los Angeles.................. 577 (233) 505 (205)
Unit 5: Monrovia........................... Los Angeles.................. 331 (134) 282 (114)
Unit 6: Coal Canyon........................ Orange....................... 889 (360) 832 (336)
-------------------------------------
Total.............................. ............................. 3,639 (1,472) 3,300 (1,337)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Approximate Acreage by Land Ownership Categories Within Critical Habitat Units/Subunits for Astragalus brauntonii (ac (ha))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat unit and subunit Federal State Local agency Private Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Northern Simi Hills.............................. 0 (0) 0 (0) 21 (9) 413 (166) 4 34 (175)
Subunit 1a........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 19 (8) 164 (66) 183 (74)
Subunit 1b........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 73 (29) 73 (29)
Subunit 1c........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 108 (44) 108 (44)
Subunit 1d........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1) 68 (27) 70 (28)
Unit 2: Southern Simi Hills.............................. 196 (80) 118 (48) 427 (173) 278 (113) 1,019 (414)
Subunit 2a........................................... 0 (0) 118 (48) 221 (89) 71 (29) 410 (166)
Subunit 2b........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0.5) 0 (0) 1 (0.5)
Subunit 2c........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 144 (58) 0 (0) 144 (58)
Subunit 2d........................................... 111 (45) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 111 (45)
Subunit 2e........................................... 85 (35) 0 (0) 61 (25) 0 (0) 146 (60)
Subunit 2f........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 207 (84) 207 (84)
Unit 3: Santa Monica Mountains........................... 172 (70) 0 (0) 0 (0) 56 (23) 228 (93)
Unit 4: Pacific Palisades................................ 0 (0) 439 (178) 0 (0) 66 (27) 505 (205)
Unit 5: Monrovia......................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 218 (88) 64 (26) 282 (114)
Unit 6: Coal Canyon...................................... 0 (0) 589 (238) 0 (0) 243 (98) 832 (336)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 368 (150) 1,146 (464) 666 (270) 1,120 (453) 3,300 (1,337)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66389]]
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for Astragalus brauntonii,
below.
Unit 1: Northern Simi Hills Unit
This unit is located south of Simi Valley in the northern Simi
Hills in Ventura County and consists of 21 ac (9 ha) of local agency
land (Rancho Simi Recreation and Parks District) and 413 ac (166 ha) of
private lands. It is divided into four subunits mapped from occurrences
identified after the time of listing but currently occupied; all occur
within 1.5 mi (2.5 km) of each other. Unit 1, inclusive of the four
subunits, is located within the same physiographic area (the Simi
Hills) as Unit 2. This unit is essential because it represents a
previously unknown portion of the species' range north of Unit 2, and
inclusion of multiple populations within the entire range increases a
species' chance of persistence (Noss et al. 1997). These subunits are
occupied and contain one or more of the PCEs. Threats that may require
special management in this unit include road maintenance, which could
result in disturbances that are too frequent and prevent replenishment
of the seed bank, invasion of nonnative plants which could crowd out A.
brauntonii, cattle grazing, and recreation activities such as
equestrian and foot traffic, which could result in trampling of plants.
Subunit 1a: This subunit consists of 19 ac (8 ha) of local agency
land in Challenger Park owned by Rancho Simi Recreation and Parks
District and 164 ac (66 ha) of private land within dedicated open space
managed by the Bridle Path Homeowner's Association. It occurs along Bus
Canyon. This subunit contains at least two of the PCEs (2 and 3);
whether it contains PCE 1 is unknown. This subunit supports a
population as evidenced by three plants observed in three separate
locations in 1998.
Subunit 1b: This subunit consists of 73 ac (29 ha) of private land
that may be threatened by urban development. It occurs near the end of
Peter Place Road in Simi Valley, which is north of Bus Canyon at the
edge of an urban development. This subunit contains at least two of the
PCEs (2 and 3); whether it contains PCE 1 is unknown. This subunit
supports a population of at least three plants observed in 2000.
Subunit 1c: This subunit consists of 108 ac (44 ha) of private land
within dedicated open space managed by the Bridle Path Homeowner's
Association. It occurs along a ridge between Bus Canyon and Runkel
Canyon above a fire road. This subunit contains all of the PCEs. This
subunit supports a population of approximately 66 plants observed in
2004.
Subunit 1d: This subunit consists of 68 ac (27 ha) of private land
owned by Boeing and 2 ac (1 ha) of local agency lands (Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy). This subunit contains at least two of the PCEs
(2 and 3); whether it contains PCE 1 is unknown. Several hundred plants
were reported at this location after a fire in 2006 (Lopez 2006).
Unit 2: Southern Simi Hills Unit
This unit is located along the southern Simi Hills in Ventura and
Los Angeles Counties and consists of 196 ac (80 ha) of Federal lands,
118 ac (48 ha) of State land, 427 ac (173 ha) of local agency lands
(Conejo Open Space Conservation Authority (COSCA), City of Thousand
Oaks, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, and Rancho Simi Recreation
and District), and 278 ac (113 ha) of private land. This unit is
divided into six subunits mapped from records known at the time of
listing and occurrences identified after listing. These subunits are
all within 3.2 mi (5.2 km) of each other and occur along the southern
perimeter of the geologic Chatsworth Formation. Overall, these subunits
contain all of the PCEs, provide connectivity between several
occurrences known at the time of listing, and represent the
southernmost portion of the species' range within the Simi Hills.
Inclusion of these subunits reduces fragmentation, maintains genetic
connectivity between populations, and increases the chance of
recolonization from neighboring populations if one patch becomes
extirpated (Noss et al. 1997). Threats that may require special
management in this unit include road and trail maintenance that could
result in disturbances that are too frequent and prevent replenishment
of the seed bank, invasion of nonnative plants that could crowd out
Astragalus brauntonii, edge effects from urban development, and
recreation activities such as off-road vehicles and equestrian and foot
traffic, which could result in trampling of plants.
Subunit 2a: This subunit consists of 118 ac (48 ha) of State land
managed by COSCA, 221 ac (89 ha) of local agency lands designated as
open space in Oakbrook Regional Park and owned and managed by COSCA,
and 71 ac (29 ha) of private land. This subunit is mapped from
occurrences known at the time of listing and it contains all of the
PCEs. It includes small numbers of plants found in several locations
along a ridge; we believe a seed bank exists within and between known
occurrences because the locations are near each other and the habitat
is contiguous between them and close enough for genetic connectivity
through insect pollination.
Subunit 2b: This subunit consists of 1 ac (0.5 ha) of local agency
land owned by the City of Thousand Oaks. This subunit occurs within a
Southern California Edison easement and adjacent to a trail in Conejo
Open Space District surrounded by a residential neighborhood. It is
mapped from an occurrence identified after listing and it contains all
of the PCEs. Despite the small size of the subunit, it likely contains
a relatively large population; approximately 68 plants were observed at
this location in 2003. The population is enclosed by permanent fencing,
and the area receives periodic vegetation clearing for fire control.
Subunit 2c: This subunit consists of 144 ac (58 ha) of local agency
land in Oak Canyon Community Park owned and managed by Rancho Simi
Recreation and Parks District. This subunit is mapped from an
occurrence known at the time of listing and it contains all of the
PCEs. It includes plants found in several locations along both sides of
Medea Creek and contains a relatively large area. Approximately 400
plants were observed in this area in 1993, although few plants have
been observed since then. This subunit is threatened by additional park
development, which may require special management.
Subunit 2d: This subunit consists of 111 ac (45 ha) of Federal land
within the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. It includes
plants that were found at two separate locations on both sides of Palo
Comado Canyon, and is mapped from an occurrence known at the time of
listing. Fewer than 30 plants were observed in this area in 1987, and
fewer than 10 plants at a time have been observed since then, however,
the unit continues to remain occupied and contains a seed bank. This
subunit contains all of the PCEs.
Subunit 2e: This subunit consists of 85 ac (35 ha) of Federal land
within the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, and 61 ac
(25 ha) of local agency land owned and managed as open space by Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy. This subunit is located on the east side
of Cheseboro Canyon in an area that is relatively isolated from urban
development. It is mapped from an occurrence identified after listing.
Approximately 30 plants were observed at this location in 2000,
hundreds of plants were observed
[[Page 66390]]
during post-fire surveys in 2006, and this subunit contains all of the
PCEs.
Subunit 2f: This subunit consists of 207 ac (84 ha) of private land
located east of the City of Chatsworth along Dayton Canyon in the
eastern Simi Hills. It is mapped from one occurrence known at the time
of listing and additional occurrences identified since the time of
listing, although these occurrences are within the same population. A
portion of one of the populations was removed during development in
1999. This subunit contains all of the PCEs. Approximately 14 plants
were observed in this area in 1999, and 27 plants were observed during
post-fire surveys in 2006.
Unit 3: Santa Monica Mountains Unit
This unit is located in the eastern Santa Monica Mountains in upper
Zuma Canyon, north of Point Dume in Los Angeles County. It consists of
172 ac (70 ha) of Federal land within the Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area, and 56 ac (23 ha) of private land. It
includes an area where more than 300 plants were found in 1999 after a
prescribed burn, and the entire unit is mapped from an occurrence
identified after listing. This unit contains all of the PCEs, is
occupied, is the only known location in the western Santa Monica
Mountains, and represents the western edge of the species' range. We
also believe this area supports a large seed bank based on the observed
post-fire germination that occurred here in 1999. This unit is
essential because it represents a previously unknown portion of the
species' range, and inclusion of multiple populations within the entire
range increases a species' chance of persistence (Noss et al. 1997).
Threats that may require special management in this unit include road
maintenance that could result in disturbances that are too frequent,
preventing establishment or replenishment of the seed bank.
Unit 4: Pacific Palisades Unit
This unit is located in the Santa Ynez Canyon north of Pacific
Palisades in Los Angeles County and consists of 439 ac (178 ha) of
State lands within Topanga State Park and 66 ac (27 ha) of private
land. It includes plants found in three separate locations that are
part of a single population complex, and is mapped from occurrences
known at the time of listing. This is thought to be a large population;
over 1,000 plants were observed at one of these locations in 1998. That
site is cleared annually for a powerline and fuel break, a disturbance
that likely causes large numbers of plants to germinate each year. This
unit contains all of the PCEs, represents the eastern edge of the
species' range within the Santa Monica Mountains, provides connectivity
between the three separate locations, is a relatively large good-
quality site, and the area likely incorporates a large existing seed
bank. Threats that may require special management in this unit include
road maintenance that could result in disturbances that are too
frequent, preventing establishment or replenishment of the seed bank,
and growth of nonnative plants that could crowd out Astragalus
brauntonii.
Unit 5: Monrovia Unit
This unit is located in the San Gabriel Mountains in the City of
Monrovia in Los Angeles County and consists of 218 ac (88 ha) of local
agency land owned by the City of Monrovia and managed as open space
(Monrovia Wilderness Preserve) and 64 ac (26 ha) of private land. It
includes plants found in several locations that are part of a single
population complex, and is mapped from an occurrence known at the time
of listing. This is a large population; approximately 700 plants were
observed in this area in 2004. This unit contains all of the PCEs,
represents a unique and disjunct (separated) piece of the species'
range, is a relatively large, good-quality site, and the area likely
incorporates a large existing seed bank. Threats that may require
special management in this unit include maintenance of fire roads, the
growth of nonnative plants that could crowd out Astragalus brauntonii,
and recreation activities such as foot and bicycle traffic, which could
result in trampling of plants.
Unit 6: Coal Canyon Unit
This unit is located south of the City of Yorba Linda in Coal
Canyon and Gypsum Canyon in Orange County and consists of 589 ac (238
ha) of State land (Chino Hills State Park and California Department of
Fish and Game--Coal Canyon Ecological Reserve) and 243 ac (98 ha) of
private land. This unit includes plants found in several locations that
are part of a large population complex, and is mapped from occurrences
known at the time of listing. This population was very small and
declining until a fire in 2003, after which more than 5,000 plants were
reported. This unit contains all of the PCEs, represents a disjunct
portion of the species' range, is a relatively large area isolated from
urban development, and provides genetic connectivity between plants
found at several locations within the unit. We also believe the site
supports a large seed bank, based on the post-fire germination that
occurred here in 2003. Threats that may require special management in
this unit include maintenance of fire roads and the growth of shrubs
and nonnative plants, which could crowd out Astragalus brauntonii.
Pentachaeta lyonii
We are designating 3,396 ac (1,372 ha) within 6 units as critical
habitat for Pentachaeta lyonii in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. The
units described below constitute our best assessment currently of areas
determined to be occupied at the time of listing, that contain the PCEs
and that may require special management, and those additional areas
that were not known at the time of listing but were found to be
essential to the conservation of P. lyonii. All areas not known at the
time of listing are in the same geographic area and within the range of
those areas determined to be occupied at the time of listing. For
reasons described previously (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat section), we have determined that inclusion of all known
locations, with the exception of Unit 6, that still contain the PCEs is
essential to the conservation of the species because this species is
extremely limited in distribution, has a very small overall population
size, and often occurs in very small disjunct populations, making it
particularly vulnerable to extinction (Noss et al. 1997). Inclusion of
these populations reduces fragmentation, maintains genetic connectivity
between populations, prevents range collapse of the species, and
increases the chance of recolonization from neighboring populations if
one patch becomes extirpated (Noss et al. 1997).
Table 3 shows the differences in acreage between the proposed and
final rule, and Table 4 provides the approximate area designated as
critical habitat by land ownership.
