2011 Federal Register, 76 FR 6848; Centralized Library; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2011)

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6848-6925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2403]

[[Page 6847]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 26

February 8, 2011

Part II

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Revised Critical
Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-Leaved Brodiaea); Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 6848]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0073; MO 92210-0-0009]
RIN 1018-AW54

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Revised
Critical Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-Leaved Brodiaea)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are designating
revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia (thread-leaved
brodiaea) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
Approximately 2,947 acres (ac) (1,193 hectares (ha)) in 10 units are
being designated as revised critical habitat for B. filifolia in Los
Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties,
California.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on March 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The final rule, final economic analysis, and map of revised
critical habitat will be available on the Internet at http://www.regulations. gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0073. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this final rule will be available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office,
6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760-
431-9440; facsimile 760-431-5901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD),
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

We intend to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the
designation of revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia under
the Endangered Species Act (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
in this final rule. For information on the taxonomy, biology, and
ecology of B. filifolia, refer to the final listing rule published in
the Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54975), the designation
of critical habitat for B. filifolia published in the Federal Register
on December 13, 2005 (70 FR 73820), the proposed revised designation of
critical habitat published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2009
(74 FR 64930), and the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft
economic analysis (DEA) published in the Federal Register on July 20,
2010 (75 FR 42054). Additionally, more information on this species can
be found in the five-year review for B. filifolia signed on August 13,
2009, which is available on our Web site at: http//:www.fws.gov/Carlsbad.

New Information on Species' Description, Life History, Ecology,
Habitat, and Geographic Range and Status

We received no new information pertaining to the description, life
history, ecology, habitat, geographic range, or status of Brodiaea
filifolia following the 2009 proposed revised critical habitat
designation (74 FR 64930).

Previous Federal Actions

We published our final designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea
filifolia on December 13, 2005 (70 FR 73820). The Center for Biological
Diversity filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on December 19, 2007, challenging our
designation of critical habitat for B. filifolia and Navarretia
fossalis (Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and
Wildlife, et al., Case No. 07-CV-02379-W-NLS). In a settlement
agreement dated July 25, 2008, we agreed to reconsider the critical
habitat designation for B. filifolia. The settlement stipulated that
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) shall submit a proposed
revised critical habitat designation for B. filifolia to the Federal
Register by December 1, 2009, and submit a final revised critical
habitat designation to the Federal Register by December 1, 2010. The
proposed revised critical habitat designation was published in the
Federal Register on December 8, 2009 (74 FR 64930). On November 19,
2010, the U.S. District Court granted a motion to modify the settlement
agreement to extend to January 31, 2011, submittal of a final revised
critical habitat designation to the Federal Register.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Revised Rule and the Previous
Critical Habitat Designation

Summary of Changes From the 2005 Critical Habitat Rule

The areas identified in this rule constitute a revision from the
areas we designated as critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia on
December 13, 2005 (70 FR 73820). In cases where we have new information
or information that was not available for the previous designation, we
made changes to the critical habitat for B. filifolia to ensure that
this rule reflects the best scientific data available.
In the 2005 rule, we excluded subunits under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act within the planning boundaries for the Villages of La Costa Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP). The Villages of La Costa HCP is now included
within (considered part of) the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management
Plan (Carlsbad HMP) under the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan
(MHCP); therefore, all revised critical habitat that overlaps with the
Villages of La Costa HCP was analyzed under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
as part of the Carlsbad HMP discussion. These areas have again been
excluded from this revised designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
(see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
In the 2005 rule, we identified areas covered by HCPs that provided
protections for Brodiaea filifolia, and excluded those areas because we
concluded they did not require special management considerations or
protection. We are not using this approach in this rule. In this rule,
we identified areas covered by HCPs that are conserved and managed and
have weighed the benefits of exclusion against the benefits of
including these areas in the revised critical habitat designation
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
This rule uses a new economic analysis to identify and estimate the
potential economic effects resulting from implementation of
conservation actions associated with the revised critical habitat. The
analysis is based on estimated incremental impacts associated with
critical habitat.
We made changes to the primary constituent elements (PCEs) and our
criteria used to identify critical habitat. We incorporated information
related to the taxonomy of the species including the change in plant
family for Brodiaea filifolia. We redefined the boundaries of each
subunit proposed as revised critical habitat to more accurately reflect
the areas that include the features that

[[Page 6849]]

are essential to the conservation of B. filifolia, and we analyzed new
distribution data (in the 2009 proposed revised critical habitat rule)
that has become available to us following the 2005 designation. Table 1
shows the progression of each subunit of critical habitat from the 2005
final critical habitat designation to this final revised critical
habitat designation. Table 2 includes name changes that we made for
some of the subunits where the old names were ambiguous or do not
reflect the current name used to refer to these areas; although the
names of these units changed, the locations of these units have not
changed. Following Tables 2 and 3, we provide a detailed description of
each change made in this revised rule and point to new information that
precipitated the change.

Table 1--Changes Between the December 13, 2005, Final Critical Habitat Designation for Brodiaea filifolia, the
December 8, 2009, Proposed Revised Critical Habitat Designation, and This Final Revised Critical Habitat
Designation *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit/Subunit No. and name ** 2005 fCH 2009 prCH 2011 frCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Los Angeles County:
1a. Glendora.................... 96 ac (39 ha)........... 67 ac (27 ha).......... 67 ac (27 ha).
1b. San Dimas................... 198 ac (80 ha).......... 138 ac (56 ha)......... 138 ac (56 ha).
Unit 2: San Bernardino County:
2. Arrowhead Hot Springs........ Not designated, wrong 61 ac (25 ha).......... 61 ac (25 ha).
location.
Unit 3: Central Orange County:
3. Aliso Canyon................. Not designated, did not 113 ac (46 ha)......... 11 ac (4 ha); partially
meet the definition of excluded under section
critical habitat. 4(b)(2).
Unit 4: Southern Orange County:
4a. Arroyo Trabuco.............. Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A.
meet the definition of
critical habitat.
4b. Caspers Wilderness Park..... Excluded under section 205 ac (83 ha)......... 12 ac (5 ha); partially
4(b)(2). excluded under section
4(b)(2).
4c. Ca[ntilde]ada Gobernadora/ Excluded under section 133 ac (54 ha)......... 133 ac (54 ha).
Chiquita Ridgeline. 4(b)(2).
4d. Prima Deschecha............. Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A.
meet the definition of
critical habitat.
4e. Forster Ranch............... Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A.
meet the definition of
critical habitat.
4f. Talega/Segunda Deshecha..... Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A.
meet the definition of
critical habitat.
4g. Cristianitos Canyon......... Excluded under section 587 ac (238 ha)........ 587 ac (238 ha).
4(b)(2).
4h. Cristianitos Canyon South... Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A.
meet the definition of
critical habitat.
4i. Blind Canyon................ Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A.
meet the definition of
critical habitat.
Unit 5: Northern San Diego County:
5a. Miller Mountain............. Not designated, mostly Not proposed, only N/A.
hybrid plants. Brodiaea santarosae
present.
5b. Devil Canyon................ 249 ac (101 ha)......... 274 ac (111 ha)........ 274 ac (111 ha).
Unit 6: Oceanside:
6a. Alta Creek.................. Not designated, did not 72 ac (29 ha).......... 72 ac (29 ha).
meet the definition of
critical habitat.
6b. Mesa Drive.................. Excluded under section 17 ac (7 ha)........... 17 ac (7 ha).
4(b)(2).
6c. Mission View/Sierra Ridge... Not designated, did not 12 ac (5 ha)........... 12 ac (5 ha).
meet the definition of
critical habitat.
6d. Taylor/Darwin............... Excluded under section 35 ac (14 ha).......... 35 ac (14 ha).
4(b)(2).
6e. Arbor Creek/Colucci......... N/A..................... 94 ac (38 ha).......... 94 ac (38 ha).
Unit 7: Carlsbad
7a. Letterbox Canyon............ Excluded under section 57 ac (23 ha).......... 43 ac (17 ha);
4(b)(2). partially excluded
under section 4(b)(2);
2 ac (1 ha) removed--
do not meet the
definition of critical
habitat.
7b. Rancho Carrillo............. Not designated, did not 37 ac (15 ha).......... 37 ac (15 ha).
meet the definition of
critical habitat.

[[Page 6850]]