[[Page 66391]]
Table 3.--Proposed and Final Critical Habitat Units for Pentachaeta lyonii (ac (ha))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed rule
Critical habitat units/subunits County (Nov. 10, 2005) Final rule ac
ac (ha) (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Simi Valley........................ Ventura...................... 458 (185) 390 (157)
Subunit 1a............................. ............................. 283 (114) 245 (99)
Subunit 1b............................. ............................. 19 (8) 18 (7)
Subunit 1c............................. ............................. 50 (20) 33 (13)
Subunit 1d............................. ............................. 106 (43) 94 (38)
Unit 2: Montclef Ridge..................... Ventura...................... 1,317 (533) 1,157 (468)
Subunit 2a............................. ............................. 1,196 (485) 1,051 (425)
Subunit 2b............................. ............................. 47 (19) 40 (16)
Subunit 2c............................. ............................. 74 (29) 66 (27)
Unit 3: Thousand Oaks...................... Ventura/Los Angeles.......... 1,470 (594) 1,259 (510)
Subunit 3a............................. ............................. 236 (96) 212 (86)
Subunit 3b............................. ............................. 75 (30) 64 (26)
Subunit 3c............................. ............................. 1,159 (468) 983 (398)
Unit 4: Triunfo Canyon..................... Los Angeles.................. 236 (95) 206 (83)
Unit 5: Mulholland Drive................... Los Angeles.................. 396 (160) 292 (117)
Subunit 5a............................. ............................. 82 (33) 68 (27)
Subunit 5b............................. ............................. 163 (66) 107 (43)
Subunit 5c............................. ............................. 78 (31) 62 (25)
Subunit 5d............................. ............................. 73 (30) 55 (22)
Unit 6: Cornell Road....................... Los Angeles.................. 233 (94) 0 (0)
Unit 7: Malibu Lake........................ Los Angeles.................. 102 (41) 92 (37)
-------------------------------------
Total.............................. ............................. 4,212 (1,704) 3,396 (1,372)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Approximate Acreage by Land Ownership Categories Within Critical Habitat Units/Subunits for Pentachaeta lyonii (ac (ha))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat unit and subunit Federal State Local agency Private Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Simi Valley...................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 390 (157) 390 (157)
Subunit 1a........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 245 (99) 245 (99)
Subunit 1b........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 18 (7) 18 (7)
Subunit 1c........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 33 (13) 33 (13)
Subunit 1d........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 94 (38) 94 (38)
Unit 2: Montclef Ridge................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 892 (361) 265 (107) 1,157 (468)
Subunit 2a........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 862 (349) 189 (76) 1,051 (425)
Subunit 2b........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 22 (9) 18 (7) 40 (16)
Subunit 2c........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 8 (3) 58 (24) 66 (27)
Unit 3: Thousand Oaks.................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 671 (272) 588 (238) 1,259 (510)
Subunit 3a........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 149 (60) 63 (26) 212 (86)
Subunit 3b........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 26 (11) 38 (15) 64 (26)
Subunit 3c........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 496 (201) 487 (197) 983 (398)
Unit 4: Triunfo Canyon................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 197 (80) 9 (3) 206 (83)
Unit 5: Mulholland Drive................................. 105 (42) 0 (0) 0 (0) 187 (75) 292 (117)
Subunit 5a........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 68 (27) 68 (27)
Subunit 5b........................................... 105 (42) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1) 107 (43)
Subunit 5c........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 62 (25) 62 (25)
Subunit 5d........................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 55 (22) 55 (22)
Unit 6: Cornell Road..................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Unit 7: Malibu Lake...................................... 0 (0) 58 (23) 0 (0) 34 (14) 92 (37)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 105 (42) 58 (23) 1,760 (713) 1,473 (594) 3,396 (1,372)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for Pentachaeta lyonii, below.
Unit 1: Simi Valley Unit
This unit is located east of Moorpark and west of Simi Valley in
Ventura County and consists of 390 ac (157 ha) of private land. This
unit is divided into four subunits and mapped from occurrences known at
the time of listing. The subunits are in the same geographic area; they
are all within 2.5 mi (4000 m) of each other. These subunits are
included because they contain features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, contain at least two of the PCEs (1 and
3), and the unit as a whole represents the northernmost edge of the
species' range. Inclusion of these subunits reduces fragmentation,
maintains genetic connectivity between populations, and increases the
chance of recolonization from neighboring populations if one patch
becomes extirpated (Noss et al. 1997). Soils have not been sampled for
microbiotic crusts at all locations, so it is unknown if every subunit
contains PCE 2. Threats that may require special management in this
unit include the invasion of annual grasses and nonnative plants that
could crowd out P. lyonii, and grazing, edge effects from urban
development, road maintenance,
[[Page 66392]]
and vehicle traffic, which could result in removal or trampling of
plants.
Subunit 1a: This subunit is located east of Moorpark in the Tierra
Rejada Hills and consists of 245 ac (99 ha) of private land. This
subunit includes several patches within a single population complex; at
least 1200 plants were recorded in this area in 1995. This subunit
contains at least two of the PCEs (1 and 3); soils have not been
sampled for microbiotic crusts, so whether it contains PCE 2 is
unknown.
Subunit 1b: This subunit is located in eastern Moorpark and
consists of 18 ac (7 ha) of private land within the Tierra Rejada
Vernal Pool Preserve owned by Serenata Homeowners association and
managed by Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority. It includes
one of the largest known populations of Pentachaeta lyonii, and is
fenced and monitored annually. This subunit contains at least two of
the PCEs (1 and 3); soils have not been sampled for microbiotic crusts,
so whether it contains PCE 2 is unknown.
Subunit 1c: This subunit is located in western Simi Valley near
Wood Ranch Reservoir and consists of 33 ac (13 ha) of private land. It
includes at least two separate patches of plants within the same
population complex. This subunit contains at least two of the PCEs (1
and 3); soils have not been sampled for microbiotic crusts, so whether
it contains PCE 2 is unknown.
Subunit 1d: This subunit is located in western Simi Valley directly
adjacent to Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. It consists of 94 ac
(38 ha) of private land and includes at least two separate patches of
plants within the same population complex. This subunit contains at
least two of the PCEs (1 and 3); soils have not been sampled for
microbiotic crusts, so whether it contains PCE 2 is unknown.
Unit 2: Montclef Ridge Unit
This unit is located along Montclef Ridge, northwest of Newbury
Park in Ventura County. It consists of 892 ac (361 ha) of local agency
land (Lynmere, Wildwood Park, and Mount Clef Ridge) owned and managed
by COSCA and Conejo Recreation and Parks District, and 265 ac (107 ha)
of private land. This unit is divided into three subunits that occur
within the same geographic area, and are mapped from occurrences known
at the time of listing and one occurrence identified after listing.
These subunits are included because they contain features that are
essential to the conservation of the species, contain all of the PCEs,
and represent a large proportion of the species' range. Inclusion of
these subunits reduces fragmentation, maintains genetic connectivity
between populations, and increases the chance of recolonization from
neighboring populations if one patch becomes extirpated (Noss et al.
1997). Threats that may require special management include invasion by
annual grasses and nonnative plants that could crowd out P. lyonii;
recreation, including equestrian activities, foot traffic, and off-road
vehicles, which could result in trampling of plants; illegal dumping,
urban development, which could result in removal of plants; and edge
effects from existing urban development.
Subunit 2a: This subunit includes a large population complex with
patches of plants from multiple locations, and is mapped from several
occurrences known at the time of listing and one occurrence identified
after listing, and consists of 862 ac (349 ha) of local agency land
(Lynmere, Wildwood Park, and Mount Clef Ridge) designated as open space
and owned by COSCA and Conejo Recreation and Parks District and 189 ac
(76 ha) of private land. The occurrence identified after listing is
known to be occupied, and provides connectivity between occurrences
known at the time of listing. This subunit consists of a relatively
large contiguous area with multiple populations of Pentachaeta lyonii,
and it contains all of the PCEs.
Subunit 2b: This subunit includes at least two separate patches of
plants within the same population complex and is mapped from an
occurrence known at the time of listing. It consists of 22 ac (9 ha) of
local agency land designated as open space and owned by COSCA, and 18
ac (7 ha) of private land, 6 ac (2 ha) of which is owned by California
Lutheran University. This subunit contains all of the PCEs.
Subunit 2c: This subunit includes at least two separate patches of
plants within the same population complex and is mapped from an
occurrence known at the time of listing. It consists of 8 ac (3 ha) of
local agency land designated as open space and owned by COSCA, and 58
ac (24 ha) of private land, 34 ac (14 ha) of which is owned by
California Lutheran University. This subunit contains all of the PCEs.
Unit 3: Thousand Oaks Unit
This unit is located in Thousand Oaks near Lake Sherwood in Ventura
and Los Angeles Counties. It consists of 671 ac (272 ha) of local
agency land (COSCA, Las Virgenes Metropolitan Water District, and
Mountain Resources Conservation Authority) and 588 ac (238 ha) of
private land. This unit is divided into three subunits mapped from
occurrences known at the time of listing and two occurrence identified
after listing. These subunits are included because they contain
features that are essential to the conservation of the species, contain
at least two of the PCEs (1 and 3), and represent a large proportion of
the species' range. Inclusion of these subunits reduces fragmentation,
maintains genetic connectivity between populations, and increases the
chance of recolonization from neighboring populations if one patch
becomes extirpated (Noss et al. 1997). Soils have not been sampled for
microbiotic crusts, so whether the subunits contain PCE 2 is unknown.
Threats that may require special management include edge effects from
urban development, removal of plants for urban development or fuel
management, invasion by annual grasses and nonnative plants that could
crowd out Pentachaeta lyonii, and equestrian and foot traffic that
could result in trampling of plants.
Subunit 3a: This subunit is located north of Lake Sherwood and
consists of 149 ac (60 ha) of local agency land designated as open
space owned by COSCA, and 63 ac (26 ha) of private land. It is mapped
from a relatively large population (11,000 plants in 1991) known at the
time of listing. This subunit contains at least two of the PCEs (1 and
3); soils have not been sampled for microbiotic crusts, so whether it
contains PCE 2 is unknown.
Subunit 3b: This subunit is located on the north side of Lake
Sherwood and consists of 26 ac (11 ha) of local agency land owned by
COSCA and 38 ac (15 ha) of private land. It is mapped from an
occurrence known at the time of listing. Two of the three patches
within this population were removed by development in 1997; the only
remaining patch of occupied habitat has been designated. This subunit
contains at least two of the PCEs (1 and 3); soils have not been
sampled for microbiotic crusts, so whether it contains PCE 2 is
unknown.
Subunit 3c: This subunit is located south of Lake Sherwood and
consists of 496 ac (201 ha) of local agency land designated as open
space owned by COSCA, and 487 ac (197 ha) of private land. It is mapped
from occurrences known at the time of listing and two occurrences
identified after listing, and includes numerous patches of plants
within one population complex. Overall, this subunit contains at least
16 known populations of Pentachaeta lyonii. This subunit contains at
least two of the PCEs (1 and 3); soils have not been sampled for
microbiotic crusts, so whether it contains PCE 2 is unknown.
[[Page 66393]]
Unit 4. Triunfo Canyon Unit
This unit is located in unincorporated Los Angeles County. It
consists of 197 ac (80 ha) of local agency land owned by Mountains
Recreation and Conservation Authority, and 9 ac (3 ha) of private land.
It is mapped from an occurrence known at the time of listing and
includes multiple patches within a large, single population complex.
This unit is included because it contains the features essential to the
conservation of the species, contains all of the PCEs, is currently
occupied, and represents a relatively large population complex of
Pentachaeta lyonii (37,300 individuals estimated in 2000), and is a
good-quality site. Inclusion of this unit reduces fragmentation,
maintains genetic connectivity between populations, and increases the
chance of recolonization from neighboring populations if one patch
becomes extirpated (Noss et al. 1997). Threats that may require special
management include invasion by annual grasses and nonnative plants,
which could crowd out P. lyonii, fuel management, which could result in
removal of plants, and foot traffic, which could result in trampling of
plants.
Unit 5: Mullholland Drive Unit
This unit is located in the Santa Monica Mountains in Los Angeles
County and consists of 105 ac (42 ha) of Federal land (Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area) and 187 ac (75 ha) of private land.
It is divided into 4 subunits mapped from occurrences known at the time
of listing and occurrences identified after listing. These subunits are
included because they contain features essential to the conservation of
the species, are currently occupied, contain at least two of the PCEs
(1 and 3), and represent the southernmost locations within the species'
range. Inclusion of these subunits reduces fragmentation, maintains
genetic connectivity between populations, and increases the chance of
recolonization from neighboring populations if one patch becomes
extirpated (Noss et al. 1997). Soils have not been sampled for
microbiotic crusts, so whether these subunits contain PCE 2 is unknown.
Threats that may require special management include the potential for
development, which could result in removal of plants; fuel management,
which could also result in removal of plants; and invasion by annual
grasses and nonnative plants, which could crowd out Pentachaeta lyonii.
Unit 5a: This subunit consists of 68 ac (27 ha) of private land
along the south side of Mulholland Drive. It is mapped from an
occurrence known at the time of listing. This population contained at
least 3000 individual plants in 2000. This subunit contains at least
two of the PCEs (1 and 3); soils have not been sampled for microbiotic
crusts, so whether it contains PCE 2 is unknown.
Unit 5b: This subunit consists of 105 ac (42 ha) of Federal land
(Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area) in Rocky Oaks Park
and 2 ac (1 ha) of private land on the west side of Kanan Road. This
subunit contains at least two remaining patches of plants within a
population complex. One patch within this population was extirpated by
equestrian activities (although the habitat remains), so the remaining
patches have been fenced. It is mapped from an occurrence known at the
time of listing. This subunit contains at least two of the PCEs (1 and
3); soils have not been sampled for microbiotic crusts, so whether it
contains PCE 2 is unknown.