7c. Calavera Hills Village H.... Excluded under section 71 ac (29 ha).......... 26 ac (11 ha);
4(b)(2). partially excluded
under section 4(b)(2).
7d. Villages of La Costa (Rancho Excluded under section 98 ac (40 ha).......... Excluded under section
La Costa). 4(b)(2). 4(b)(2).
Carlsbad Oaks............... Excluded under section Not proposed, does not N/A.
4(b)(2). meet the definition of
critical habitat.
Carlsbad Highlands.......... Excluded under section Not proposed, does not N/A.
4(b)(2). meet the definition of
critical habitat.
Poinsettia.................. Excluded under section Not proposed, does not N/A.
4(b)(2). meet the definition of
critical habitat.
Unit 8: San Marcos and Vista:
8a. Rancho Santa Fe Road North.. Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A.
meet the definition of
critical habitat.
8b. Rancho Santalina/Loma Alta.. Not included under 47 ac (19 ha).......... 47 ac (19 ha).
section 3(5)(A).
8c. Grand Avenue................ Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A.
meet the definition of
critical habitat.
8d. Upham....................... 54 ac (22 ha)........... 54 ac (22 ha).......... 54 ac (22 ha).
8e. Linda Vista................. Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A.
meet the definition of
critical habitat.
8f. Oleander/San Marcos N/A..................... 7 ac (3 ha)............ 7 ac (3 ha).
Elementary.
Unit 9:
9. Double LL Ranch.............. Not designated, did not N/A.................... N/A.
meet the definition of
critical habitat.
Unit 10:
10. Highland Valley............. Not designated; could N/A.................... N/A.
not verify occurrence.
Unit 11: Western Riverside County:
11a. San Jacinto Wildlife Area.. Excluded under section 401 ac (162 ha)........ 401 ac (162 ha).
4(b)(2).
11b. San Jacinto Avenue/Dawson Excluded under section 117 ac (47 ha)......... 117 ac (47 ha).
Road. 4(b)(2).
11c. Case Road.................. Excluded under section 180 ac (73 ha)......... 180 ac (73 ha).
4(b)(2).
11d. Railroad Canyon............ Excluded under section 257 ac (104 ha)........ 257 ac (104 ha).
4(b)(2).
11e. Upper Salt Creek (Stowe Excluded under section 145 ac (59 ha)......... 145 ac (59 ha).
Pool). 4(b)(2).
11f. Santa Rosa Plateau--Mesa de Excluded under section 234 ac (95 ha)......... 13 ac (5 ha); partially
Colorado. 4(b)(2). excluded under section
4(b)(2).
Santa Rosa Plateau--Tenaja Excluded under section Not proposed; only N/A.
Rd. 4(b)(2). Brodiaea santarosae
present.
11g. Santa Rosa Plateau--South Excluded under section 117 ac (47 ha)......... Excluded under section
of Tenaja Rd. 4(b)(2). 4(b)(2).
11h. Santa Rosa Plateau--North Excluded under section 44 ac (18 ha).......... Excluded under section
of Tenaja Rd. 4(b)(2). 4(b)(2).
East of Tenaja Guard Station Excluded under section Not proposed, does not N/A.
4(b)(2). meet the definition of
critical habitat.
N. End Redondo Mesa......... Excluded under section Not proposed, does not N/A.
4(b)(2). meet the definition of
critical habitat.
Corona (north).............. Not designated, could N/A.................... N/A.
not verify occurrence.
Corona (south).............. Not designated, could N/A.................... N/A.
not verify occurrence.
Moreno Valley............... Not designated, could N/A.................... N/A.
not verify occurrence.
Unit 12: San Diego County:

[[Page 6851]]

12. Artesian Trails............. N/A..................... 109 ac (44 ha)......... 105 ac (43 ha);
partially excluded
under section 4(b)(2).
TOTAL FOR NON-MILITARY LANDS........ 597 ac (242 ha)......... 3,786 ac (1,532 ha).... 2,945 ac (1,193 ha).
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton:
Cristianitos Canyon Pendleton....... N/A..................... 4(a)(3) exemption...... 4(a)(3) exemption.
Bravo One........................... 4(a)(3) exemption....... 4(a)(3) exemption...... 4(a)(3) exemption.
Bravo Two South..................... N/A..................... 4(a)(3) exemption...... 4(a)(3) exemption.
Alpha One/Bravo Three............... 4(a)(3) exemption....... Does not meet the N/A.
definition of critical
habitat.
Basilone/San Mateo Junction......... N/A..................... 4(a)(3) exemption...... 4(a)(3) exemption.
Camp Horno.......................... 4(a)(3) exemption....... 4(a)(3) exemption...... 4(a)(3) exemption.
SE Horno Summit..................... 4(a)(3) exemption....... Does not meet the N/A.
definition of critical
habitat.
Kilo One............................ 4(a)(3) exemption....... Does not meet the N/A.
definition of critical
habitat.
Pilgrim Creek....................... N/A..................... 4(a)(3) exemption...... 4(a)(3) exemption.
South White Beach................... N/A..................... 4(a)(3) exemption...... 4(a)(3) exemption.
TOTAL FOR MILITARY LANDS*** 0 ac (0 ha)............. 0 ac (0 ha)............ 0 ac (0 ha).
TOTALS 597 ac (242 ha)......... 3,786 ac (1,532 ha).... 2,947 ac (1,193 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table does not include all locations that are occupied by Brodiaea filifolia. It includes only those
locations that have met the definition of critical habitat in this or one of the past proposed or final
critical habitat rules for B. filifolia.
** Values in this table and the following text may not sum due to rounding.
*** Military Lands are exempt from this rule under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.

Table 2--Name Changes From the 2005 Final Critical Habitat Designation for Brodiaea filifolia to This Final
Revised Critical Habitat Designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit No. Previous name Current name Reason for change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6c............................... Oceanside East/Mission Mission View/Sierra Not the eastern most
Ave. Ridge. occurrence in
Oceanside.
7a............................... Fox-Miller............... Letterbox Canyon........ Includes more properties
than just Fox-Miller.
7c............................... Calavera Heights......... Calavera Hills Village H New name is more
specific.
11b.............................. San Jacinto Floodplain... San Jacinto Avenue/ New name is more
Dawson Road. specific.
11c.............................. Case Road Area........... Case Road............... New name is more
specific.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Changes From the 2009 Proposed Revised Critical Habitat Rule

The most significant changes between the December 2009 proposed
revision and this final revised rule are outlined in Table 1 above and
include:
(1) In the proposed revised rule, we considered lands covered by
the Southern Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan/Master
Streambed Alteration Agreement/Habitat Conservation Plan, now known as
the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP, for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act. We have now analyzed each of the areas considered
for exclusion under the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP, and have
determined that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion for approximately 192 ac (78 ha) of proposed revised critical
habitat in Subunit 4b that are covered by the Orange County Southern
Subregion HCP and are conserved and managed. We also determined that
exclusion of these areas will not result in extinction of the species.
Therefore, we are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude these
lands from this revised critical habitat designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act. For a complete discussion of the benefits of
inclusion and exclusion, see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act section below.
(2) In the proposed revised rule, we considered lands covered by
the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) under the San Diego Multiple
Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) for exclusion under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act. We have now analyzed each of the areas considered for
exclusion under the Carlsbad HMP, and have determined that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion for approximately 156
ac (63 ha) of proposed revised critical habitat in Subunits 7a, 7c, and
7d that are covered by the Carlsbad HMP under the MHCP and are
conserved and managed. We also determined that exclusion of these areas
will not result in extinction of the species. Therefore, we are
exercising our delegated discretion to exclude these lands from this
revised critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
For a complete discussion of the benefits of inclusion and exclusion,
see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.
(3) We have determined that 2 ac (1 ha) of land in Subunit 7a do
not meet the definition of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia
because they do not contain habitat suitable for the species. We are
therefore not including these areas in the revised critical habitat
designation.
(4) In the proposed revised rule, we considered lands within the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(Western Riverside County MSHCP) planning area for exclusion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We have now analyzed each of the areas
considered for exclusion

[[Page 6852]]

under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, and have determined that the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion for
approximately 381 ac (154 ha) of proposed revised critical habitat in
Subunits 11g, 11h, and a portion of Subunit 11f that are covered by the
Western Riverside County MSHCP and are conserved and managed. We also
determined that exclusion of these lands will not result in extinction
of the species. Therefore, we are exercising our delegated discretion
to exclude these lands from this revised critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. For a complete discussion of the
benefits of inclusion and exclusion, see Exclusions Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act section below.
(5) In the proposed revised rule, we considered lands covered by
the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We have now analyzed each
of the areas considered for exclusion under the MSCP, and have
determined that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion for approximately 4 ac (2 ha) of proposed revised critical
habitat in Unit 12 that are under the County of San Diego Subarea Plan
and are conserved and managed. We also determined that exclusion of
these lands will not result in extinction of the species. Therefore, we
are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude these lands from
this revised critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. For a complete discussion of the benefits of inclusion and
exclusion, see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section
below.
(6) A number of comments we received suggested editorial changes
and technical corrections to sections of the rule pertaining to the
Background and Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat sections of
the proposed revised rule. These changes were recommended to improve
clarity, include additional information, and correct minor errors. They
have been incorporated into this final rule, where appropriate.

Critical Habitat

Background

Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as: (1)
The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features:
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any
endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management, such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding,
or authorizing activities that are likely to result in the destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act
requires consultation on Federal actions that may affect critical
habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
private landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding
or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or
critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the landowner's obligation is not to restore or
recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing
must contain physical or biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, and be included only if those features may
require special management considerations or protection. The physical
and biological features are the primary constituent elements (PCEs)
laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential
to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat designations
identify, to the extent known using the best scientific data available,
habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species
(i.e., areas on which are found the PCEs laid out in the appropriate
quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the conservation of the
species). Under the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we can
designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed as critical habitat
only when we determine that those areas are essential for the
conservation of the species and that designation limited to the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing would be inadequate
to ensure the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (44 U.S.C. 3516), and our
associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, establish
procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based
on the best scientific and commercial data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific and commercial data available, to use primary and
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to
designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and
expert opinion or personal knowledge. Substantive comments received in
response to proposed critical habitat designations are also considered.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic

[[Page 6853]]

implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most
threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah et al.
2005, p. 4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial areas
in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more
intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying
(Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al.
2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p.
11; Cayan et al. 2009, p. xi). Additionally, the southwestern region of
the country is predicted to become drier and hotter overall (Hayhoe et
al. 2004, p. 12424; Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). Climate change may
also affect the duration and frequency of drought and these climatic
changes may become even more dramatic and intense (Graham 1997).
Documentation of climate-related changes that have already occurred in
California (Croke et al. 1998, pp. 2128, 2130; Brashears et al. 2005,
p. 15144), and future drought predictions for California (e.g., Field
et al. 1999, pp. 8-10; Lenihen et al. 2003, p. 1667; Hayhoe et al.
2004, p. 12422; Brashears et al. 2005, p. 15144; Seager et al. 2007, p.
1181) and North America (IPCC 2007, p. 9) indicate prolonged drought
and other climate-related changes will continue in the foreseeable
future.
We anticipate these changes could affect a number of native plants,
including Brodiaea filifolia habitat and occurrences. For example, if
the amount and timing of precipitation or the average temperature
increases in southern California, the following four changes may affect
the long-term viability of B. filifolia occurrences in their current
habitat configuration:
(1) Drier conditions may result in a lower germination rate and
smaller population sizes;
(2) A shift in the timing of annual rainfall may favor nonnative
species that impact the quality of habitat for this species;
(3) Warmer temperatures may affect the timing of pollinator life-
cycles causing pollinators to become out-of-sync with timing of
flowering B. filifolia; and
(4) Drier conditions may result in increased fire frequency, making
the ecosystems in which B. filifolia currently grows more vulnerable to
the threats of subsequent erosion and nonnative or native plant
invasion.
At this time, we are unable to identify the specific ways that
climate change may impact Brodiaea filifolia; therefore, we are unable
to determine if any additional areas may be appropriate to include in
this revised critical habitat designation. Additionally, we recognize
that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not
include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are
necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a
critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the
designated area is unimportant or may not promote the recovery of the
species.
Areas that support occurrences of the species, but are outside the
critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to
conservation actions we and other Federal agencies implement under
section 7(a)(1) of the Act. In these areas, the species is also subject
to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial information available at the time of the agency action.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made
on the basis of the best available information at the time of
designation will not control the direction and substance of future
recovery plans, HCPs, or other species conservation planning efforts if
new information available to these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.