Unit 5c: This subunit consists of 62 ac (25 ha) of private land
designated as open space and managed by Santa Monica Mountains
Conservancy on Mulholland Drive. It includes at least two patches of
plants within a single population complex, and is mapped from an
occurrence identified after listing. This subunit is occupied and
contains at least two of the PCEs (1 and 3); soils have not been
sampled for microbiotic crusts, so whether it contains PCE 2 is
unknown.
Unit 5d: This subunit consists of 55 ac (22 ha) of private land on
Kanan Road. It is mapped from an occurrence identified after listing.
This subunit is occupied and contains at least two of the PCEs (1 and
3); soils have not been sampled for microbiotic crusts, so whether it
contains PCE 2 is unknown.
Unit 6: Cornell Road Unit
All essential lands in Unit 6 are excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for economic reasons (see
the Exclusions Under Section 49b)(2) of the Act section). This unit is
located in the Santa Monica Mountains in Los Angeles County and
consists of 233 ac (94 ha) of private land. It includes plants found in
several locations and is mapped from an occurrence known at the time of
listing. This unit contains all of the PCEs, represents one of the
southernmost locations within the species' range, contains numerous
distinct patches and a very large population of individuals (> 3
million plants estimated in 1999), is genetically distinct from the
other populations, and contains more genetic variability than the other
populations. Threats that may require special management include the
potential for grading and development, which could result in removal of
plants, edge effects from nearby developments, and invasion by annual
grasses and nonnative plants, which could crowd out P. lyonii.
Unit 7: Malibu Lake Unit
This unit is located in the Santa Monica Mountains in Los Angeles
County and consists of 58 ac (23 ha) of State land (Malibu Creek State
Park) and 34 ac (14 ha) of private land. It is mapped from an
occurrence known at the time of listing. This unit is included because
it contains features that are essential to the conservation of the
species, contains at least two of the PCEs (PCEs 1 and 3), represents
the easternmost known location within the species' range, is currently
occupied, and contains a relatively large population (100,000-200,000
plants estimated in 1998). Inclusion of this unit reduces
fragmentation, maintains genetic connectivity between populations, and
increases the chance of recolonization from neighboring populations if
one patch becomes extirpated (Noss et al. 1997). Soils have not been
sampled for microbiotic crusts, so whether the subunits contain PCE 2
is unknown. Threats that may require special management include
recreation activities such as foot traffic, which may result in
trampling of plants.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7 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. In our
regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse
modification as ``a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and
recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not
limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or
biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to
be critical.'' However, recent decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals have invalidated this definition. Pursuant to current
national policy and the statutory provisions of the Act, destruction or
adverse modification is determined on the basis of whether, with
implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would remain functional (or retain the current ability for the
primary constituent elements to be functionally established) to serve
the
[[Page 66394]]
intended conservation role for the species.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with
us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification
of proposed critical habitat. This is a procedural requirement only.
However, once a proposed species becomes listed, or proposed critical
habitat is designated as final, the full prohibitions of section
7(a)(2) apply to any Federal action. The primary utility of the
conference procedures is to maximize the opportunity for a Federal
agency to adequately consider proposed species and critical habitat and
avoid potential delays in implementing their proposed action because of
the section 7(a)(2) compliance process, should those species be listed
or the critical habitat designated.
Under conference procedures, the Service may provide advisory
conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating
conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The Service may
conduct either informal or formal conferences. Informal conferences are
typically used if the proposed action is not likely to have any adverse
effects to the proposed species or proposed critical habitat. Formal
conferences are typically used when the Federal agency or the Service
believes the proposed action is likely to cause adverse effects to
proposed species or critical habitat, inclusive of those that may cause
jeopardy or adverse modification.
The results of an informal conference are typically transmitted in
a conference report, while the results of a formal conference are
typically transmitted in a conference opinion. Conference opinions on
proposed critical habitat are typically prepared according to 50 CFR
402.14, as if the proposed critical habitat were designated. We may
adopt the conference opinion as the biological opinion when the
critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR
402.10(d)). As noted above, any conservation recommendations in a
conference report or opinion are strictly advisory.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, 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. As a result of this consultation,
compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) will be documented
through the Service's issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed
species or critical habitat; or (2) a biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, but are likely to adversely affect, listed
species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in jeopardy to a listed species or the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat, we also provide reasonable
and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable.
``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as
alternative actions identified during consultation that can be
implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the
action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's
legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and
technologically feasible, and that the Director believes would avoid
jeopardy to the listed species or destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from
slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the
project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent
alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where a new
species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action or such discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal
agencies may request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions
for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may
affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat or
adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect Astragalus brauntonii and
Pentachaeta lyonii 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 Corps 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 Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Standards for
Actions involving Effects to Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta
lyonii and Their Critical Habitat
Jeopardy Standard
Prior to and following designation of critical habitat, the Service
has applied an analytical framework for Astragalus brauntonii and
Pentachaeta lyonii jeopardy analyses that relies heavily on the
importance of core area populations to the survival and recovery of A.
brauntonii and P. lyonii. The section 7(a)(2) analysis is focused not
only on these populations but also on the habitat conditions necessary
to support them.
The jeopardy analysis usually expresses the survival and recovery
needs of the Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii in a
qualitative fashion without making distinctions between what is
necessary for survival and what is necessary for recovery. Generally,
if a proposed Federal action is incompatible with the viability of the
affected core area population(s), inclusive of associated habitat
conditions, a jeopardy finding is warranted because of the relationship
of each core area population to the survival and recovery of the
species as a whole.
Adverse Modification Standard
For the reasons described in the Director's December 9, 2004
memorandum the key factor related to the adverse modification
determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal
action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional
[[Page 66395]]
(or retain the current ability for the primary constituent elements to
be functionally established) to serve the intended conservation role
for the species. Generally, the conservation role of A. brauntonii and
P. lyonii critical habitat units are to support viable core area
populations.
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 may destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat
are those that alter the PCEs to an extent that the conservation value
of critical habitat for Astragalus brauntonii or Pentachaeta lyonii is
appreciably reduced. However, as discussed in the PCE section for A.
brauntonii, periodic disturbances that stimulate seed germination
(e.g., fire, flooding, erosion) and reduce vegetative cover are
characteristic of the species' habitat. Activities that, when carried
out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, may affect critical
habitat and therefore result in consultation for A. brauntonii and P.
lyonii include, but are not limited to:
(1) Removing, thinning, or destroying A. brauntonii and P. lyonii
plants. This may occur through burning, mechanical, chemical, or other
means, including plowing, grading, livestock grazing, construction,
road building, mechanical weed control, herbicide application, and
firefighting activities;
(2) Activities that appreciably degrade or destroy A. brauntonii or
P. lyonii habitat (and its PCEs). Such activities include, but are not
limited to: livestock grazing, clearing, discing, farming, residential
or commercial development, introducing or encouraging the spread of
nonnative species, off-road vehicle use;
(3) Activities that appreciably diminish habitat value or quality
through indirect effects (e.g., edge effects, invasion of exotic plants
or animals, or fragmentation) due to construction of buildings or
roads;
(4) Any activity, including the regulation of activities by the
Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act or
activities carried out by or licensed by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), that could alter watershed or soil characteristics in
ways that would appreciably alter or reduce the quality or quantity of
surface and subsurface flow of water needed to maintain A. brauntonii
or P. lyonii. These activities include, but are not limited to:
Altering the natural fire regime by using prescribed fires that are too
frequent or poorly-timed; development, including road building and
other direct or indirect activities; agricultural activities; livestock
grazing; and vegetation manipulation such as clearing or grubbing in
the watershed upslope from A. brauntonii or P. lyonii.
(5) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation,
and regulation of agricultural activities, or any activity funded or
carried out by the Department of Transportation or Department of
Agriculture that could result in excavation, or mechanized land
clearing of A. brauntonii or P. lyonii habitat; and
(6) Licensing of construction of communication sites by the Federal
Communications Commission or funding of construction or development
activities by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that
could result in excavation, or mechanized land clearing, of A.
brauntonii or P. lyonii habitat.
We consider all of the units designated as critical habitat, as
well as those that have been excluded or not included, to contain
features essential to the conservation of the species. All units are
within the geographical area of the species and are currently occupied.
Four of the six units for Astragalus brauntonii were occupied at the
time of listing, although three subunits within Unit 2 contain
additional populations not known at the time of listing but are
currently occupied. Units 1 and 4 were not known to be occupied at the
time of listing but are currently occupied. All seven units for
Pentachaeta lyonii were occupied at the time of listing, although four
subunits within these units contain additional populations not known at
the time of listing but are currently occupied. Federal agencies
already consult with us on activities in areas currently occupied by A.
brauntonii and P. lyonii, or if the species may be affected by the
action, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued
existence of A. brauntonii or P. lyonii.
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
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. 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 [s]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 Secretary is afforded broad discretion and the
Congressional record is clear that in making a determination under the
section the Secretary has discretion as to which factors and how much
weight will be given to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2), 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, determine whether the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If an exclusion is
contemplated, then we must determine whether excluding the area would
result in the extinction of the species. In the following sections, we
address a number of general issues that are relevant to the exclusions
we considered.
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for Astragalus brauntonii
Pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must consider relevant
impacts in addition to economic ones. We determined that the lands
within the designation of critical habitat for Astragalus brauntonii
are not owned or managed by the Department of Defense, there are
currently no habitat conservation plans for A. brauntonii, and the
designation does not include any Tribal lands or trust resources. We
anticipate no impact to national security, Tribal lands, partnerships,
or habitat conservation plans from this critical habitat designation.
Based on the best available information including the prepared economic
analysis, we believe that all of these units contain the features that
are essential for the conservation of this species. Our economic
analysis indicates an overall low cost resulting from the designation.
Therefore, we have found no areas for which the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and so have not excluded any areas
from this designation of critical habitat for A. brauntonii based on
economic impacts. As such, we have considered but not excluded any
lands from this designation for A. brauntonii based on the potential
impacts to these factors.
[[Page 66396]]
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for Pentachaeta lyonii
Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands
Most federally listed species in the United States will not recover
without the cooperation of non-federal landowners. More than 60% of the
United States is privately owned (National Wilderness Institute 1995)
and at least 80% of endangered or threatened occur either partially or
solely on private lands (Crouse et al. 2002). Stein et al. (1995) found
that only about 12% of listed species were found almost exclusively on
Federal lands (90 to 100% of their known occurrences restricted to
Federal lands) and that 50% of federally listed species are not known
to occur on Federal lands at all.
Given the distribution of listed species with respect to land
ownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the United
States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of
entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-federal landowners
(Wilcove and Chen 1998, Crouse et al. 2002, James 2002). Building
partnerships and promoting voluntary cooperation of landowners is
essential to understanding the status of species on non-federal lands
and is necessary to implement recovery actions such as reintroducing
listed species, habitat restoration, and habitat protection.
Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction in contributing to
endangered species recovery. The Service promotes these private-sector
efforts through the Four Cs philosophy--conservation through
communication, consultation, and cooperation. This philosophy is
evident in Service programs such as HCPs, Safe Harbor Agreements,
Candidate Conservation Agreements, Candidate Conservation Agreements
with Assurances, and conservation challenge cost-share. Many private
landowners, however, are wary of the possible consequences of
encouraging endangered species to their property, and there is mounting
evidence that some regulatory actions by the Federal government, while
well-intentioned and required by law, can under certain circumstances
have unintended negative consequences for the conservation of species
on private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996, Bean 2002, Conner and Mathews
2002, James 2002, Koch 2002, Brook et al. 2003). Many landowners fear a
decline in their property value due to real or perceived restrictions
on land-use options where threatened or endangered species are found.
Consequently, harboring endangered species is viewed by many landowners
as a liability, resulting in anti-conservation incentives because
maintaining habitats that harbor endangered species represents a risk
to future economic opportunities (Main et al. 1999, Brook et al. 2003).
The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out
by Federal agencies under section 7 of the Act, can sometimes be
counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands.
According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat on
private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners will
support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999, Bean
2002, Brook et al. 2003). The magnitude of this negative outcome is
greatly amplified in situations where active management measures (e.g.,
reintroduction, fire management, control of invasive species) are
necessary for species conservation (Bean 2002).
The Service believes that the judicious use of excluding specific
areas of non-federally owned lands from critical habitat designations
can contribute to species recovery and provide a superior level of
conservation than critical habitat alone. The Department of Interior
Four C's philosophy--conservation through communication, consultation,
and cooperation--is the foundation for developing the tools of
conservation. These tools include conservation grants, funding for
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, the Coastal Program, and
cooperative-conservation challenge cost-share grants. Our Private
Stewardship Grant program and Landowner Incentive Program provide
assistance to private landowners in their voluntary efforts to protect
threatened, imperiled, and endangered species, including the
development and implementation of HCPs.
Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners (e.g., Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCPs), contractual conservation agreements,
easements, and stakeholder-negotiated State regulations) enhance
species conservation by extending species protections beyond those
available through section 7 consultations. In the past decade we have
encouraged non-Federal landowners to enter into conservation
agreements, based on a view that we can achieve greater species
conservation on non-Federal land through such partnerships than we can
through coercive methods (61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996).
General Principles of Section 7 Consultations Used in the 4(b)(2)
Balancing Process
The most direct, and potentially largest, regulatory benefit of
critical habitat is that federally authorized, funded, or carried out
activities require consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act to
ensure that they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. There are two limitations to this regulatory effect. First, it
only applies where there is a Federal nexus--if there is no Federal
nexus, designation itself does not restrict actions that destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. Second, it only limits destruction
or adverse modification. By its nature, the prohibition on adverse
modification is designed to ensure those areas that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species or unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of
the species are not eroded. Critical habitat designation alone,
however, does not require specific steps toward recovery.