Primary Constituent Elements

Physical and Biological Features

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas occupied by the species at
the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider those
physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation
of the species that may require special management considerations or
protection. We consider the physical or biological features to be the
PCEs laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement
essential to the conservation of the species. The PCEs include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the PCEs required for Brodiaea filifolia from its
biological needs. The areas included in our revised critical habitat
for B. filifolia contain the appropriate soils and associated
vegetation at suitable elevations, and adjacent areas necessary to
maintain associated physical processes such as a suitable hydrological
regime. The areas provide suitable habitat, water, minerals, and other
physiological needs for reproduction and growth of B. filifolia, as
well as habitat that supports pollinators of B. filifolia. The PCEs and
the resulting physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of B. filifolia are derived from studies of this species'
habitat, ecology, and life history as described in the Background
section of the proposed revised rule (74 FR 64930; December 8, 2009),
the previous critical habitat rule (70 FR 73820; December 13, 2005),
and in the final listing rule (63 FR 54975; October 13, 1998).
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Habitats that provide space for growth and persistence of Brodiaea
filifolia include areas: (1) With combinations of appropriate elevation
and clay or clay-associated soils, on mesas or low to moderate slopes
that support open native or annual grasslands within open coastal sage
scrub or coastal sage scrub-chaparral communities; (2) in floodplains
or in association with vernal pool or playa complexes that support
various grassland, scrub, or riparian herb communities; (3) on soils
derived from olivine basalt lava flows on mesas and slopes that support
vernal pools within grassland, oak woodland, or savannah communities;
or (4) on sandy loam soils derived from basalt and granodiorite parent
material with deposits of cobbles and boulders supporting intermittent
seeps, and open marsh communities. Despite the wide range of habitats
where B. filifolia occurs, this species occupies a specific niche of
habitat that is moderately wet to occasionally wet.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
All members of the genus Brodiaea require full sun and many tend to
occur on only one or a few soil series (Niehaus 1971, pp. 26-27).
Brodiaea filifolia occurs on several formally named soil series, but
most (if not all) of these are primarily clay soils with varying
amounts of sand and silt. In this rule, we listed all the mapped soils
that

[[Page 6854]]

overlap with the distribution of B. filifolia. Sometimes clay soils
occur as inclusions within other soil series; as such, we have named
those other soil series in this rule. Another reason that there are
many differently named soil series is because this species occurs in
five counties, each of which has uniquely named soils. In some areas in
northern San Diego County and southwestern Riverside County, the
species is identified with mapped soils with no known clay component;
however, closer study and sight specific sampling may show these soils
contain clay in the specific areas supporting B. filifolia. Despite
this issue and the diversity in named soil series, B. filifolia is
considered a clay soils endemic.
In San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties, occurrences of
Brodiaea filifolia are highly correlated with specific clay soil series
such as, but not limited to: Alo, Altamont, Auld, and Diablo or clay
lens inclusions in a matrix of loamy soils such as Fallbrook,
Huerhuero, and Las Flores series (63 FR 54975, p. 54978; CNDDB 2009,
pp. 1-76; Service Geographic Information System (GIS) data 2009; USDA
1994). These soils generally occur on mesas and hillsides with gentle
to moderate slopes, or in association with vernal pools. These soils
are generally vegetated with open native or nonnative grassland, open
coastal sage scrub, or open coastal sage scrub-chaparral communities.
In San Bernardino County, the species is associated with Etsel family-
Rock outcrop-Springdale and Tujunga-Urban land-Hanford soils (Service
2009a, Service GIS data). These soils are generally vegetated with open
native and nonnative grassland, open coastal sage scrub, or open
coastal sage scrub-chaparral communities.
In western Riverside County, the species is often found on alkaline
silty-clay soil series such as, but not limited to, Domino,
Grangeville, Waukena, and Willows underlain by a clay subsoil or
caliche (a hardened gray deposit of calcium carbonate). These soils
generally occur in low-lying areas and floodplains or are associated
with vernal pool or playa complexes. These soils are generally
vegetated with open native and nonnative grassland, alkali grassland,
or alkali scrub communities. Also in western Riverside County, the
species is found on clay loam soils underlain by heavy clays derived
from basalt lava flows (i.e., Murrieta series on the Santa Rosa
Plateau) (Bramlet 1993, p. 1; CNDDB 2009, pp. 1-76; Service 2009a,
Service GIS data). These soils generally occur on mesas and gentle to
moderate slopes or are associated with basalt vernal pools. These soils
are vegetated with open native or nonnative grassland or oak woodland
savannah communities.
In some areas in northern San Diego County and southwestern
Riverside County, the species is found on sandy loam soils derived from
basalt and granodiorite parent materials; deposits of gravel, cobble,
and boulders; or hydrologically fractured, weathered granite in
intermittent streams and seeps. These soils and deposits are generally
vegetated by open riparian and freshwater marsh communities associated
with intermittent drainages, floodplains, and seeps. These soils
facilitate the natural process of seed dispersal and germination,
cormlet disposition or movement to an appropriate soil depth, and corm
persistence through seedling and adult phases of flowering and fruit
set.
Habitats That Are Protected From Disturbance or Are Representative of
the Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the
Species
The conservation of Brodiaea filifolia is dependent on several
factors including, but not limited to, maintenance of areas of
sufficient size and configuration to sustain natural ecosystem
components, functions, and processes (such as full sun exposure,
natural fire and hydrologic regimes, adequate biotic balance to prevent
excessive herbivory); protection of existing substrate continuity and
structure, connectivity among groups of plants of this species within
geographic proximity to facilitate gene flow among the sites through
pollinator activity and seed dispersal; and sufficient adjacent
suitable habitat for vegetative reproduction and population expansion.
A natural, generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure,
perhaps lightly impacted, but not permanently altered by anthropogenic
land use activities (such as deep, repetitive discing, or grading), and
associated physical processes such as a natural hydrological regime is
necessary to provide water, minerals, and other physiological needs for
Brodiaea filifolia. A natural hydrological regime includes seasonal
hydration followed by drying out of the substrate to promote growth of
plants and new corms for the following season. These conditions are
also necessary for the normal development of seedlings and young
vegetative cormlets.
Habitat for Pollinators of Brodiaea filifolia
Cross-pollination is essential for the survival and recovery of
Brodiaea filifolia because this species is self-incompatible and it
cannot sexually reproduce without the aid of insect pollinators. A
variety of insects are known to cross-pollinate Brodiaea species,
including tumbling flower beetles (Mordellidae, Coleoptera) and sweat
bees (Halictidae, Hymenoptera; Niehaus 1971, p. 27). Bell and Rey
(1991, p. 3) report that native bees observed pollinating B. filifolia
on the Santa Rosa Plateau in Riverside County include Bombus
californicus (Apidae, Hymenoptera), Hoplitus sp. (Megachilidae,
Hymenoptera), Osmia sp. (Megachilidae, Hymenoptera), and an
unidentified Anthophorid (digger-bee). Anthophoridae and Halictidae are
important pollinators of B. filifolia, as shown at a study site in
Orange County (Glenn Lukos Associates 2004, p. 3). Supporting and
maintaining pollinators and pollinator habitat is essential to the
conservation of B. filifolia because this species cannot set viable
seed without cross-pollination.
Of primary concern to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia are
solitary bees (such as sweat bees (Hoplitus sp. and Osmia sp.)) because
these are the pollinators that have the most specific habitat
requirements (such as nesting requirements) and are impacted by
fragmentation and reduced diversity of natural habitats at a small
scale (Gathmann and Tscharntke 2002, p. 757; Steffan-Dewenter 2003, p.
1041; Shepherd 2009, pers. comm.). Due to the focused foraging habits
of solitary bees, we believe that these insects may be the most
important to the successful reproduction of B. filifolia. To sustain an
active pollinator community for B. filifolia, alternative pollen or
food source plants may be necessary for the persistence of these
insects when B. filifolia is not in flower. It is also necessary for
nest sites for pollinators to be located within flying distance of B.
filifolia occurrences.
Bombus spp. (bumblebees) may also be important to the pollination
of Brodiaea filifolia, however, these insects may be able to travel
greater distances and cross fragmented landscapes to pollinate B.
filifolia. In a study of experimental isolation and pollen dispersal of
Delphinium nuttallianum (Nuttall's larkspur), Schulke and Waser (2001,
pp. 242-243) report that adequate pollen loads were dispersed by
bumblebees within control populations and in isolated experimental
``populations'' from 164 to 1,312 feet (ft) (50 to 400 meters (m)) from
the control populations. One of several pollinator taxa effective at
1,312 ft (400 m) was Bombus californicus (Schulke and Waser 2001, pp.
240-243), which was also one of four bee species observed

[[Page 6855]]

pollinating B. filifolia by Bell and Rey (1991, p. 2). Studies by
Steffan-Dewenter and Tscharntke (2000, p. 293) demonstrated that it is
possible for bees to forage as far as 4,920 ft (1,500 m) from a colony,
and at least one study suggests that bumblebees may forage many
kilometers away (Sudgen 1985, p. 308). Bumblebees may be effective at
transferring pollen between occurrences of B. filifolia because they
are larger and have been found pollinating plants at distances of 1,312
to 4,920 ft (400 to 1,500 m). However, the visits and focused effort of
bumblebees may be less frequent than ground-nesting bees.
Ground-nesting solitary bees appear to have limited dispersal and
flight abilities (Thorp and Leong 1995, p. 7). Studies have shown that
as areas are fragmented by development, remaining habitat areas have
reduced pollinator diversity (Steffan-Dewenter 2003, p. 1041). If
pollinators are eliminated from an occurrence, Brodiaea filifolia will
no longer be able to reproduce sexually. Of the native bees that have
been observed pollinating B. filifolia, solitary ground-nesting bees
are the most sensitive to habitat disturbance and the most likely to be
lost from an area. Sweat bees, Holitus, and Osmia (mason bees), fly
approximately 900 to 1,500 ft (274 to 457 m), 600 to 900 ft (183 to 274
m), and 600 to 1,800 ft (183 to 549 m), respectively (Shepherd 2009,
pers. comm.). Bombus californicus (family Apidae) and digger bees
(family Apidae) fly further, generally more than 2,640 ft (804 m)
(Shepherd 2009, pers. comm.). These flight distances are important in
determining what habitat associated with B. filifolia occurrences
provides habitat for this species' pollinators. Conserving habitat
where these pollinators nest and forage will sustain an active
pollinator community and provide for the cross-pollination of B.
filifolia.
In our review of the data on pollinators of Brodiaea filifolia in
the 2005 critical habitat rule, we determined that an 820-ft (250-m)
area around each occurrence identified in the critical habitat would
provide adequate space to support B. filifolia's pollinators. In the
2005 critical habitat rule, we based the 820-ft (250-m) distance on a
conservative estimate for the mean routine flight distance for bees.
This distance represents an estimate of flight distance for pollinators
that fly an average of less than 1,800 ft (549 m) (i.e., the maximum
distance observed by known pollinators of B. filifolia except Bombus
californicus). Research supports this distance, as studies looking at
areas with a radius of 820 ft (250 m) have found that solitary bees
forage at this scale and that if fragmentation occurs at this scale the
presence of solitary bees will decrease (Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2002,
pp. 1027-1029; Shepherd 2009, pers. comm.). Insects that travel greater
distances than 1,800 ft (549 m) on average may also find habitat within
820 ft (250 m) of B. filifolia occurrences. It is also possible that
insects flying greater than 1,800 ft (549 m) are flying in from greater
distances (Bombus californicus and Anthophora) and are living in
habitats that are not directly connected with areas supporting B.
filifolia. Delineating a pollinator use area larger than 820 ft (250 m)
around B. filifolia would capture habitat that may not directly
contribute to the conservation of B. filifolia. Including habitat
extending beyond the perimeters of mapped occurrences of B. filifolia
by up to 820 ft (250 m) in the PCEs is necessary to support pollinator
activity in critical habitat, support the sexual reproduction of B.
filifolia, and provide for gene flow, pollen dispersal, and seed
dispersal.

Primary Constituent Elements for Brodiaea filifolia

Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of Brodiaea filifolia and that may require special
management considerations or protection. The physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species are those PCEs
laid out in an appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement determined
to be essential to the conservation of the species. All final revised
critical habitat areas for B. filifolia are currently occupied, are
within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of
listing, and contain sufficient PCEs to support at least one life
history function of the species (see the Spatial Distribution and
Historical Range section of the proposed revised rule).
Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and
ecology of Brodiaea filifolia, and the requirements of the habitat to
sustain the life-history traits of the species, we determined that the
PCEs specific to B. filifolia are:
(1) PCE 1--Appropriate soil series at a range of elevations and in
a variety of plant communities, specifically:
(A) Clay soil series of various origins (such as Alo, Altamont,
Auld, or Diablo), clay lenses found as unmapped inclusions in other
soils series, or loamy soils series underlain by a clay subsoil (such
as Fallbrook, Huerhuero, or Las Flores) occurring between the
elevations of 100 and 2,500 ft (30 and 762 m).
(B) Soils (such as Cieneba-rock outcrop complex and Ramona family-
Typic Xerothents soils) altered by hydrothermal activity occurring
between the elevations of 1,000 and 2,500 ft (305 and 762 m).
(C) Silty loam soil series underlain by a clay subsoil or caliche
that are generally poorly drained, moderately to strongly alkaline,
granitic in origin (such as Domino, Grangeville, Traver, Waukena, or
Willows) occurring between the elevations of 600 and 1,800 ft (183 and
549 m).
(D) Clay loam soil series (such as Murrieta) underlain by heavy
clay loams or clays derived from olivine basalt lava flows occurring
between the elevations of 1,700 and 2,500 ft (518 and 762 m).
(E) Sandy loam soils derived from basalt and granodiorite parent
materials; deposits of gravel, cobble, and boulders; or hydrologically
fractured, weathered granite in intermittent streams and seeps
occurring between 1,800 and 2,500 ft (549 and 762 m).
(2) PCE 2--Areas with a natural, generally intact surface and
subsurface soil structure, not permanently altered by anthropogenic
land use activities (such as deep, repetitive discing, or grading),
extending out up to 820 ft (250 m) from mapped occurrences of Brodiaea
filifolia to provide for space for individual population growth, and
space for pollinators.
This revision to the previous critical habitat designation is
designed for the conservation of those areas containing PCEs necessary
to support the species' life history traits. All units/subunits of the
revised critical habitat contain one of the specific soil components
identified in PCE 1, which facilitate the natural process of seed
dispersal and germination, cormlet disposition or movement to an
appropriate soil depth, and corm persistence through seedling and adult
phases of flowering and fruit set (see Habitat section of the proposed
revised critical habitat rule for this species (74 FR 64932)), and have
natural, generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure
necessary to provide water, minerals, and other physiological needs for
the species and support habitat for pollinators, which facilitate
reproduction, as identified in PCE 2. These two factors are sufficient
to support life-history traits of Brodiaea filifolia in the units/
subunits we designate as revised critical habitat. In general, we
designate units/subunits based on the presence of the PCEs in the
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the
conservation of the species. In the case of this designation, all of
the units/subunits contain both of the PCEs.

[[Page 6856]]

Special Management Considerations or Protection

When designating critical habitat within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing, we assess whether the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species may require special management considerations or protection. In
all units/subunits, special management considerations or protection of
the essential features may be required to provide for the growth,
reproduction, and sustained function of the habitat on which Brodiaea
filifolia depends.
The lands designated as revised critical habitat represent our best
assessment of the habitat that meets the definition of critical habitat
for Brodiaea filifolia at this time. The essential physical or
biological features within the areas designated as revised critical
habitat may require some level of management to address current and
future threats to B. filifolia, including the direct and indirect
effects of habitat loss and degradation from urban development; the
introduction of nonnative invasive plant species; recreational
activities; discing and mowing for agricultural practices or fuel
modification for fire management; dumping of manure and sewage sludge;
and hybridization with other species of Brodiaea.
Loss and degradation of habitat from development was cited in the
final listing rule as a primary cause for the decline of Brodiaea
filifolia. Most of the populations of this species are located in San
Diego, Orange, and Riverside counties. These counties have had (and
continue to have) increasing human populations and attendant housing
pressure. Natural areas in these counties are frequently near or
bounded by urbanized areas. Urban development removes the plant
community components and associated clay soils identified in the PCEs,
which eliminates or fragments the populations of B. filifolia. Grading,
discing, and scraping areas in the preparation of areas for
urbanization also directly alters the soil surface as well as
subsurface soil layers to the degree that they will no longer support
plant community types and pollinators associated with B. filifolia (PCE
2). Conservation and management of B. filifolia habitat and adjacent
pollinator habitat is needed to address the threat of development.
Nonnative invasive plant species may alter the vegetation
composition or physical structure identified in the PCEs to an extent
that the area does not support Brodiaea filifolia or the plant
community that it inhabits. Additionally, invasive species may compete
with B. filifolia for space and resources by depleting water that would
otherwise be available to B. filifolia. Management activities including
(but not limited to) nonnative plant removal and control are needed to
reduce this threat.
Unauthorized recreational activities may impact the vegetation
composition and soil structure that supports Brodiaea filifolia to an
extent that the area will no longer have intact soil surfaces or the
plant communities identified in the PCEs. Off-highway vehicle (OHV)
activity is an example of this type of activity. Management activities
such as (but not limited to) fencing or other barriers to unauthorized
access, signage, and monitoring are needed to address this threat.
Some methods of mowing or discing for agricultural purposes or fuel
modification for fire management may preclude the full and natural
development of Brodiaea filifolia by adversely affecting the PCEs.
Mowing may preclude the successful reproduction of the plant, or alter
the associated vegetation needed for pollinator activity (PCE 2).
Dumping of sewage sludge can cover plants as well as the soils they
need. Additionally, this practice can alter the chemistry of the
substrate and lead to alterations in the vegetation supported at the
site (PCE 1). Management activities such as (but not limited to)
fencing, signage, and education of landowners and land managers about
the detrimental effects that mowing, discing, and dumping sewage have
on B. filifolia and its habitat are needed to address this threat.
Manure dumping on private property along the San Jacinto River area
is impacting habitat within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan
area. These impacts are occurring despite identification of these areas
as important for the survival and recovery of Brodiaea filifolia in the
Western Riverside County MSHCP. Manure dumping is not a covered
activity under the Western Riverside County MSHCP and was not discussed
as an impact to B. filifolia in the Biological Opinion on the Western
Riverside County MSHCP (Service 2004b, pp. 378-386). As outlined in the
Western Riverside County MSHCP, we have been working with permittees to
implement additional ordinances that will help to control activities
(such as manure dumping) that may impact the implementation of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP conservation objectives. To date, the
City of Hemet is the only Western Riverside County MSHCP permittee that
has addressed the negative impacts that manure dumping has on species
such as B. filifolia and Navarretia fossalis and their habitats through
the enactment of Ordinance 1666 (i.e., the ordinance that prevents
manure dumping activities and educates its citizens). We will continue
to work with Riverside County and permittees of the Western Riverside
County MSHCP to address activities that may impact the species within
the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area.
The Service is aware of occurrences of some hybrids within the
range of Brodiaea filifolia in Subunit 5b (Devil Canyon) in
northwestern San Diego County (Chester et al. 2007, p. 193). The
presumed parent taxa of these hybrids are considered to be B. filifolia
and B. orcuttii because of the apparent morphological intermediacy of
the individuals and proximity of their ranges. This is supported by the
close relationship of the two species noted above. Although there are
some hybrids of B. filifolia and B. orcuttii in this subunit, it is
likely that a minimum of 850 plants are pure B. filifolia (Service
2009b, p. 15) (we consider occurrences that have between 850 and 3,000
flowering stems observed in multiple years to be stable and persistent
because we expect these occurrences to have a sufficient amount of
corms to sustain the occurrence for a number of years if the habitat
remains unaltered (see Criteria Used section below)). Plants of hybrid
origin have also been reported in Subunit 8d (Upham) in the City of San
Marcos (Chester et al. 2007, p. 191). Chester et al. (2007) only found
a few hybrid specimens at this location, therefore it is likely that a
minimum of 850 plants are pure B. filifolia. Hybridization could result
in the loss of portions of B. filifolia occurrences if other Brodiaea
species are transplanted adjacent to existing B. filifolia occurrences,
or if existing B. filifolia occurrences are transplanted adjacent to
other Brodiaea species and the two species are able to hybridize.
Informing biological resource managers of the existence of this threat
will help to keep human-mediated hybridization from occurring.
In summary, we find that the areas we are designating as revised
critical habitat contain the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia, and that these features may
require special management considerations or protection. Special
management considerations or protection may be required to eliminate,
or reduce to negligible level, the threats affecting each unit/subunit
and to preserve and