Once consultation under section 7 of the Act is triggered, the
process may conclude informally when the Service concurs in writing
that the proposed Federal action is not likely to adversely affect the
listed species or its critical habitat. However, if the Service
determines through informal consultation that adverse impacts are
likely to occur, then formal consultation would be initiated. Formal
consultation concludes with a biological opinion issued by the Service
on whether the proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or result in destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat, with separate analyses being
made under both the jeopardy and the adverse modification standards.
For critical habitat, a biological opinion that concludes in a
determination of no destruction or adverse modification may contain
discretionary conservation recommendations to minimize adverse effects
to primary constituent elements, but it would not contain any mandatory
reasonable and prudent measures or terms and conditions. Mandatory
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed Federal action
would only be issued when the biological opinion results in a jeopardy
or adverse modification conclusion.
We also note that for 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit Court's
decision in Gifford Pinchot, the Service equated the
[[Page 66397]]
jeopardy standard with the standard for destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. The Court ruled that the Service
could no longer equate the two standards and that adverse modification
evaluations require consideration of impacts on the recovery of
species. Thus, under the Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat
designations may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a species.
However, we believe the conservation achieved through implementing
habitat conservation plans (HCPs) or other habitat management plans is
typically greater than would be achieved through multiple site-by-site,
project-by-project, section 7 consultations involving consideration of
critical habitat. Management plans commit resources to implement long-
term management and protection to particular habitat for at least one
and possibly other listed or sensitive species. Section 7 consultations
only commit Federal agencies to prevent adverse modification to
critical habitat caused by the particular project, and they are not
committed to provide conservation or long-term benefits to areas not
affected by the proposed project. Thus, any HCP or management plan
which considers enhancement or recovery as the management standard will
always provide as much or more benefit than a consultation for critical
habitat designation conducted under the standards required by the Ninth
Circuit in the Gifford Pinchot decision.
Educational Benefits of Critical Habitat
A benefit of including lands in critical habitat is that the
designation of critical habitat serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and promote conservation efforts by
other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value
for Pentachaeta lyonii. In general the educational benefit of a
critical habitat designation always exists, although in some cases it
may be redundant with other educational effects. For example, HCPs have
significant public input and may largely duplicate the educational
benefit of a critical habitat designation. This benefit is closely
related to a second, more indirect benefit: That designation of
critical habitat would inform State agencies and local governments
about areas that could be conserved under State laws or local
ordinances.
However, we believe that there would be little additional
informational benefit gained from the designation of critical habitat
for the exclusion we are making in this rule because the area being
excluded was included in the proposed rule as having habitat containing
the features essential to the conservation of the species.
Consequently, we believe that the informational benefits are already
provided even though this area is not designated as critical habitat.
Additionally, the purpose normally served by the designation, that of
informing State agencies and local governments about areas that would
benefit from protection and enhancement of habitat for Astragalus
brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii is already well established among
State and local governments and Federal agencies in those areas that we
are excluding from critical habitat in this rule on the basis of other
existing habitat management protections.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to take into
consideration potential economic impacts of a critical habitat
designation and to exclude areas from critical habitat for economic
reasons if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion exceed the
benefits of designating the area as critical habitat, unless the
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned. This
is a discretionary authority Congress has provided to the Secretary
with respect to critical habitat. Although economics may not be
considered when listing a species, Congress has expressly required this
consideration when designating critical habitat.
In conducting economic analyses, we are guided by the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeal's ruling in the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association
case (248 F.3d at 1285), which directed us to consider all impacts,
``regardless of whether those impacts are attributable co-extensively
to other causes.'' The Ninth Circuit has recently ruled (Gifford
Pinchot, 378 F.3d at 1071) that the Service's regulations defining
``adverse modification'' of critical habitat are invalid because they
define adverse modification as affecting both survival and recovery of
a species. The Court directed us to consider that determinations of
adverse modification should be focused on impacts to recovery. While we
have not yet proposed a new definition for public review and comment,
compliance with the Court's direction may result in additional costs
associated with the designation of critical habitat (depending upon the
outcome of the rulemaking). In light of the uncertainty concerning the
regulatory definition of adverse modification, our current
methodological approach to conducting economic analyses of our critical
habitat designations is to consider all conservation-related costs.
This approach would include costs related to sections 4 and 7 of the
Act, as well as other protections under State and local laws and
regulations, and should encompass costs that would be considered and
evaluated in light of the Gifford Pinchot ruling.
Unit 6, the Cornell Road Unit, includes approximately 233 ac (94
ha) in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County, California. The
land within this unit is owned and managed by Sage Community Group
(``Sage''), a private landowner. Sage has proposed to build 81 homes on
approximately 40 ac (16 ha) of their 320-acre (129.5 ha) property, and
all of these homes would occur within the proposed critical habitat
unit. Since July 5, 2005, the Service has been in formal consultation
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to address impacts to Pentachaeta
lyonii that may occur on the property as a result of this proposed
development. Sage has proposed to preserve approximately 280 ac (113
ha) of the property in open space, and the majority of the existing P.
lyonii on the property will be protected in perpetuity and managed
within this open space area. The management plan for the property will
address management of the open space areas, fuel modification zones
around the proposed homes, and landscaping activities on the private
lots. In addition, a memorandum to CRA International, the economic
contractor for the Service, dated March 3, 2006, Sage stated the
potential cost to them of designating their lands in Unit 6 as critical
habitat for Pentachaeta lyonii could be as high as $78 million.
Therefore, we are excluding the Cornell Road Unit (Unit 6) under
section 4(b)(2).
Benefits of Inclusion of Lands Within Unit 6: Cornell Road
The area excluded in Unit 6 is currently occupied by Pentachaeta
lyonii. The potential benefits of inclusion of lands within Unit 6 in
the critical habitat designation are discussed above in the ``General
Principles of Section 7 Consultations Used in the 4(b)(2) Balancing
Process'' and ``Educational Benefits of Critical Habitat'' sections.
The designation of Unit 6 as critical habitat could result in
approximately $78 million in costs, the majority of which are directly
related to residential development impacts. Any decrease in residential
housing development that might occur as a result of the designation of
critical habitat for Pentachaeta lyonii in Unit 6 could minimize
impacts to and potentially
[[Page 66398]]
provide incrementally greater protection to the species and to the
physical and biological features essential to the species' conservation
(i.e., the primary constituent elements). A decrease in residential
housing development would directly translate into a potential benefit
to the species that would result from this designation.
In summary, we believe that inclusion of Unit 6 as critical habitat
could provide some additional Federal regulatory benefits for the
species. However, that benefit is limited to some degree by the fact
that the areas within Unit 6 are occupied by the species and,
therefore, consultation with the Service for any Federal action that
may affect the species in Unit 6 is already now required. The
additional educational benefits that might arise from critical habitat
designation are largely accomplished through the multiple opportunities
for public notice-and-comment, which accompanied the development of
this regulation; publicity associated with prior litigation; and public
outreach associated with the development and the implementation of the
Recovery Plan for Pentachaeta lyonii.
Benefits of Exclusion of lands Within Unit 6: Cornell Road
The development of a conservation strategy for the lands within
Unit 6 has been a collaborative effort that has promoted the
development of a positive relationship between the Service and Sage
Community Group. The Service believes that exclusion of Unit 6 will
allow us to continue working with Sage in a spirit of cooperation and
partnership. In addition the designation of Unit 6 as critical habitat
could result in approximately $78 million in costs to the landowner. By
excluding Unit 6, some of these costs may be avoided.
The development of a conservation strategy through the section 7
consultation that is already in process will create a tangible and
quantifiable benefit within the 233 ac (94 ha) unit. The unit will be
placed in a conservation easement with funding for managing the
easement in perpetuity. The management of this easement will include
control of non-native plants and restricted access to human activities
(i.e., no ORVs or horses). The conservation strategy will also provide
a commitment by Sage and Service to review the management periodically
to determine if the strategy is successful and determine if there are
additional protective measures that need to be added.
We also believe that the benefits of excluding these lands from the
designation of critical habitat and thereby avoiding the potential
economic costs of designation, exceed the educational and regulatory
benefits that could result from including those lands in this
designation of critical habitat.
We also believe that excluding these lands, and thus helping the
landowner to avoid the additional costs that would result from the
designation, will contribute to a more positive climate for HCPs and
other active conservation measures that provide greater conservation
benefits than would result from designation of critical habitat--even
in the post-Gifford Pinchot environment--which requires only that there
be no destruction or adverse modification resulting from actions with a
Federal nexus. We, therefore, find that the benefits of excluding Unit
6 from this designation of critical habitat outweigh the benefits of
including it in the designation.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion of Unit 6:
Cornell Road
We believe that the recovery planning process has already provided
information about habitat that contains those features considered
essential to the conservation of Pentachaeta lyonii and has facilitated
conservation efforts through heightened public awareness of the plight
of the listed species to the public, State and local governments,
scientific organizations, and Federal agencies. The Recovery Plan
contains explicit objectives for ongoing public education, outreach,
and collaboration at local, State, and Federal levels, and between the
private and public sectors, in recovering P. lyonii.
In conclusion, we have evaluated the potential benefits that will
result from the section 7 process and conservation strategy for the
lands within Unit 6 and determined that the benefit of exclusion
outweighs the benefit of inclusion. We also evaluated and considered
the potential economic costs relative to the potential benefit for
Pentachaeta lyonii and its primary constituent elements derived from
the designation of critical habitat. We believe that the potential
economic cost of approximately $78 million significantly outweighs the
potential conservation and protective benefits for the species and its
primary constituent elements derived from avoiding residential
development as a result of this designation. Therefore, for these
reasons we have excluded Unit 6 from critical habitat for P. lyonii.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
Because lands excluded from within this unit are considered
occupied habitat, actions that might adversely affect Pentachaeta
lyonii are expected to have a Federal nexus, and thus would trigger a
section 7 consultation with the Service. The jeopardy standard of
section 7 of the Act, and routine implementation of habitat
preservation through the section 7 process, as discussed in the
economic analysis, would be applied. The section 7 consultation with
the Service that is already in process regarding potential impacts of
the proposed development project on P. lyonii will ensure the continued
persistence of the species within Unit 6. As part of this consultation,
the landowner has proposed to preserve the majority of the P. lyonii
that occurs on the property in open space, in perpetuity, and implement
a management plan to ensure the continued persistence of the species.
The total 233 acres (94 ha) of critical habitat excluded from
within Unit 6 is small relative to the 3,396 ac (1,372 ha) which would
remain designated as critical habitat. This unit also represents a
small proportion of the species' range. This small proportion, together
with the protections afforded to Pentachaeta lyonii due to designation
of critical habitat on other lands, and protections afforded to P.
lyonii through the draft management plan and through the section 7
process already initiated in Unit 6, leads us to conclude that
exclusion of this unit will not result in extinction of the species.
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific information available and
to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical
habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions
outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat. We
cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such exclusion
will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat
designation, we conducted economic analyses to estimate the potential
economic effects of the designation. The draft analyses were made
available for public review on July 21, 2006 (71 FR 41410). We accepted
comments on the draft analysis until August 21, 2006.
[[Page 66399]]
The primary purpose of the economic analyses is to estimate the
potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical
habitat for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii. This
information is intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions
about whether the benefits of excluding particular areas from the
designation outweigh the benefits of including those areas in the
designation. This economic analysis considers the economic efficiency
effects that may result from the designation, including habitat
protections that may be co-extensive with the listing of the species.
It also addresses distribution of impacts, including an assessment of
the potential effects on small entities and the energy industry. This
information can be used by the Secretary to assess whether the effects
of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic
sector.
This analysis focuses on the direct and indirect costs of the rule.
However, economic impacts to land use activities can exist in the
absence of critical habitat. These impacts may result from, for
example, local zoning laws, State and natural resource laws, and
enforceable management plans and best management practices applied by
other State and Federal agencies. Economic impacts that result from
these types of protections are not included in the analysis as they are
considered to be part of the regulatory and policy baseline.
We received comments on the draft economic analysis of the proposed
designation. Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed and
considered the public comments and information we received and prepared
responses to those comments (see Responses to Comments section above)
or incorporated the information or changes directly into this final
rule or our final economic analysis.
The July 21, 2006, notice (71 FR 41410) provides a detailed
economics section that identifies a total surplus (sum of producer and
consumer surplus), from housing development forecasted to be built
within the area of Astragalus brauntonii proposed critical habitat, of
approximately $91.87 million over a 20-year period (approximately $8.11
million annually at a 7 percent discount rate, or approximately $5.99
million annually at a 3 percent discount rate). A total surplus (sum of
producer and consumer surplus), from housing development forecasted to
be built within the area of Pentachaeta lyonii proposed critical
habitat of approximately $121.21 million over a 20-year period,
(approximately $10.69 million annually at a 7 percent discount rate, or
$7.91 million annually at a 3 percent discount rate) was also
identified. We evaluated the potential economic impact of this
designation as identified in the draft analysis. Based on this
evaluation, we believe that there are no disproportionate economic
impacts that warrant exclusion pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act
at this time.
A copy of the final economic analyses with supporting documents are
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species (see
ADDRESSES section) or for downloading from the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ventura
.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues.
However, because the final economic analysis indicates the potential
economic surplus from lands contained within these units is $92 million
over a 20-year period for Astragalus brauntonii and $121 million over a
20-year period for Pentachaeta lyonii, and the economic impact of
designating critical habitat would be only a fraction of this amount,
we do not anticipate that this final rule will have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material
way. Due to the tight timeline for publication in the Federal Register,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not formally review this
rule. The availability of the draft economic analysis was announced in
the Federal Register on July 21, 2006 (71 FR 41410), and was made
available for public review and comment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996),
whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (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 the RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a statement of factual basis for
certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA also amended the RFA
to require a certification statement.