[[Page 6857]]

maintain the essential features that the revised critical habitat
units/subunits provide to B. filifolia. Additional discussions of
threats facing individual sites are provided in the individual unit/
subunit descriptions.
The designation of critical habitat does not imply that lands
outside of critical habitat may not play an important role in the
conservation of Brodiaea filifolia. In the future, and with changed
circumstances, these lands may become essential to the conservation of
B. filifolia. Activities with a Federal nexus that may affect areas
outside of revised critical habitat, such as development, agricultural
activities, and road construction, are still subject to review under
section 7 of the Act if they may affect B. filifolia because Federal
agencies must consider both effects to the plant and effects to
critical habitat independently. The prohibitions of section 9 of the
Act applicable to B. filifolia under 50 CFR 17.71 (e.g., the
prohibition against reducing to possession or maliciously damaging or
destroying listed plants on Federal lands) also continue to apply both
inside and outside of designated critical habitat.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

We determined that all areas we are designating as final revised
critical habitat are within the geographical area occupied by Brodiaea
filifolia at the time of listing and are currently occupied (see the
Spatial Distribution and Historical Range section of the proposed
revised critical habitat rule (74 FR 64929; December 8, 2009) for more
information). We considered the areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing, but are not designating
any areas outside the geographical area occupied by B. filifolia at the
time of listing because we determined that a subset of occupied lands
within the species' historical range are adequate to ensure the
conservation of B. filifolia. Occupied areas exist throughout this
species' historical range, and through the conservation of a subset of
occupied habitats (35 of 68 extant occurrences, see Table 1), we will
be able to stabilize and conserve B. filifolia throughout its current
and historical range. All units/subunits designated as revised critical
habitat contain the PCEs in the appropriate quantity and spatial
arrangement essential to the conservation of this species and support
multiple life-history traits for B. filifolia.
As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we use the best scientific
and commercial data available in determining areas that contain the
physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation
of Brodiaea filifolia. The data used for this revised critical habitat
are summarized below. This rule reflects the best available scientific
and commercial information and thus differs from our 2005 final
critical habitat rule.
This section provides details of the process we used to delineate
critical habitat. This final rule reflects a progression of
conservation efforts for Brodiaea filifolia that is largely based on
the past analysis of the areas identified as meeting the definition of
critical habitat for B. filifolia as identified in the 2004 proposed
critical habitat rule, the 2005 final critical habitat designation, and
new information we obtained on the species' distribution since listing.
For some areas that were analyzed in 2005 but determined not to meet
the definition of critical habitat, we received new distribution
information for the proposed revised rule that resulted in determining
that those areas do meet the definition of critical habitat. There are
also some areas identified as meeting the definition of critical
habitat in the 2005 critical habitat designation that we did not
include in the proposed revised rule and this final revised critical
habitat designation because we determined, based on a review of the
best available information, that they do not meet the definition of
critical habitat. The specific differences from the 2005 designation of
critical habitat are summarized in the Summary of Changes from the
Proposed Revised Rule and the Previous Critical Habitat Designation
section of this rule.
Species and plant communities that are protected across their
ranges are expected to have lower likelihoods of extinction (Soule and
Simberloff 1986, p. 35; Scott et al. 2001, pp. 1297-1300). Genetic
variation generally results from the effects of population isolation
and adaptation to locally distinct environments (Lesica and Allendorf
1995, pp. 754-757; Hamrick and Godt 1996, pp. 291-295; Fraser 2000, pp.
49-51). We sought to include the range of ecological conditions in
which Brodiaea filifolia is found to preserve the genetic variation
that may reflect adaptation to local environmental conditions, as
documented in other plant species (such as in Millar and Libby 1991,
pp. 150, 152-155; or Hamrick and Godt 1996, pp. 299-301). A suite of
locations that possess unique ecological characteristics will represent
more of the environmental variability under which B. filifolia has
evolved. Protecting these areas will promote the adaptation of the
species to different environmental conditions and contribute to species
recovery.
We also determined that habitat for pollinators is essential to the
survival and recovery of this species because Brodiaea filifolia is
self-incompatible (genetically similar individuals are not able to
produce viable seeds). Sexual reproduction, facilitated through
pollination, is necessary for the long-term conservation of this
species.
All critical habitat discussed in this final revised critical
habitat designation is occupied by the species at the subunit level,
meaning that each subunit contains at least one known occurrence of
Brodiaea filifolia. Occupied areas were determined from survey data and
element occurrence data in the California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) (CNDDB 2009, pp. 1-76). Using GIS data in the areas identified
as occupied by this species as a guide, we identified the areas that
contain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of B. filifolia. The essential features in each subunit
are necessary for the conservation of the occurrence within the
subunit, which contributes to the overall conservation of the species.
To map the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat, we
identified areas that contain the PCEs in the appropriate quantity and
spatial arrangement essential to the conservation of this species using
the following criteria: (1) Areas supporting occurrences on rare or
unique habitat within the species' range; (2) areas supporting the
largest known occurrences of Brodiaea filifolia; or (3) areas
supporting stable occurrences of B. filifolia that are likely to be
persistent. These criteria are explained in greater detail below and a
summary of our analysis of all current and past areas supporting B.
filifolia is presented in Table 3.
We determined that the areas supporting 36 of the 68 extant
occurrences meet the definition of critical habitat; of these 36
occurrences, 7 are on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (MCB Camp
Pendleton) and the areas are exempt from critical habitat under section
4(a)(3) of the Act (see Exemptions under Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
section below). Of the 29 occurrences in areas proposed as revised
critical habitat (74 FR 64930; December 8, 2009), four are in areas
excluded from this final revised critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (Subunits 7d, 8f, 11g, and 11h), and eight
are in areas partially excluded from this final revised critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (portions of
Subunits 6a, 6d,

[[Page 6858]]

7a, 7c, 8b, 11f, and Units 3 and 12) (see Exclusions under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act section below). Areas containing the PCEs and that
meet at least one of the above criteria are considered to contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and, therefore, meet the definition of critical habitat.
Included in PCE 2 are areas up to 820 ft (250 m) from mapped
occurrences of Brodiaea filifolia to provide adequate space to support
the habitat and alternate food sources needed for pollinators of B.
filifolia. The 820-ft (250-m) distance for determining the pollinator
use area is based on a conservative estimate for the mean routine
flight distance for ground-nesting solitary bees that pollinate B.
filifolia. This distance is not meant to capture all habitat that is
potentially used by pollinators, but it is meant to capture a
sufficient area to allow for pollinators to nest, feed, and reproduce
in habitat that is adjacent and connected to the areas where B.
filifolia grows (see Habitat for Pollinators of Brodiaea filifolia
section above for a more detailed explanation of pollinator
requirements and our derivation of the 820-ft (250-m) distance used to
determine the pollinator use area).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.000

[[Page 6859]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.001

[[Page 6860]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.002

[[Page 6861]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.003

[[Page 6862]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.004

[[Page 6863]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.005

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
We identified habitat containing the features essential to the
conservation of Brodiaea filifolia by using data from the following GIS
databases: (1) Species occurrence information in Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties from the CNDDB
and from survey reports; (2) vegetation data layers from Orange,
Riverside, and San Diego Counties and vegetation data layers from the
U.S. Forest Service's Cleveland National Forest (CNF) for Los Angeles
and San Bernardino Counties; and (3) Natural Resources Conservation
Service's Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) soil data layers for
Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, and State Soil Geographic
Database (STATSGO) soil data layers for Los Angeles and San Bernardino
Counties.

Criteria Used

If habitat areas met one or more of the following criteria, they
were determined to meet the definition of critical habitat under
section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act.
(1) The first criterion is any area that supports an occurrence in
rare or unique habitat within the species' range. We evaluated all
occurrences of Brodiaea filifolia under this criterion, regardless of
occurrence size. We identified four main factors that

[[Page 6864]]

constitute rare or unique habitat for B. filifolia:
(a) Occurrences in habitat types that are uncommon such as
grassland habitat that occurs intermixed with chaparral, grassland
habitat that is associated with vernal pools, or large areas of native
grassland;
(b) Occurrences on uncommon soil types such as clay soils that are
altered by hydrothermal activity;
(c) Occurrences that grow along ephemeral drainages in seep-type
habitats; and
(d) Occurrences that grow in gravel, cobbles, and small boulder
substrate.
These four unique situations differ from the majority of
occurrences of this species, which are found on clay soils intermixed
with coastal sage scrub habitat. The conservation of Brodiaea filifolia
occurring in these rare or unique situations will preserve the
diversity of habitats where this species is found.
(2) The second criterion is any area that supports one of the
largest known populations of Brodiaea filifolia. Occurrences of this
species range from just a few plants to several thousand plants, while
the majority of the known occurrences are under 3,000 plants (see the
Background section of the 2009 proposed revised critical habitat rule
for a discussion on how occurrences of B. filifolia are grouped and
counted). However, there are 13 occurrences that stand out as the
largest, each having greater than 3,000 plants. Occurrences supporting
large numbers of plants (3,000 or more) are noted in Table 1 and are
found in the following areas:
(a) Los Angeles County: Subunit 1b-San Dimas;
(b) Riverside County: Subunit 11c-Case Road, Subunit 11d-Railroad
Canyon, and Subunit 11f-Santa Rosa Plateau-Mesa de Colorado;
(c) Orange County: Unit 3-Aliso Canyon, and Subunit 4g-Cristianitos
Canyon; and
(d) San Diego County: Subunit 6d-Taylor/Darwin, Subunit 7a-
Letterbox Canyon, Subunit 7b-Rancho Carrillo, Subunit 7d-Rancho La
Costa, Subunit 8b-Rancho Santalina/Loma Alta, Subunit 8d-Upham, and
Subunit 8f-Oleander/San Marcos Elementary (See Table 1).
These large occurrences are present in habitat areas that contain
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
this species. These areas generally represent large contiguous blocks
of intact habitat. The conservation of these large populations will
increase the resilience of the species across its range and contribute
to the overall recovery of this species.
(3) The third criterion is any area that supports an occurrence
considered to be stable and persistent. We consider occurrences that
have between 850 and 3,000 flowering stems that have been observed in
multiple years to be stable and persistent because we expect these
occurrences to have a sufficient number of corms to sustain the
occurrence for a number of years if the habitat remains unaltered.
These areas contribute to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia by
providing resilience for the species by decreasing the probability of
the species becoming extinct, and by contributing to the genetic
diversity of the species. The conservation of these areas helps B.
filifolia to maintain its current geographic distribution, since these
resilient occurrences are found throughout the range of the species.
This is particularly important for B. filifolia because this species
relies on outcrossing for successful reproduction.
To determine if any additional areas met the third criterion, we
looked at all occurrences with fewer than 850 flowering stalks to
determine if any of these exhibited the same persistence and stability
characteristics to provide similar conservation value as the other
identified occurrences with greater than 850 flowering stalks (since
the counts for an occurrence vary from year to year). We found that one
occurrence with fewer than 850 flowering stalks (at the Arbor Creek/
Colucci site) exhibited characteristics of a stable, persistent
occurrence (i.e., an occurrence of consistent size not substantially
less than 850 flowering stalks); therefore, this occurrence fulfills
the ecological role of sites we are interested in identifying through
this criterion, even though the high count at this site is 620
flowering stalks.
Of the 68 occurrences of Brodiaea filifolia that we identified as
being extant in our 5-year review for this species (Service 2009b),
areas supporting 36 occurrences meet one or more of the 3 criteria
outlined above. Seven of these areas are exempt from this critical
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see Exemptions
Under Section 4(a)(3) of the Act section), and the remaining 29 areas
were proposed as revised critical habitat (74 FR 64930; December 8,
2009). Of these 29 areas, 14 fit into one of the 4 reasons that areas
meet the ``rare or unique habitat'' criterion, 13 meet the ``largest
occurrences'' criterion, and 13 meet the ``stable and persistent
occurrences'' criterion. Of these 29 areas, 3 are excluded from this
final revised critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (Subunits 7d, 11g, and 11h), and 5 are partially excluded from this
final revised critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (portions of Subunits 7a, 7c, 11f, and Units 3 and 12) (see
Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
The habitat areas that meet one or more of the criteria represent
the historical range of the species, and are adequate to provide for
this species' conservation. Habitat areas and the occurrences they
support that do not meet any of the three criteria may still be
important to the conservation of this species, but without the
conservation of the habitat areas and occurrences identified through
this process, the recovery effort for this species may be impaired.

Other Factors Involved With Delineating Critical Habitat

Following the identification of areas supporting 36 occurrences of
the 68 extant occurrences that met one of the 3 criteria listed above,
we mapped the area that contained the PCEs at each occurrence including
habitat extending beyond the perimeters of mapped occurrences of
Brodiaea filifolia by up to 820 ft (250 m) to provide adequate space to
support the habitat and alternate food sources needed for pollinators
of B. filifolia (see Habitat for Pollinators of Brodiaea filifolia
section).
Areas that did not provide habitat for Brodiaea filifolia or
potential pollinators were removed from the 820-ft (250-m) zone of
mapped occurrences of B. filifolia, such as areas that were developed
or severely altered by grading. Our mapping methodology captures the
PCEs in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to
the conservation of the species, and encompasses the range of
environmental variability for this species.
When determining the final revised critical habitat boundaries for
Brodiaea filifolia, we made every effort to map precisely the areas
that contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. However, we cannot guarantee that every
fraction of revised critical habitat contains the PCEs due to the
mapping scale that we use to draft critical habitat boundaries.
Additionally, we made every attempt to avoid including developed areas
such as lands underlying buildings, pavement, and other structures
because such lands lack PCEs for B. filifolia. The scale of the maps we
prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed
lands. Any

[[Page 6865]]

such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown
on the maps of this revised critical habitat are excluded by text in
this rule and are not designated critical habitat. Therefore, Federal
actions involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation
with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse
modification, unless the specific actions may affect adjacent critical
habitat.

Revised Critical Habitat Designation

We are designating 2,947 ac (1,193 ha) in 10 units, subdivided into
23 subunits as revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia. The
unit numbers in this rule correspond to those used in the 2004 proposed
rule and the 2005 final rule; however, Units 9 and 10 were not proposed
and Units 11 and 12 are new to this revised rule. Unit 11 represents
lands in Riverside County excluded from the 2005 designation of
critical habitat, and Unit 12 represents the Artesian Trails area in
San Diego County that is now partially included based on new occurrence
data in this area. To minimize confusion with the previous proposal and
designation we are not using Unit numbers 9 and 10 in this rule (see
Table 2 and Summary of Changes from the Proposed Revised Rule and the
Previous Critical Habitat Designation section).
The areas we describe below constitute our best assessment of areas
that meet the definition of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia. We
determined these areas are within the geographical area occupied at the
time of listing, and contain the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of B. filifolia that may require special
management considerations or protection. We are not designating any
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing because we determined that the lands we are designating as
revised critical habitat are adequate to ensure conservation of B.
filifolia. The lands designated as revised critical habitat represent a
subset of the total lands occupied by B. filifolia. Table 4 identifies
the approximate area of each designated critical habitat subunit by
land ownership. These subunits, which generally correspond to the
geographic area of the subunits delineated in the 2005 designation (see
Table 2 for a detailed comparison of this rule and the 2005
designation), replace the 2005 critical habitat designation for B.
filifolia in 50 CFR 17.96(a).