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 rule could significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing
development, grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting). 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 conducted,
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have
[[Page 66400]]
any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by critical habitat
designation. In areas where the species is present, Federal agencies
already are required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on
activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect Astragalus
brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii. Federal agencies also must consult
with us if their activities may affect critical habitat. Designation of
critical habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic
impact on small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation for ongoing Federal activities.
To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for
Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii would affect a substantial
number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g.,
residential and commercial development). We considered each industry or
category individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so
will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal
activities are not affected by the designation.
In our economic analyses of the final critical habitat designation,
we evaluate the potential economic effects on small business entities
resulting from conservation actions related to the listing of
Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii and proposed designation
of critical habitat. We determined from our analyses that the small
business entities that may be affected are firms in the new home
construction sector. Small business effects have been calculated on the
total surplus generated from new housing construction within critical
habitat. This assumption is conservative because it is the worst-case
scenario of how critical habitat will affect small businesses. In the
event that conservation is achieved without requiring developers to
completely avoid critical habitat, impacts on small businesses will be
lower.
To estimate the number of firms potentially affected, these
analyses use the following steps. First, they calculate the number of
homes built by small businesses annually. Average revenues for a small
construction firm are $694,000 annually. The mean new home price for
the study area of these analyses is approximately $970,000 for
Astragalus brauntonii and $920,000 for Pentachaeta lyonii. Small
construction firms are assumed to build one new home per year. Second,
they calculate the proportion of new home construction that would be
undertaken by small businesses. Prior analyses of permitting data in
Sacramento County found that 22 percent of building permits for single
family dwellings were issued to builders classified as small
businesses. A total of 156 new homes are projected to be built within
Astragalus brauntonii proposed critical habitat over the next 20 years.
Accordingly, 34 are projected to be built by small businesses. Since
each firm builds one home per year, 34 small firms are potentially
affected within Astragalus brauntonii proposed critical habitat over
the 20-year time frame of this analysis. A total of 222 new homes are
projected to be built within Pentachaeta lyonii proposed critical
habitat over the next 20 years. Accordingly, 49 are projected to be
built by small businesses. Since each firm builds one home per year, 49
small firms are potentially affected within Pentachaeta lyonii proposed
critical habitat over the 20-year time frame of this analysis. These
firms may be affected by activities associated with the conservation of
Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii, inclusive of activities
associated with listing, recovery, and critical habitat. Critical
habitat is not expected to result in significant small business
impacts.
In general, two different mechanisms in section 7 consultations
could lead to additional regulatory requirements for the approximately
four small businesses, on average, that may be required to consult with
us each year regarding their projects impacts on Astragalus brauntonii
and Pentachaeta lyonii and its habitat. First, if we conclude, in a
biological opinion, that a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species or adversely modify its critical
habitat, we can offer ``reasonable and prudent alternatives.''
Reasonable and prudent alternatives are alternative actions that can be
implemented in a manner consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and
technologically feasible, and that would avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of listed species or result in adverse modification
of critical habitat. A Federal agency and an applicant may elect to
implement a reasonable and prudent alternative associated with a
biological opinion that has found jeopardy or adverse modification of
critical habitat. An agency or applicant could alternatively choose to
seek an exemption from the requirements of the Act or proceed without
implementing the reasonable and prudent alternative. However, unless it
obtains an exemption the Federal agency or applicant would be at risk
of violating section 7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed without
implementing the reasonable and prudent alternatives.
Second, if we find that a proposed action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed animal or plant species,
we may identify reasonable and prudent measures designed to minimize
the amount or extent of take and require the Federal agency or
applicant to implement such measures through nondiscretionary terms and
conditions. We may also identify discretionary conservation
recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a
proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, help implement
recovery plans, or to develop information that could contribute to the
recovery of the species.
Based on our experience with consultations under section 7 of the
Act for all listed species, virtually all projects--including those
that, in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or
adverse modification determinations in section 7 consultations--can be
implemented successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and
prudent alternatives. These measures, by definition, must be
economically feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal
agency involved in the consultation. We can only describe the general
kinds of actions that may be identified in future reasonable and
prudent alternatives. These are based on our understanding of the needs
of the species and the threats it faces, as described in the final
listing rule and this critical habitat designation. Within the final
critical habitat units, the types of Federal actions or authorized
activities that we have identified as potential concerns are:
(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States
by the U.S. Army Corps Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act;
(2) Regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and
channelization implemented or licensed by Federal agencies;
(3) Regulation of fire management plans by the NPS;
(4) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation,
and regulation of agricultural activities;
[[Page 66401]]
(5) Hazard mitigation and post-disaster repairs funded by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and
(6) Activities regulated or funded by the EPA, U.S. Department of
Energy, the FAA, or any other Federal agency.
It is likely that a developer or other project proponent could
modify a project or take measures to protect Astragalus brauntonii and
Pentachaeta lyonii. The kinds of actions that may be included if future
reasonable and prudent alternatives become necessary include
conservation set-asides, management of competing nonnative species,
restoration of degraded habitat, and regular monitoring. These are
based on our understanding of the needs of the species and the threats
it faces, as described in the final listing rule and proposed critical
habitat designation. These measures are not likely to result in a
significant economic impact to project proponents.
In summary, we have considered whether this would result in a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
We have determined, for the above reasons and based on currently
available information, that it is not likely to affect a substantial
number of small entities. Federal involvement, and thus section 7
consultations, would be limited to a subset of the area designated. The
most likely Federal involvement could include U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers permits and FHA funding for road improvements. A regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et
seq.)
Under SBREFA, this rule is not a major rule. Our detailed
assessment of the economic effects of this designation is described in
the economic analysis. Based on the effects identified in the economic
analysis, we believe that this rule will not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers, and will not have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises. Refer to the final economic analysis for a
discussion of the effects of this determination.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211
(Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use) on regulations that significantly affect
energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. There are transmission power lines within at least two
units for Astragalus brauntonii; however, this final rule to designate
critical habitat for A. brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii 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.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(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. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It
also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing
Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually
to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,''
if the provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of
assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government's responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local,
or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the
time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement.) ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities who receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
on to State governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on
State or local governments. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is
not required.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the rule
does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment
is not required. In keeping with the Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of, this final critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies in California. The designation
of critical habitat in areas currently occupied by Astragalus
brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii may impose nominal additional
regulatory restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, may
have little incremental impact on State and local governments and their
activities. The designation may have some benefit to these governments
in that the areas that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the primary
constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the conservation of
the species are specifically identified. While making this definition
and identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur, it may assist these local
[[Page 66402]]
governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-
case section 7 consultations to occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act. This final rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies
the primary constituent elements within the designated areas to assist
the public in understanding the habitat needs of Astragalus brauntonii
and Pentachaeta lyonii.
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. 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
It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection
with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was
upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit [Douglas County v. Babbitt,
48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996)].
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that
there are no tribal lands occupied by Astragalus brauntonii or
Pentachaeta lyonii at the time of listing that contain the features
essential for conservation of either species, and there are no tribal
lands that contain unoccupied areas for either species that are
essential for the conservation of these species. Therefore, critical
habitat for A. brauntonii and P. lyonii has not been designated on
Tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary author of this package is the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office.
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 entries for ``Astragalus brauntonii''
and ``Pentachaeta lyonii'' under ``Flowering Plants,'' 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
* * * * * * *
Astragalus brauntonii............ Braunton's milk- U.S.A. (CA)........ Fabaceae........... E 606 17.96(a) NA
vetch.
* * * * * * *
Pentachaeta lyonii............... Lyon's pentachaeta.. U.S.A. (CA)........ Asteraceae......... E 606 17.96(a) NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 17.96(a), add critical habitat for Pentachaeta lyonii, in
alphabetical order under Family Asteraceae, and add critical habitat
for Astragalus brauntonii in alphabetical order under Family Fabaceae,
to read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering Plants.
* * * * *
Family Asteraceae: Pentachaeta lyonii (Lyon's pentachaeta)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Ventura and Los Angeles
Counties, California, on the maps below.
(2) Critical habitat includes the plant communities within the
range of Pentachaeta lyonii that are characterized by the following
primary constituent elements:
(i) Clay soils of volcanic origin;
(ii) Exposed soils that exhibit a microbiotic crust, which may
inhibit invasion by other plant competitors; and
(iii) A mosaic of bare ground (>10%) patches in an area with less
than 60 percent cover.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures existing
on the effective date of this rule and not containing one or more of
the primary
[[Page 66403]]
constituent elements, such as buildings, aqueducts, airports, and
roads, and the land on which such structures are located.
(4) Data layers defining map units were created on base maps using
the following aerial imagery: For eastern Ventura County, we used Air
Photo USA, Inc., aerial imagery captured in October 2002; for
westernmost Los Angeles county populations, we used Air Photo USA,
Inc., aerial imagery captured in August 1999. Both were projected to
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 11, North American Datum (NAD)
1927.
(5) Index map for Pentachaeta lyonii (Map 1) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 66404]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 66405]]
(6) Unit 1 for Pentachaeta lyonii: Simi Valley Unit, Ventura
County, California.
(i) Subunit 1a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Simi. Land
bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 329277,
3794756; 329285, 3794822; 329318, 3794831; 329332, 3794857; 329491,
3794890; 329464, 3795033; 329514, 3795052; 329552, 3795059; 329610,
3795117; 329654, 3795148; 329703, 3795171; 329756, 3795183; 329827,
3795184; 329893, 3795174; 329960, 3795146; 330015, 3795107; 330062,
3795053; 330093, 3794995; 330111, 3794926; 330113, 3794872; 330099,
3794802; 330070, 3794739; 330169, 3794478; 330260, 3794458; 330323,
3794428; 330386, 3794441; 330429, 3794445; 330501, 3794440; 330581,
3794421; 330703, 3794370; 330747, 3794338; 330772, 3794313; 330817,
3794247; 330849, 3794174; 330865, 3794090; 330651, 3793969; 330487,
3793935; 330497, 3793889; 330511, 3793869; 330501, 3793823; 330338,
3793940; 330301, 3793941; 329854, 3793954; 329852, 3794025; 329850,
3794079; 329805, 3794148; 329811, 3794213; 329768, 3794273; 329576,
3794445; 329558, 3794507; 329442, 3794481; 329388, 3794513; 329337,
3794563; 329301, 3794626; 329283, 3794687; returning to 329277,
3794756.
(ii) Subunit 1b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Simi. Land
bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 328955,
3793028; 329079, 3793108; 329065, 3793154; 329075, 3793194; 329151,
3793294; 329199, 3793334; 329213, 3793342; 329235, 3793310; 329338,
3793280; 329368, 3793229; 329386, 3793188; 329255, 3793079; 329165,
3793021; 329111, 3793000; 329057, 3792995; 328958, 3792998; returning
to 328955, 3793028.
(iii) Subunit 1c; From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Thousand
Oaks. Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E,
N): 331295, 3791187; 331295, 3791210; 331330, 3791275; 331362, 3791302;
331444, 3791341; 331497, 3791349; 331712, 3791342; 331763, 3791351;
331806, 3791304; 331842, 3791246; 331852, 3791219; 331641, 3791016;
331597, 3791023; 331461, 3791044; 331335, 3791130; returning to 331295,
3791187.
(iv) Subunit 1d; From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Simi. Land
bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 332406,
3791975; 332519, 3792037; 332583, 3792085; 332606, 3792133; 332606,
3792174; 332583, 3792177; 332569, 3792227; 332623, 3792286; 332635,
3792347; 332558, 3792379; 332554, 3792419; 332553, 3792470; 332570,
3792525; 332599, 3792563; 332653, 3792568; 332706, 3792563; 332748,
3792551; 332789, 3792575; 332853, 3792600; 332905, 3792612; 332941,
3792615; 333048, 3792601; 333098, 3792582; 333144, 3792554; 333183,
3792517; 333234, 3792451; 333261, 3792385; 333270, 3792331; 333265,
3792260; 333242, 3792181; 333216, 3792134; 333172, 3792083; 333091,
3792116; 333051, 3792116; 333025, 3792111; 332985, 3792088; 332921,
3792041; 332846, 3792013; 332827, 3792000; 332805, 3791981; 332800,
3791967; 332616, 3791898; 332577, 3791898; 332524, 3791910; 332452,
3791942; returning to 332406, 3791975.
(v) Note: Unit 1 for Pentachaeta lyonii is depicted on Map 2--see
paragraph (a)(7)(iv) of this section.
(7) Unit 2 for Pentachaeta lyonii: Montclef Ridge Unit, Ventura
County, California.
(i) Subunit 2a; From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Newbury Park.
Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
320757, 3786338; 320759, 3786395; 320768, 3786445; 320784, 3786492;
320806, 3786536; 320864, 3786609; 321086, 3787190; 321083, 3787252;
321091, 3787318; 321068, 3787390; 321061, 3787460; 321065, 3787514;
321081, 3787584; 321104, 3787635; 321132, 3787681; 321169, 3787720;
321217, 3787759; 321248, 3787777; 321299, 3787796; 321382, 3787807;
321935, 3788068; 321973, 3788114; 322015, 3788151; 322063, 3788181;
322115, 3788203; 322167, 3788216; 322218, 3788222; 322272, 3788219;
322321, 3788209; 322913, 3788371; 322947, 3788402; 322993, 3788431;
323043, 3788453; 323095, 3788465; 323160, 3788468; 323214, 3788459;
323280, 3788438; 323338, 3788405; 323380, 3788417; 323436, 3788426;
323518, 3788421; 323565, 3788467; 323629, 3788506; 323672, 3788542;
323725, 3788570; 323756, 3788601; 323800, 3788633; 323870, 3788663;
323940, 3788677; 324012, 3788673; 324069, 3788656; 324118, 3788634;
324162, 3788602; 324209, 3788548; 324245, 3788474; 324286, 3788420;
324308, 3788371; 324388, 3788292; 324434, 3788259; 324667, 3788223;
324708, 3788206; 324672, 3788145; 324747, 3788150; 324770, 3788180;
325020, 3788065; 324898, 3787879; 324839, 3787849; 324733, 3787850;
324577, 3787713; 324716, 3787572; 324832, 3787428; 324845, 3787362;
325048, 3787448; 325169, 3787468; 325297, 3787527; 325410, 3787537;
325521, 3787580; 325597, 3787587; 325717, 3787590; 325849, 3787553;
325894, 3787510; 325885, 3787482; 325790, 3787526; 325534, 3787512;
325442, 3787433; 325513, 3787354; 325683, 3787214; 325703, 3787231;
325819, 3787188; 325815, 3787138; 325887, 3787125; 325937, 3787145;
325982, 3787128; 326178, 3787035; 326145, 3786988; 326097, 3786938;
326053, 3786907; 326018, 3786889; 325956, 3786865; 325861, 3786842;
325732, 3786836; 325687, 3786838; 325572, 3786861; 325514, 3786882;
325468, 3786911; 325396, 3786978; 324815, 3787144; 324735, 3787089;
324647, 3787055; 324638, 3787071; 324526, 3787250; 324442, 3787263;
324152, 3787281; 324122, 3787369; 324111, 3787460; 324120, 3787553;
324149, 3787640; 324197, 3787721; 324259, 3787787; 324337, 3787840;
324424, 3787874; 324377, 3787917; 324346, 3787960; 324318, 3788027;
324304, 3788112; 324284, 3788124; 324264, 3788094; 324227, 3788055;
324156, 3788006; 324112, 3787983; 324020, 3787949; 323930, 3787931;
323803, 3787926; 323719, 3787933; 323678, 3787883; 323605, 3787826;
323533, 3787792; 323472, 3787779; 323428, 3787754; 323351, 3787724;
323298, 3787715; 323244, 3787717; 323166, 3787735; 323108, 3787763;
322524, 3787671; 322414, 3787565; 322318, 3787523; 322221, 3787562;
321715, 3787174; 321691, 3787100; 321654, 3787044; 321486, 3786890;
321401, 3786883; 321382, 3786733; 321407, 3786714; 321440, 3786486;
321455, 3786312; 321426, 3786200; 321452, 3786148; 321520, 3786182;
321595, 3786032; 321665, 3786035; 321698, 3785934; 321660, 3785903;
321679, 3785865; 321725, 3785853; 321880, 3785811; 321872, 3785762;
321860, 3785728; 321835, 3785681; 321813, 3785652; 321769, 3785609;
321717, 3785573; 321665, 3785520; 321608, 3785485; 321523, 3785626;
321467, 3785627; 321419, 3785719; 321373, 3785722; 321377, 3785628;
321385, 3785572; 321432, 3785450; 321370, 3785460; 321304, 3785487;
321274, 3785507; 321227, 3785549; 321185, 3785598; 321142, 3785681;
321125, 3785744; 321117, 3785816; 321127, 3785920; 321117, 3786000;
321070, 3786002; 321021, 3786011; 320974, 3786027; 320914, 3786059;
320862, 3786102; 320829, 3786140; 320793, 3786197; 320774, 3786244;
320762, 3786292; returning to 320757, 3786338.
(ii) Subunit 2b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Newbury Park.
Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
325989, 3788043; 326019, 3788123; 326091, 3788240; 326227, 3788353;
326250, 3788403; 326324, 3788464; 326386, 3788484; 326514, 3788481;
326536, 3788451; 326532, 3788204; 326524,
[[Page 66406]]
3788204; 326477, 3788163; 326370, 3788097; 326277, 3788045; 326016,
3787984; returning to 325989, 3788043.
(iii) Subunit 2c: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Newbury Park
and Thousand Oaks. Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83
coordinates (E, N): 326429, 3789621; 326431, 3789704; 326432, 3789786;
326434, 3789791; 326465, 3789836; 326496, 3789863; 326625, 3789975;
326793, 3789915; 326860, 3789913; 327037, 3789851; 327170, 3789936;
327203, 3789898; 327221, 3789867; 327241, 3789818; 327251, 3789778;
327236, 3789712; 327019, 3789561; 326772, 3789480; 326771, 3789566;
326524, 3789567; 326447, 3789579; returning to 326429, 3789621.
(iv) Note: Unit 2 for Pentachaeta lyonii is depicted on Map 2,
which follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 66407]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.001
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 66408]]
(8) Unit 3 for Pentachaeta lyonii: Thousand Oaks Unit, Ventura and
Los Angeles Counties, California.
(i) Subunit 3a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Thousand Oaks.
Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
327757, 3781188; 327763, 3781472; 327769, 3781489; 327794, 3781536;
327828, 3781578; 327855, 3781602; 327960, 3781663; 328124, 3781731;
328228, 3781763; 328344, 3781771; 328413, 3781781; 328587, 3781782;
328721, 3781760; 328755, 3781748; 328802, 3781723; 328856, 3781676;
328888, 3781632; 328926, 3781543; 328940, 3781472; 328940, 3781436;
328929, 3781344; 328909, 3781262; 328891, 3781214; 328810, 3781152;
328769, 3781055; 328742, 3781034; 328712, 3781014; 328629, 3780971;
328578, 3780955; 328421, 3780930; 328338, 3780900; 328240, 3780880;
328187, 3780882; 328048, 3780909; 327956, 3780939; 327896, 3780978;
327806, 3781078; 327781, 3781125 returning to 327757, 3781188.
(ii) Subunit 3b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Thousand Oaks.
Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
327196, 3780235; 327199, 3780252; 327212, 3780261; 327243, 3780279;
327299, 3780302; 327352, 3780314; 327424, 3780315; 327464, 3780310;
327537, 3780289; 327636, 3780240; 327681, 3780211; 327737, 3780220;
327827, 3780225; 327881, 3780220; 327915, 3780210; 327965, 3780188;
328020, 3780152; 328059, 3780115; 328081, 3780087; 328106, 3780039;
328122, 3779988; 328127, 3779934; 328120, 3779865; 328104, 3779813;
328079, 3779765; 328057, 3779739; 328002, 3779771; 327815, 3779812;
327801, 3779852; 327736, 3779926; 327751, 3779983; 327645, 3779966;
327555, 3779999; 327434, 3780068; 327338, 3780132; 327305, 3780172;
returning to 327196, 3780235.
(iii) Subunit 3c (western portion): From USGS 1:24,000 scale
quadrangle Thousand Oaks. Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11,
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 327396, 3778203; 327408, 3778287; 327447,
3778379; 327461, 3778440; 327532, 3778533; 327578, 3778594; 327605,
3778648; 327610, 3778680; 327641, 3778709; 327649, 3778743; 327691,
3778780; 327753, 3778799; 327794, 3778817; 327872, 3778831; 327910,
3778850; 327928, 3778830; 327932, 3778806; 327926, 3778765; 327916,
3778737; 327892, 3778695; 327857, 3778658; 327846, 3778629; 327817,
3778591; 327826, 3778565; 327891, 3778516; 327883, 3778465; 327877,
3778451; 327865, 3778434; 327819, 3778410; 327788, 3778387; 327771,
3778373; 327755, 3778351; 327816, 3778259; 327877, 3778169; 327908,
3778135; 327964, 3778215; 327986, 3778235; 328041, 3778408; 328011,
3778500; 327980, 3778599; 327990, 3778640; 328023, 3778696; 328033,
3778731; 328022, 3778796; 328025, 3778837; 328007, 3778882; 327993,
3778920; 327980, 3779003; 328028, 3778975; 328102, 3778910; 328133,
3778866; 328160, 3778800; 328170, 3778729; 328160, 3778658; 328130,
3778583; 328112, 3778552; 328081, 3778514; 328065, 3778492; 328059,
3778465; 328072, 3778393; 328160, 3778487; 328171, 3778505; 328218,
3778530; 328305, 3778555; 328359, 3778557; 328418, 3778550; 328470,
3778535; 328513, 3778512; 328571, 3778584; 328613, 3778618; 328644,
3778636; 328677, 3778650; 328730, 3778662; 328847, 3778668; 328900,
3778659; 329018, 3778625; 329065, 3778600; 329105, 3778568; 329118,
3778549; 329022, 3778458; 329113, 3778394; 329152, 3778431; 329247,
3778487; 329263, 3778533; 329287, 3778569; 329306, 3778708; 329296,
3778761; 329301, 3778793; 329311, 3778820; 329383, 3778893; 329400,
3778943; 329408, 3779001; 329427, 3779030; 329444, 3779045; 329490,
3779073; 329526, 3779088; 329531, 3779148; 329546, 3779199; 329575,
3779253; 329605, 3779295; 329644, 3779331; 329739, 3779397; 329838,
3779285; 329839, 3779285; 329870, 3779235; 329901, 3779225; 329917,
3779225; 330001, 3779225; 330001, 3779244; 330186, 3779218; 330199,
3779172; 330196, 3779100; 330324, 3779030; 330304, 3778967; 330291,
3778864; 330186, 3778781; 330029, 3778696; 329967, 3778657; 329918,
3778611; 329796, 3778488; 329768, 3778464; 329722, 3778435; 329592,
3778380; 329510, 3778323; 329433, 3778215; 329217, 3778063; 329172,
3778065; 329073, 3777994; 329078, 3777947; 329065, 3777920; 329063,
3777872; 329085, 3777817; 329142, 3777731; 329190, 3777706; 329148,
3777617; 329126, 3777608; 329085, 3777627; 329047, 3777666; 329017,
3777707; 329007, 3777729; 328967, 3777758; 328963, 3777772; 328967,
3777811; 328945, 3777844; 328891, 3777860; 328853, 3777860; 328802,
3777844; 328740, 3777780; 328688, 3777740; 328513, 3777659; 328476,
3777715; 328447, 3777801; 328443, 3777873; 328457, 3777950; 328420,
3777928; 328370, 3777909; 328317, 3777900; 328277, 3777900; 328227,
3777861; 328189, 3777838; 328139, 3777819; 328094, 3777811; 328050,
3777753; 328013, 3777723; 327933, 3777739; 327916, 3777711; 327884,
3777723; 327844, 3777749; 327834, 3777887; 327789, 3777917; 327781,
3777953; 327780, 3777984; 327611, 3778114; 327401, 3778151; returning
to 327396, 3778203.
(iv) Subunit 3c (eastern portion): From USGS 1:24,000 scale
quadrangles Thousand Oaks and Point Dume. Land bounded by the following
UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 327881, 3775578; 327888,
3775677; 327911, 3775745; 327942, 3775796; 327976, 3775838; 328032,
3775884; 328099, 3775921; 328151, 3775937; 328235, 3775945; 328289,
3775939; 328350, 3775920; 328407, 3775947; 328456, 3775959; 328753,
3776379; 328780, 3776511; 328313, 3776697; 328244, 3776736; 328193,
3776788; 328169, 3776823; 328153, 3776859; 328141, 3776901; 328135,
3776940; 328142, 3777020; 328154, 3777061; 328172, 3777096; 328217,
3777156; 328278, 3777202; 328330, 3777225; 328397, 3777237; 328464,
3777234; 328522, 3777217; 328576, 3777187; 328628, 3777139; 329046,
3776893; 329096, 3777123; 329161, 3777223; 329179, 3777242; 329206,
3777246; 329244, 3777250; 329262, 3777272; 329235, 3777307; 329228,
3777342; 329223, 3777395; 329199, 3777423; 329195, 3777440; 329212,
3777453; 329238, 3777447; 329263, 3777440; 329287, 3777438; 329315,
3777432; 329339, 3777447; 329366, 3777477; 329380, 3777522; 329380,
3777550; 329434, 3777608; 329445, 3777701; 329445, 3777773; 329607,
3777846; 329988, 3777882; 330019, 3777911; 330048, 3777935; 330049,
3777994; 330035, 3778082; 330037, 3778129; 330054, 3778161; 330071,
3778180; 330092, 3778181; 330120, 3778146; 330166, 3778048; 330194,
3777983; 330321, 3777987; 330370, 3778025; 330388, 3778069; 330417,
3778116; 330461, 3778107; 330508, 3778102; 330547, 3778075; 330551,
3778059; 330536, 3777988; 330543, 3777968; 330554, 3777961; 330574,
3777959; 330619, 3777961; 330594, 3777814; 330563, 3777726; 330535,
3777680; 330511, 3777653; 330484, 3777629; 330438, 3777601; 330377,
3777578; 330324, 3777569; 330270, 3777571; 330201, 3777589; 329628,
3777445; 329620, 3777399; 329608, 3777365; 329592, 3777333; 329565,
3777294; 329524, 3777246; 329467, 3777199; 329437, 3777179; 329388,
3777157; 329398, 3776787; 329433, 3776728; 329452, 3776662; 329454,
3776584; 329435, 3776511; 329456, 3776439; 329462, 3776377; 329460,
3776334; 329451, 3776284; 329435, 3776237; 329403, 3776177; 329373,
3776138; 329337,
[[Page 66409]]
3776103; 329263, 3776055; 329193, 3776077; 329011, 3776090; 328911,
3776079; 328757, 3776035; 328685, 3775801; 328675, 3775764; 328677,
3775688; 328681, 3775635; 328688, 3775608; 328661, 3775594; 328617,
3775599; 328202, 3775501; 328159, 3775259; 328129, 3775265; 328050,
3775303; 327982, 3775354; 327939, 3775411; 327895, 3775508; returning
to 327881, 3775578.
(v) Note: Unit 3 for Pentachaeta lyonii is depicted on Map 3--see
paragraph (a)(12)(ii) of this section.