Table 4--Area Estimates in Acres (ac) and Hectares (ha), and Land Ownership for Brodiaea filifolia Final Revised Critical Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership
Location ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total area **
Federal * State government Local government Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Los Angeles County
1a. Glendora............. 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 67 ac (27 ha)............ 67 ac (27 ha).
1b. San Dimas............ 13 ac (5 ha)......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 125 ac (51 ha)........... 138 ac (56 ha).
Unit 2: San Bernardino County
2. Arrowhead Hot Springs. 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 61 ac (25 ha)............ 61 ac (25 ha).
Unit 3: Central Orange County
3. Aliso Canyon.......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 11 ac (4 ha)............. 11 ac (4 ha).
Unit 4: Southern Orange
County
4b. Caspers Wilderness 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 12 ac (5 ha)............. 12 ac (5 ha).
Park.
4c. Ca[ntilde]ada 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 133 ac (54 ha)........... 133 ac (54 ha).
Gobernadora/Chiquita
Ridgeline.
4g. Cristianitos Canyon.. 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 587ac (238 ha)........... 587ac (238 ha).
Unit 5: Northern San Diego
County
5b. Devil Canyon......... 266 ac (108 ha)...... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 8 ac (3 ha).............. 274 ac (111ha).
Unit 6: Oceanside
6a. Alta Creek........... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 72 ac (29 ha)............ 72 ac (29 ha).
6b. Mesa Drive........... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 17 ac (7 ha)............. 17 ac (7 ha).
6c. Mission View/Sierra 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 12 ac (5 ha)............. 12 ac (5 ha).
Ridge.
6d. Taylor/Darwin........ 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 35 ac (14 ha)............ 35 ac (14 ha).
6e. Arbor Creek/Colucci.. 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 94 ac (38 ha)............ 94 ac (38 ha).
Unit 7: Carlsbad
7a. Letterbox Canyon..... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 1 ac (<1 ha)......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 41 ac (17 ha)............ 43 ac (17 ha).
7b. Rancho Carrillo...... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 37 ac (15 ha)............ 37 ac (15 ha).
7c. Calavera Hills 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 26 ac (11 ha)............ 26 ac (11 ha).
Village H.
Unit 8: San Marcos and Vista
8b. Rancho Santalina/Loma 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 47 ac (19 ha)............ 47 ac (19 ha).
Alta.
8d. Upham................ 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 54 ac (22 ha)............ 54 ac (22 ha).
8f. Oleander/San Marcos 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 7 ac (3 ha).............. 7 ac (3 ha).
Elementary.
Unit 11: Western Riverside
County
11a. San Jacinto Wildlife 0 ac (0 ha).......... 366 ac (148 ha)...... 17 ac (7 ha)......... 18 ac (7 ha)............. 401 ac (162 ha).
Area.
11b. San Jacinto Avenue/ 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 117 ac (47 ha)........... 117 ac (47 ha).
Dawson Road.
11c. Case Road........... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 11 ac (5 ha)......... 169 ac (68 ha)........... 180 ac (73 ha).
11d. Railroad Canyon..... 53 ac (21 ha)........ 0 ac (0 ha).......... 1 ac (<1 ha)......... 204 ac (83 ha)........... 257 ac (104 ha).
11e. Upper Salt Creek 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 145 ac (59 ha)........... 145 ac (59 ha).
(Stowe Pool).
11f. Santa Rosa Plateau-- 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 5 ac (2 ha).......... 8 ac (3 ha).............. 13 ac (5 ha).
Mesa de Colorado.
Unit 12: Central San Diego
County
12. Artesian Trails...... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 0 ac (0 ha).......... 7 ac (3 ha).......... 98 ac (40 ha)............ 105 ac (43 ha).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 6866]]

Total**.............. 332 ac (134 ha)...... 367 ac (148 ha)...... 41 ac (17 ha)........ 2,205 ac (894 ha)........ 2,947 ac (1,193 ha).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1,531 ac (620 ha) of federally owned land on MCB Camp Pendleton is exempt from this revised critical habitat (see Exemptions Under Section 4(a)(3) of
the Act section).
** Values in this table and the following text may not sum due to rounding.

Presented below are brief descriptions of all subunits and reasons
why they meet the definition of critical habitat for Brodiaea
filifolia. The subunits are listed in order geographically north to
south and west to east.

Unit 1: Los Angeles County

Unit 1 is located in Los Angeles County, and consists of two
subunits totaling 206 ac (83 ha). This unit contains 13 ac (5 ha) of
federally owned land and 192 ac (78 ha) of private land.
Subunit 1a: Glendora
Subunit 1a consists of 67 ac (27 ha) of private land in the City of
Glendora, in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles
County. Lands within this subunit contain Cieneba-Exchequer-Sobrante
soils, a type of silty loam, and consist primarily of northern mixed
chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat. Subunit 1a contains the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
Brodiaea filifolia because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia,
including sandy loam soils (PCE 1E) and areas with a natural, generally
intact surface and subsurface soil structure that support B. filifolia
and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); (2) supports a rare or unique
occurrence, representing one of two occurrences located in the
foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains which are part of the Transverse
Ranges where the species was historically found, and is also
significant because it is the northernmost occurrence known; and (3)
supports a stable, persistent occurrence of approximately 2,000 plants.
The physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
the species in this subunit may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats from nonnative invasive
plants. The site is protected from development and is owned by the
Glendora Community Conservancy (GCC). The GCC has expressed interest in
creating a management plan for their land; however, a comprehensive
management plan that would specifically address the control of
nonnative plants has not been completed at this time. Please see the
Special Management Considerations or Protection section of this rule
for a discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat and potential
management considerations.
Subunit 1b: San Dimas
Subunit 1b consists of 13 ac (5 ha) of Federal land (Angeles
National Forest) and 125 ac (51 ha) of private land near the City of
San Dimas in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles
County. Lands within this subunit contain Cieneba-Exchequer-Sobrante
soils, a type of silty loam, and consist primarily of northern mixed
chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat. Subunit 1b contains the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
Brodiaea filifolia because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia,
including sandy loam soils (PCE 1E) and areas with a natural, generally
intact surface and subsurface soil structure that support B. filifolia
and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); (2) supports a rare or unique
occurrence, representing one of two occurrences located in the
foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains which are part of the Transverse
Ranges where the species was historically found, and represents the
only likely genetic connection to plants in the Glendora subunit; and
(3) supports two significant populations totaling about 6,000
individuals of B. filifolia, as documented in 1990 (CNDDB 2009, p. 37).
Several proposals for development of this area have been reviewed by
the City of Glendora (D. Walter, Senior Planner City of Glendora pers.
comm. to G. Wallace, Service 2005). Additionally, illegal grading has
occurred on the northern portion of this subunit (grading was halted by
the City of Glendora). The physical and biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats from urban
development on private lands, including minimizing disturbance to the
surface and subsurface structure, and to maintain pollinator habitat.
Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section
of this rule for a discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat
and potential management considerations.

Unit 2: San Bernardino County--Arrowhead Hot Springs

Unit 2 is located in San Bernardino County, California, and
consists of 61 ac (25 ha) of private land at the southwestern base of
the San Bernardino Mountains. This unit was not included in the 2005
final critical habitat designation, but is included in this rule based
on new information related to the distribution of Brodiaea filifolia.
Lands within this unit contain Cieneba-rock outcrop complex and Ramona
family-Typic Xerothents soils altered by hydrothermal activity, some of
which are considered alluvial, and consist primarily of coastal sage
scrub habitat. Unit 2 contains the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of B. filifolia because it: (1) Contains
the PCEs for B. filifolia, including soils altered by hydrothermal
activity (PCE 1B) and areas with a natural, generally intact surface
and subsurface soil structure that support B. filifolia and pollinator
habitat (PCE 2); (2) supports a rare or unique occurrence, representing
the only occurrence of this plant in the foothills of the San
Bernardino Mountains part of the Transverse Ranges where the species
was historically found, and representing the type locality for B.
filifolia (Niehaus 1971, p. 57; CNDDB 2009, p. 7); and (3) supports a
stable, persistent occurrence. The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may
require special management considerations or protection to address
threats from nonnative invasive plants. Please see the Special
Management Considerations or Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat and potential
management considerations.

[[Page 6867]]

Unit 3: Central Orange County--Aliso Canyon

Unit 3 is located in central Orange County, California, and
consists of 11 ac (4 ha) of private land in the City of Laguna Niguel,
southwestern Orange County. These totals do not include 102 ac (42 ha)
of land in Unit 3 that we are exercising our delegated discretion to
exclude from this revised designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
(see the Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section of this
rule). This unit was not included in the 2005 final critical habitat
designation, but is included in this rule based on new information
related to the distribution of Brodiaea filifolia. Lands within this
unit contain clay loam or other types of loam and consist of annual and
needlegrass grassland. Unit 3 contains the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of B. filifolia because it: (1)
Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia, including loamy soils underlain by
a clay subsoil (PCE 1A) and areas with a natural, generally intact
surface and subsurface soil structure that support B. filifolia and
pollinator habitat (PCE 2); and (2) supports an occurrence of at least
5,000 individuals of B. filifolia, as documented in 2001 (CNDDB 2009,
p. 51). The physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this subunit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats from fuel
management activities (annual mowing) and pipeline work. Please see the
Special Management Considerations or Protection section of this rule
for a discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat and potential
management considerations.

Unit 4: Southern Orange County

Unit 4 is located in southern Orange County, California, and
consists of 3 subunits totaling 732 ac (297 ha) of private land. These
totals do not include portions of Subunit 4b (192 ac (78 ha)) that we
are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude from this revised
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see the Exclusions under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section of this rule). Subunits 4a, 4d, 4e,
4f, 4h, and 4i as proposed in the December 8, 2004, rule (69 FR 71283)
did not meet the definition of critical habitat and were not proposed
for revised designation.
Subunit 4b: Wilderness Park
Subunit 4b consists of 12 ac (5 ha) of private land in the City of
San Juan Capistrano and the Audubon California Starr Ranch Sanctuary,
in the southwestern region of the Santa Ana Mountains, southern Orange
County. Lands within this subunit contain clay loam, sandy loam, or
rocky outcrop, and consist primarily of grassland and sagebrush-
buckwheat scrub habitat. Subunit 4b contains the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia
because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia, including clay
soils and loamy soils underlain by a clay subsoil (PCE 1A), and areas
with a natural, generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure
that support B. filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); and (2)
supports a stable, persistent occurrence. This subunit is located in
the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains and represents the highest
elevation and northernmost occurrence in Orange County. The physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of the species in
this subunit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats from nonnative invasive plants. Please
see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section of this
rule for a discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat and
potential management considerations.
Subunit 4c: Ca[ntilde]ada Gobernadora/Chiquita Ridgeline
Subunit 4c consists of 133 ac (54 ha) of private land in and around
Ca[ntilde]ada Gobernadora on Rancho Mission Viejo in southern Orange
County. Lands within this subunit contain clay, clay loam, or sandy
loam and consist primarily of dry-land agriculture and sagebrush-
buckwheat scrub habitat. Subunit 4c contains the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia
because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia, including clay
soils and loamy soils underlain by a clay subsoil (PCE 1A), and areas
with a natural, generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure
that support B. filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); and (2)
supports a stable, persistent occurrence. The physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit
may require special management considerations or protection to address
threats from the indirect effects associated with urban development.
Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section
of this rule for a discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat
and potential management considerations.
Subunit 4g: Cristianitos Canyon
Subunit 4g consists of 587 ac (238 ha) of privately owned land in
Cristianitos Canyon on Rancho Mission Viejo in southern Orange County.
Lands within this subunit are underlain by clay and sandy loam soils
and consist primarily of annual grassland and needlegrass grassland.
Subunit 4g contains the physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia because it: (1) Contains the
PCEs for B. filifolia, including clay soils and loamy soils underlain
by a clay subsoil (PCE 1A), and areas with a natural, generally intact
surface and subsurface soil structure that support B. filifolia and
pollinator habitat (PCE 2); (2) supports an occurrence in rare and
unique habitat, representing one of the few places where this species
occurs in needlegrass grassland in Orange County; and (3) supports an
occurrence of at least 6,505 individuals of B. filifolia, as documented
in 2003 (Dudek & Associates, Inc. 2006, Chapter 3 pp. 73-74, 83;
Service 2007, pp. 149-150). The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may
require special management considerations or protection to address
threats from the indirect effects associated with urban development.
Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section
of this rule for a discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat
and potential management considerations.