(9) Unit 4 for Pentachaeta lyonii: Triunfo Canyon Unit, Los Angeles
County, California.
(i) Unit 4: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Thousand Oaks and
Point Dume. Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83
coordinates (E, N): 331377, 3777912; 331406, 3777957; 331557, 3778148;
331611, 3778195; 331665, 3778224; 331749, 3778248; 331803, 3778250;
331847, 3778243; 331869, 3778239; 331996, 3778182; 332097, 3778144;
332192, 3778116; 332404, 3778078; 332519, 3778051; 332592, 3778045;
332671, 3778027; 332717, 3778041; 332732, 3778075; 332724, 3778098;
332686, 3778135; 332671, 3778195; 332794, 3778230; 332809, 3778107;
332859, 3778111; 332861, 3778240; 332899, 3778243; 332935, 3778196;
333040, 3778224; 333177, 3778261; 333181, 3778243; 333186, 3778172;
333173, 3778096; 333135, 3778008; 333100, 3777961; 333095, 3777904;
333072, 3777836; 333044, 3777790; 333007, 3777751; 332963, 3777720;
332931, 3777704; 332845, 3777680; 332774, 3777680; 332704, 3777699;
332629, 3777743; 332583, 3777732; 332513, 3777729; 332460, 3777738;
332408, 3777758; 332311, 3777716; 332257, 3777704; 332211, 3777644;
332136, 3777584; 332062, 3777545; 332010, 3777529; 331956, 3777524;
331921, 3777526; 331885, 3777533; 331836, 3777552; 331796, 3777526;
331646, 3777565; 331598, 3777666; 331538, 3777747; 331494, 3777785;
331398, 3777791; 331398, 3777855; returning to 331377, 3777912.
(ii) Note: Unit 4 for Pentachaeta lyonii is depicted on Map 3--see
paragraph (a)(12)(ii) of this section.
(10) Unit 5 for Pentachaeta lyonii: Mulholland Drive Unit, Los
Angeles County, California.
(i) Subunit 5a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Point Dume.
Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
329661, 3774511; 329686, 3774511; 329694, 3774579; 329707, 3774627;
329733, 3774681; 329759, 3774721; 329840, 3774646; 329898, 3774637;
329982, 3774727; 330035, 3774723; 330098, 3774711; 330117, 3774666;
330130, 3774615; 330149, 3774542; 330263, 3774514; 330333, 3774476;
330389, 3774437; 330369, 3774370; 330346, 3774325; 330306, 3774270;
330270, 3774236; 330215, 3774197; 330165, 3774174; 330104, 3774158;
330044, 3774152; 330001, 3774154; 329952, 3774163; 329904, 3774179;
329844, 3774211; 329792, 3774254; 329759, 3774292; 329723, 3774349;
329704, 3774395; 329689, 3774462; returning to 329686, 3774511.
(ii) Subunit 5b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Point Dume.
Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
332156, 3774563; 332160, 3774661; 332179, 3774731; 332214, 3774793;
332339, 3774915; 332457, 3774998; 332632, 3775179; 332675, 3775210;
332724, 3775233; 332741, 3775237; 332789, 3775072; 332829, 3775010;
332930, 3774876; 332955, 3774819; 332955, 3774772; 332911, 3774777;
332907, 3774668; 332913, 3774512; 332757, 3774458; 332433, 3774465;
332364, 3774314; 332308, 3774334; 332249, 3774374; 332201, 3774428;
332170, 3774492; returning to 332156, 3774563.
(iii) Subunit 5c: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Point Dume.
Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
334109, 3775136; 334111, 3775191; 334129, 3775261; 334166, 3775325;
334191, 3775353; 334227, 3775384; 334293, 3775418; 334255, 3775484;
334239, 3775536; 334234, 3775572; 334235, 3775615; 334243, 3775663;
334260, 3775708; 334280, 3775745; 334329, 3775800; 334389, 3775840;
334458, 3775864; 334535, 3775868; 334529, 3775752; 334504, 3775732;
334507, 3775641; 334513, 3775577; 334512, 3775562; 334452, 3775507;
334383, 3775373; 334360, 3775305; 334385, 3775186; 334429, 3775162;
334491, 3775098; 334533, 3775067; 334559, 3774932; 334512, 3774904;
334460, 3774884; 334406, 3774875; 334334, 3774880; 334281, 3774896;
334227, 3774925; 334178, 3774970; 334146, 3775014; 334118, 3775082;
returning to 334109, 3775136.
(iv) Subunit 5d: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Point Dume.
Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
333938, 3776910; 333946, 3776963; 333984, 3776973; 334040, 3776976;
334158, 3777014; 334515, 3777025; 334545, 3776941; 334561, 3776863;
334655, 3776845; 334747, 3776778; 334693, 3776730; 334628, 3776698;
334447, 3776638; 334394, 3776629; 334196, 3776640; 334145, 3776656;
334082, 3776692; 334031, 3776743; 333997, 3776802; 333973, 3776871;
returning to 333938, 3776910.
(v) Note: Unit 5 for Pentachaeta lyonii is depicted on Map 3--see
paragraph (a)(12)(ii) of this section.
(11) Unit 7 for Pentachaeta lyonii: Malibu Lake Unit, Los Angeles
County, California.
(i) Unit 7: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Point Dume and
Malibu Beach. Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83
coordinates (E, N): 338380, 3775057; 338535, 3775051; 338571, 3775034;
338597, 3775025; 338662, 3775115; 338692, 3775172; 338711, 3775200;
338713, 3775218; 338701, 3775240; 338626, 3775315; 338619, 3775330;
338616, 3775391; 338606, 3775424; 338663, 3775446; 338720, 3775457;
338774, 3775459; 338827, 3775450; 338841, 3775446; 338893, 3775451;
338929, 3775449; 339016, 3775428; 339080, 3775397; 339134, 3775349;
339155, 3775323; 339164, 3775290; 339178, 3775202; 339185, 3775064;
339166, 3775015; 339138, 3774969; 339092, 3774917; 339036, 3774874;
338990, 3774847; 338942, 3774829; 338892, 3774791; 338831, 3774764;
338760, 3774750; 338689, 3774755; 338590, 3774784; 338541, 3774804;
338510, 3774822; 338469, 3774856; 338434, 3774898; 338401, 3774959;
338386, 3775011; returning to 338380, 3775057.
(ii) Note: Unit 7 for Pentachaeta lyonii is depicted on Map 3,
which follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 66410]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.002
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 66411]]
* * * * *
Family Fabaceae: Astragalus brauntonii (Braunton's milk-vetch).
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Ventura, Los Angeles,
and Orange Counties, California, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Astragalus brauntonii are the habitat components that provide:
(i) Calcium carbonate soils derived from marine sediment;
(ii) Low proportion (less than 10 percent) of shrub cover directly
around the plant; and
(iii) Chaparral and coastal sage scrub communities characterized by
periodic disturbances that stimulate seed germination (e.g., fire,
flooding, erosion) and reduce vegetative cover,
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures existing
on the effective date of this rule and not containing one or more of
the primary constituent elements, such as buildings, aqueducts,
airports, and roads, and the land on which such structures are located.
(4) Critical habitat units are described below. Data layers
defining map units were created on base maps using the following aerial
imagery: For eastern Ventura County, we used AirPhotoUSA, Inc., aerial
imagery captured in October 2002; for western-most Los Angeles county
populations, we used AirPhotoUSA, Inc., aerial imagery captured in
August 1999; for populations near the City of Monrovia, in Los Angeles
County, and for the population in Orange County, we used USGS Digital
Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangles captured in the mid-1990's. All were
projected to UTM zone 11, NAD27.
(5) Note: Index map for Astragalus brauntonii (Map 1) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 66412]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.003
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 66413]]
(6) Unit 1 for Astragalus brauntonii, Northern Simi Hills Unit,
Ventura County, California.
(i) Subunit 1a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Thousand Oaks.
Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
336376, 3789405; 336383, 3789477; 336415, 3789572; 336456, 3789634;
336519, 3789691; 336595, 3789729; 336688, 3789746; 336768, 3789741;
336813, 3789801; 336869, 3789850; 336949, 3789890; 337019, 3789906;
337075, 3789908; 337121, 3789902; 337174, 3789890; 337209, 3789876;
337252, 3789851; 337295, 3789816; 337320, 3789788; 337348, 3789743;
337375, 3789676; 337387, 3789605; 337385, 3789549; 337369, 3789478;
337339, 3789411; 337294, 3789352; 337220, 3789297; 337154, 3789268;
337167, 3789198; 337160, 3789100; 337136, 3789029; 337106, 3788977;
337083, 3788948; 337037, 3788905; 336990, 3788875; 336937, 3788856;
336874, 3788845; 336795, 3788849; 336741, 3788861; 336674, 3788890;
336628, 3788922; 336581, 3788973; 336551, 3789021; 336532, 3789073;
336521, 3789138; 336484, 3789165; 336437, 3789215; 336408, 3789263;
336388, 3789315; returning to 336376, 3789405.
(ii) Subunit 1b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Thousand Oaks
and Calabasas. Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83
coordinates (E, N): 338171, 3790635; 338173, 3790693; 338187, 3790754;
338211, 3790807; 338247, 3790857; 338290, 3790898; 338343, 3790930;
338398, 3790951; 338459, 3790961; 338518, 3790959; 338575, 3790945;
338631, 3790920; 338679, 3790886; 338721, 3790841; 338752, 3790791;
338774, 3790733; 338783, 3790675; 338782, 3790616; 338768, 3790556;
338743, 3790502; 338708, 3790452; 338665, 3790412; 338612, 3790379;
338557, 3790358; 338496, 3790349; 338437, 3790351; 338380, 3790364;
338324, 3790389; 338276, 3790424; 338233, 3790469; 338202, 3790519;
338181, 3790576; returning to 338171, 3790635.
(iii) Subunit 1c: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Thousand
Oaks and Calabasas. Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83
coordinates (E, N): 338516, 3788952; 338527, 3789021; 338550, 3789087;
338594, 3789158; 338643, 3789208; 338700, 3789248; 338764, 3789277;
338832, 3789293; 338931, 3789297; 339000, 3789287; 339065, 3789263;
339137, 3789219; 339187, 3789171; 339227, 3789114; 339256, 3789050;
339272, 3788982; 339274, 3788912; 339263, 3788843; 339240, 3788777;
339196, 3788706; 339147, 3788656; 339090, 3788616; 339026, 3788587;
338959, 3788571; 338883, 3788566; 338808, 3788573; 338742, 3788594;
338680, 3788626; 338619, 3788676; 338591, 3788708; 338563, 3788751;
338534, 3788814; 338519, 3788882; returning to 338516, 3788952.
(iv) Subunit 1d: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Calabasas.
Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
341703, 3788492; 341705, 3788551; 341719, 3788610; 341743, 3788663;
341777, 3788710; 341819, 3788750; 341869, 3788781; 341925, 3788802;
341983, 3788812; 342041, 3788810; 342098, 3788797; 342151, 3788773;
342201, 3788737; 342240, 3788695; 342271, 3788645; 342292, 3788591;
342302, 3788531; 342300, 3788473; 342286, 3788416; 342262, 3788363;
342226, 3788312; 342184, 3788274; 342135, 3788243; 342080, 3788223;
342013, 3788212; 341962, 3788215; 341905, 3788228; 341852, 3788252;
341805, 3788286; 341765, 3788329; 341733, 3788380; 341712, 3788435;
returning to 341703, 3788492.
(v) Note: Unit 1 for Astragalus brauntonii is depicted on Map 2--
see paragraph (a)(7)(vii) of this section.
(7) Unit 2 for Astragalus brauntonii, Southern Simi Hills Unit,
Ventura County and Los Angeles County, California.
(i) Subunit 2a: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Thousand Oaks.
Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
331967, 3786775; 332010, 3786796; 332036, 3786818; 332059, 3786815;
332143, 3786838; 332153, 3786872; 332032, 3786908; 332054, 3786949;
332107, 3787022; 332203, 3787105; 332274, 3787160; 332410, 3787127;
332550, 3787113; 332640, 3787122; 332652, 3787061; 333232, 3786946;
333316, 3786954; 333372, 3786949; 333423, 3786936; 333470, 3786916;
333531, 3786876; 333609, 3786872; 333661, 3786859; 333701, 3786843;
333773, 3786857; 333842, 3786856; 333914, 3786837; 333976, 3786804;
334019, 3786769; 334050, 3786734; 334079, 3786687; 334093, 3786652;
334106, 3786602; 334110, 3786554; 334104, 3786498; 334093, 3786456;
334138, 3786438; 334206, 3786397; 334285, 3786328; 334431, 3786159;
334452, 3786128; 334484, 3786061; 334504, 3785989; 334509, 3785940;
334508, 3785877; 334487, 3785777; 334454, 3785711; 334418, 3785666;
334377, 3785628; 334330, 3785598; 334277, 3785578; 334203, 3785566;
334148, 3785564; 334092, 3785573; 334017, 3785596; 333953, 3785634;
333914, 3785669; 333797, 3785891; 333752, 3785877; 333747, 3785883;
333691, 3786002; 333674, 3786074; 333668, 3786139; 333626, 3786150;
333575, 3786173; 333495, 3786232; 333453, 3786253; 333371, 3786305;
333326, 3786302; 333270, 3786305; 333210, 3786317; 333158, 3786337;
333126, 3786356; 333082, 3786391; 333024, 3786464; 332440, 3786601;
332403, 3786580; 332351, 3786561; 332296, 3786552; 332259, 3786552;
332186, 3786566; 332089, 3786613; 332046, 3786649; 332022, 3786677;
331988, 3786728; returning to 331967, 3786775.
(ii) Subunit 2b: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Thousand Oaks.
Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
335530, 3784984; 335546, 3785093; 335565, 3785110; 335590, 3785102;
335569, 3784979; 335559, 3784977; 335546, 3784977; returning to 335530,
3784984.
(iii) Subunit 2c: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Thousand
Oaks. Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E,
N): 336280, 3784509; 336387, 3784488; 336664, 3784616; 336909, 3784789;
336942, 3784722; 336957, 3784641; 336984, 3784596; 336999, 3784562;
337017, 3784484; 337019, 3784432; 337084, 3784382; 337100, 3784363;
337093, 3784348; 337094, 3784270; 337026, 3784217; 337038, 3784151;
337045, 3784086; 337153, 3784041; 337115, 3784014; 337064, 3783816;
337012, 3783819; 336983, 3783806; 336973, 3783806; 336958, 3783843;
336954, 3783873; 336871, 3784003; 336869, 3784037; 336879, 3784082;
336883, 3784153; 336859, 3784238; 336838, 3784256; 336820, 3784262;
336755, 3784266; 336676, 3784283; 336658, 3784311; 336640, 3784317;
336613, 3784299; 336603, 3784281; 336603, 3784268; 336629, 3784222;
336640, 3784120; 336755, 3784049; 336844, 3783987; 336848, 3783952;
336883, 3783901; 336903, 3783853; 336873, 3783853; 336849, 3783833;
336856, 3783796; 336847, 3783768; 336850, 3783748; 336832, 3783715;
336793, 3783703; 336741, 3783721; 336686, 3783722; 336628, 3783708;
336647, 3783616; 336513, 3783551; 336338, 3783761; 336349, 3783854;
336373, 3783924; 336406, 3783980; 336412, 3784049; 336431, 3784110;
336393, 3784146; 336371, 3784176; 336344, 3784225; 336332, 3784261;
336320, 3784331; 336294, 3784396; 336281, 3784468; returning to 336280,
3784509.
(iv) Subunit 2d: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Calabasas.
Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
338707, 3784551; 338713, 3784618; 338729, 3784672; 338760, 3784729;
338796, 3784772; 338850, 3784817; 338900, 3784844; 338968, 3784864;
339024,
[[Page 66414]]
3784870; 339079, 3784864; 339147, 3784845; 339196, 3784818; 339259,
3784771; 339311, 3784751; 339359, 3784721; 339422, 3784659; 339459,
3784595; 339482, 3784509; 339485, 3784401; 339473, 3784323; 339444,
3784254; 339403, 3784198; 339347, 3784149; 339281, 3784116; 339193,
3784098; 339137, 3784099; 339071, 3784115; 339020, 3784138; 338981,
3784163; 338941, 3784201; 338911, 3784242; 338843, 3784285; 338802,
3784323; 338755, 3784387; 338729, 3784442; 338712, 3784496; returning
to 338707, 3784551.
(v) Subunit 2e: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Calabasas. Land
bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 340541,
3785437; 340548, 3785524; 340571, 3785601; 340615, 3785684; 340666,
3785746; 340738, 3785805; 340810, 3785843; 340887, 3785867; 340964,
3785875; 341051, 3785869; 341133, 3785846; 341214, 3785804; 341274,
3785757; 341337, 3785683; 341376, 3785611; 341403, 3785522; 341410,
3785442; 341403, 3785361; 341376, 3785272; 341338, 3785201; 341288,
3785138; 341216, 3785078; 341145, 3785040; 341069, 3785016; 340985,
3785006; 340894, 3785013; 340820, 3785035; 340734, 3785079; 340671,
3785130; 340612, 3785202; 340574, 3785273; 340550, 3785351; returning
to 340541, 3785437.
(vi) Subunit 2f: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Calabasas.
Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
346217, 3787493; 346231, 3787542; 346250, 3787586; 346281, 3787636;
346314, 3787675; 346353, 3787709; 346396, 3787737; 346477, 3787770;
346546, 3787782; 346630, 3787779; 347234, 3787813; 347300, 3787832;
347365, 3787835; 347416, 3787843; 347492, 3787839; 347529, 3787829;
347580, 3787805; 347626, 3787772; 347653, 3787745; 347687, 3787699;
347710, 3787647; 347720, 3787610; 347725, 3787554; 347720, 3787497;
347710, 3787460; 347687, 3787409; 347665, 3787377; 347622, 3787330;
347584, 3787298; 347541, 3787273; 347493, 3787256; 347443, 3787247;
347394, 3787247; 346752, 3787100; 346688, 3787072; 346639, 3787060;
346569, 3787054; 346500, 3787061; 346445, 3787077; 346445, 3787293;
346426, 3787376; 346382, 3787428 returning to 346217, 3787493.
(vii) Note: Unit 2 for Astragalus brauntonii is depicted on Map 2,
which follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 66415]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.004
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 66416]]
(8) Unit 3 for Astragalus brauntonii, Santa Monica Mountains Unit,
Los Angeles County, California.
(i) Unit 3: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Point Dume. Land
bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 331185,
3768655; 331185, 3768730; 331205, 3768803; 331237, 3768861; 331285,
3768913; 331301, 3768954; 331331, 3769002; 331370, 3769043; 331416,
3769076; 331468, 3769100; 331523, 3769112; 331599, 3769112; 331636,
3769105; 331683, 3769088; 331738, 3769055; 331794, 3768997; 331912,
3768949; 332085, 3768851; 332146, 3768802; 332187, 3768757; 332226,
3768705; 332257, 3768644; 332280, 3768561; 332280, 3768490; 332263,
3768398; 332240, 3768347; 332189, 3768277; 332133, 3768228; 332072,
3768195; 332020, 3768176; 331959, 3768166; 331946, 3768100; 331922,
3768046; 331888, 3768000; 331838, 3767954; 331799, 3767931; 331759,
3767915; 331719, 3767905; 331677, 3767901; 331633, 3767903; 331591,
3767912; 331542, 3767931; 331504, 3767954; 331452, 3768000; 331411,
3768061; 331353, 3768103; 331309, 3768156; 331274, 3768232; 331263,
3768305; 331265, 3768351; 331272, 3768389; 331301, 3768458; 331255,
3768501; 331221, 3768547; 331198, 3768599; returning to 331185,
3768655.
(ii) Note: Unit 3 (Map 3 for Astragalus brauntonii) follows:
[[Page 66417]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.005
[[Page 66418]]
(9) Unit 4 for Astragalus brauntonii: Pacific Palisades Unit, Los
Angeles County, California.
(i) Unit 4: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Topanga. Land
bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 355707,
3772295; 355707, 3772369; 355733, 3772467; 355774, 3772545; 355824,
3772609; 355871, 3772707; 355937, 3772804; 356000, 3772868; 356030,
3772891; 356142, 3772948; 356215, 3772962; 356318, 3772958; 356373,
3772949; 356454, 3772921; 356508, 3772891; 356613, 3772818; 356651,
3772777; 356687, 3772716; 356782, 3772664; 356801, 3772649; 356910,
3772595; 357152, 3772547; 357212, 3772558; 357361, 3772565; 357479,
3772557; 357532, 3772541; 357596, 3772508; 357639, 3772473; 357679,
3772428; 357708, 3772381; 357732, 3772311; 357764, 3772063; 357762,
3772007; 357751, 3771955; 357779, 3771909; 357800, 3771861; 357828,
3771720; 357831, 3771654; 357816, 3771572; 358249, 3771162; 358310,
3771152; 358358, 3771135; 358420, 3771102; 358460, 3771071; 358519,
3771005; 358559, 3770927; 358573, 3770879; 358581, 3770827; 358582,
3770775; 358571, 3770706; 358554, 3770658; 358521, 3770596; 358477,
3770542; 358439, 3770508; 358379, 3770472; 358332, 3770452; 358282,
3770440; 358235, 3770434; 358176, 3770436; 358125, 3770446; 358077,
3770462; 358015, 3770495; 357975, 3770526; 357939, 3770563; 357891,
3770637; 357862, 3770718; 357854, 3770771; 357853, 3770817; 357544,
3771137; 357417, 3771216; 357337, 3771239; 357284, 3771268; 357300,
3771301; 357591, 3771565; 357405, 3772067; 357349, 3772049; 357156,
3772046; 357117, 3772046; 357055, 3772037; 356986, 3772275; 356772,
3772203; 356631, 3772270; 356516, 3772291; 356445, 3772271; 356455,
3772138; 356450, 3772044; 356441, 3771989; 356407, 3771903; 356383,
3771858; 356345, 3771904; 356275, 3771953; 356181, 3772007; 356092,
3772042; 356068, 3772088; 356078, 3772228; 356061, 3772271; 355979,
3772303; 355961, 3772306; 355929, 3772303; 355911, 3772295; 355883,
3772262; 355849, 3772233; 355792, 3772204; 355735, 3772187; 355723,
3772218; returning to 355707, 3772295.
(ii) Note: Unit 4 (Map 4 for Astragalus brauntonii) follows:
[[Page 66419]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.006
[[Page 66420]]
(10) Unit 5 for Astragalus brauntonii: Monrovia Unit, Los Angeles
County, California.
(i) Unit 5: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Azusa and Mount
Wilson. Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 405974, 3781576; 405979, 3781650; 405995, 3781703; 406022,
3781753; 406076, 3781819; 406120, 3781855; 406169, 3781881; 406204,
3781893; 406262, 3781902; 406287, 3781909; 406341, 3781880; 406556,
3781863; 406865, 3781863; 407128, 3781894; 407227, 3781943; 407278,
3781950; 407327, 3781948; 407390, 3781979; 407480, 3782002; 407536,
3782004; 407591, 3781995; 407643, 3781975; 407716, 3781930; 407757,
3781892; 407790, 3781845; 407847, 3781789; 407877, 3781742; 407900,
3781675; 407910, 3781613; 407905, 3781538; 407889, 3781485; 407858,
3781425; 407788, 3781337; 407734, 3781284; 407670, 3781247; 407605,
3781228; 407533, 3781222; 407466, 3781231; 407393, 3781212; 407319,
3781212; 407234, 3781235; 407173, 3781271; 407131, 3781265; 407075,
3781267; 406986, 3781289; 406937, 3781316; 406891, 3781351; 406858,
3781385; 406830, 3781398; 406785, 3781386; 406355, 3781261; 406281,
3781256; 406208, 3781270; 406109, 3781318; 406066, 3781353; 406041,
3781381; 406004, 3781446; 405989, 3781494; returning to 405974,
3781576.
(ii) Note: Unit 5 (Map 5 for Astragalus brauntonii) follows:
[[Page 66421]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.007
[[Page 66422]]
(11) Unit 6 for Astragalus brauntonii, Coal Canyon Unit, Orange
County, California.
(i) Unit 6: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Black Star Canyon.
Land bounded by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
435146, 3745336; 435148, 3745392; 435158, 3745441; 435178, 3745493;
435205, 3745541; 435241, 3745585; 435284, 3745620; 435343, 3745652;
435397, 3745668; 435464, 3745673; 435516, 3745669; 435536, 3745742;
435562, 3745791; 435608, 3745847; 435636, 3745872; 435675, 3745897;
435680, 3746003; 435692, 3746057; 435725, 3746124; 435780, 3746189;
435831, 3746385; 435841, 3746513; 435753, 3746808; 435709, 3746866;
435676, 3746949; 435666, 3747018; 435672, 3747092; 435696, 3747163;
435725, 3747210; 435782, 3747268; 435828, 3747301; 435879, 3747324;
435964, 3747349; 436020, 3747355; 436095, 3747350; 436066, 3747408;
436054, 3747444; 436047, 3747480; 436044, 3747530; 436050, 3747639;
436070, 3747711; 436107, 3747776; 436164, 3747831; 436126, 3747871;
436096, 3747919; 436076, 3747973; 436067, 3748023; 436069, 3748086;
436081, 3748141; 436105, 3748193; 436131, 3748231; 436428, 3748073;
436642, 3748002; 436631, 3747955; 436616, 3747919; 436593, 3747881;
436564, 3747846; 436645, 3747774; 436678, 3747729; 436703, 3747670;
436763, 3747625; 436798, 3747585; 436819, 3747554; 436842, 3747504;
436852, 3747464; 436859, 3747415; 436857, 3747352; 436880, 3747282;
436885, 3747245; 436884, 3747198; 436935, 3747153; 436986, 3747079;
437002, 3747040; 437019, 3746976; 437030, 3746895; 437023, 3746802;
437002, 3746738; 436963, 3746670; 436928, 3746629; 436902, 3746606;
436910, 3746001; 436959, 3745945; 437001, 3745869; 437017, 3745816;
437028, 3745730; 437028, 3745655; 437019, 3745600; 437001, 3745551;
436962, 3745475; 436939, 3745446; 436884, 3745392; 436831, 3745352;
436727, 3745306; 436691, 3745296; 436636, 3745291; 436562, 3745301;
436490, 3745331; 436443, 3745324; 436384, 3745323; 436311, 3745338;
436260, 3745361; 436220, 3745387; 436191, 3745409; 436154, 3745449;
436118, 3745474; 436097, 3745436; 436055, 3745385; 436012, 3745350;
435956, 3745321; 435966, 3745236; 435959, 3745173; 435940, 3745105;
435903, 3745041; 435864, 3745000; 435827, 3744971; 435778, 3744945;
435724, 3744929; 435626, 3744922; 435544, 3744938; 435468, 3744975;
435425, 3745011; 435396, 3745044; 435336, 3745064; 435286, 3745090;
435247, 3745121; 435209, 3745162; 435180, 3745209; 435165, 3745244;
returning to 435146, 3745336.
(ii) Note: Unit 6 (Map 6 for Astragalus brauntonii) follows:
[[Page 66423]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.008
* * * * *
Dated: October 31, 2006.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 06-9089 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C