Unit 5: Northern San Diego County

Unit 5 is located in northern San Diego County, and consists of one
subunit totaling 274 ac (111 ha). This unit contains 266 ac (108 ha) of
Federal Government land and 8 ac (3 ha) of private land. This unit is
located entirely within the boundary of the CNF. Subunit 5a as proposed
in the December 8, 2004, rule (69 FR 71283) did not meet the definition
of critical habitat and was not proposed for revised designation.
Subunit 5b: Devil Canyon
Subunit 5b consists of 266 ac (108 ha) of Federal land (CNF) and 8
ac (3 ha) of private land in northern San Diego County. Hybrids between
Brodiaea filifolia and B. orcuttii have been reported from the Devil
Canyon site, however, we believe B. filifolia occurs in sufficient
numbers in this area to meet the criteria for critical habitat
designation (see the Special Management Considerations or Protection
section of this rule for a discussion of Brodiaea hybridization). Lands
within this subunit contain Cieneba Very Rocky Coarse Sandy Loam,
Fallbrook Sandy Loam, and Cieneba Coarse Sandy Loam soils and

[[Page 6868]]

consist primarily of chaparral and oak woodland vegetation. Subunit 5b
contains the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of Brodiaea filifolia because it: (1) Contains the PCEs
for B. filifolia, including sandy loam soils (PCE 1E) and areas with a
natural, generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure that
support B. filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); (2) supports an
occurrence in rare and unique habitat, representing one of the few
places where this species occurs in a drainage in oak woodland habitat
and occurring in unusual seeps and drainages on low granitic outcrops;
and (3) supports a stable, persistent occurrence. The CNF does not
currently have a management plan specific to B. filifolia. The 2005
critical habitat rule for B. filifolia and the 2009 proposed revised
critical habitat rule erroneously stated that grazing occurs in this
area; this area is in fact not subjected to cattle grazing (Winter
2004, pers. comm.). The physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonnative invasive plants. Please see the Special Management
Considerations or Protection section of this rule for a discussion of
the threats to B. filifolia habitat and potential management
considerations.

Unit 6: Oceanside, San Diego County

Unit 6 is located in Oceanside, San Diego County, California, and
consists of five subunits totaling 230 ac (93 ha) of private land.
Subunit 6a: Alta Creek
Subunit 6a consists of 72 ac (29 ha) of private land in the City of
Oceanside, in northern coastal San Diego County. This subunit was not
included in the 2005 final critical habitat designation, but is
included in this rule based on new information related to the
distribution of Brodiaea filifolia. Lands within this subunit contain
fine sandy loam, loam, or loamy fine sand and consist primarily of
coastal sage scrub habitat. Subunit 6a contains the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of B. filifolia
because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia, including loamy
soils underlain by a clay subsoil (PCE 1A) and areas with a natural,
generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure that support B.
filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); and (2) supports a stable,
persistent occurrence of at least 1,500 individuals of B. filifolia
(Affinis 2005, pp. 1-3; AMEC 2005 pp. 3-18). The physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species in
this subunit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats from the indirect effects associated with
urban development. Please see the Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a discussion of the threats to B.
filifolia habitat and potential management considerations.
Subunit 6b: Mesa Drive
Subunit 6b consists of 17 ac (7 ha) of private land in the City of
Oceanside, in northern coastal San Diego County. Lands within this
subunit contain loamy fine sands and consist primarily of grassland
habitat. Subunit 6b contains the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia because it: (1)
Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia, including loamy soils underlain by
a clay subsoil (PCE 1A) and areas with a natural, generally intact
surface and subsurface soil structure that support B. filifolia and
pollinator habitat (PCE 2); and (2) supports a stable, persistent
occurrence of at least 1,500 individuals of B. filifolia (Roberts
2005a, pp.1-2). The physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this subunit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats from the
indirect effects associated with urban development and habitat
disturbance on local government lands (Roberts 2005, pp. 1-3). Please
see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section of this
rule for a discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat and
potential management considerations.
Subunit 6c: Mission View/Sierra Ridge
Subunit 6c consists of 12 ac (5 ha) of private land in the City of
Oceanside, in northern coastal San Diego County. This subunit was not
included in the 2005 final critical habitat designation, but is
included in this rule based on new information related to the
distribution of Brodiaea filifolia. Lands within this subunit contain
fine loamy sands and consist primarily of coastal sage scrub habitat.
Subunit 6c contains the physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of B. filifolia because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for
B. filifolia, including loamy soils underlain by a clay subsoil (PCE
1A) and areas with a natural, generally intact surface and subsurface
soil structure that support B. filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE
2); and (2) supports a stable, persistent occurrence of at least 1,300
individuals of B. filifolia (Roberts 2005b, p. 1). The physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species in
this subunit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats from the indirect effects associated with
urban development. Please see the Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a discussion of the threats to B.
filifolia habitat and potential management considerations.
Subunit 6d: Taylor/Darwin
Subunit 6d consists of 35 ac (14 ha) of private land in the City of
Oceanside, in northern coastal San Diego County. Lands within this
subunit contain clay soil and fine loamy sands and consist primarily of
annual and needlegrass grassland. Subunit 6d contains the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia
because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia, including loamy
soils underlain by a clay subsoil (PCE 1A) and areas with a natural,
generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure that support B.
filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); and (2) supports an
occurrence of at least 6,200 individuals of B. filifolia, as documented
in 2005 (CNDDB 2009, p. 38). The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may
require special management considerations or protection to address
threats from nonnative invasive plants. Please see the Special
Management Considerations or Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat and potential
management considerations.
Subunit 6e: Arbor Creek/Colucci
Subunit 6e consists of 94 ac (38 ha) of private land in the City of
Oceanside, in northern coastal San Diego County. This subunit was not
included in the 2005 final critical habitat designation but is included
in this rule based on new information related to the distribution of
Brodiaea filifolia. Lands within this subunit contain clay soil and
fine loamy sands and consist primarily of annual and needlegrass
grassland. Subunit 6e contains the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of B. filifolia because it: (1) Contains
the PCEs for B. filifolia, including loamy soils underlain by a clay
subsoil (PCE 1A) and areas with a natural, generally intact surface and
subsurface soil structure that support B. filifolia and pollinator
habitat (PCE 2);

[[Page 6869]]

and (2) supports a stable, persistent occurrence; and (3) consists
primarily of annual and needlegrass grassland and occurs in the largest
continuous block of grassland habitat remaining in the City of
Oceanside. The physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this subunit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonnative invasive plants and urban development. Please see the Special
Management Considerations or Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat and potential
management considerations.

Unit 7: Carlsbad, San Diego County

Unit 7 is located in Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, and
consists of three subunits totaling 105 ac (43 ha). This unit contains
1 ac (<1 ha) of State land and 104 ac (43 ha) of private land. These
totals do not include Subunit 7d (98 ac (40 ha)) and portions of
Subunit 7a (13 ac (5 ha)) and Subunit 7c (45 ac (18 ha)) that we are
exercising our delegated discretion to exclude from this revised
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see the Exclusions under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section of this rule), or 2 ac (<1 ha) that
were proposed as revised critical habitat but are not included in this
final revised critical habitat designation because they do not support
suitable habitat for the species.
Subunit 7a: Letterbox Canyon
Subunit 7a consists of 1 ac (<1 ha) of State land and 41 ac (17 ha)
of private land in the City of Carlsbad, in northern coastal San Diego
County, California. Lands within this subunit contain heavy clay soils
and consist primarily of annual grassland. Subunit 7a contains the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of B.
filifolia because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia, including
loamy soils underlain by a clay subsoil (PCE 1A) and areas with a
natural, generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure that
support B. filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); and (2) supports
an occurrence of at least 39,500 individuals of B. filifolia, as
documented in 2005 (CNDDB 2009, p. 15). The physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit
may require special management considerations or protection to address
threats from the indirect effects associated with urban development.
Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section
of this rule for a discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat
and potential management considerations.
Subunit 7b: Rancho Carrillo
Subunit 7b consists of 37 ac (15 ha) of private land in the City of
Carlsbad, in northern coastal San Diego County, California. This
subunit was not included in the 2005 final critical habitat
designation, but is included in this rule based on new information
related to the distribution of Brodiaea filifolia. Lands within this
subunit contain clay or sandy loam soils and consist primarily of
annual grasslands and coastal sage scrub habitat. Subunit 7b contains
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
B. filifolia because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia,
including loamy soils underlain by a clay subsoil (PCE 1A) and areas
with a natural, generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure
that support B. filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); and (2)
supports an occurrence of at least 797,000 individuals of B. filifolia,
as documented in 2005 (this estimate was of vegetative plants and not
flowering plants) (Scheidt and Allen 2005, p. 1). The physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species in
this subunit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats from the indirect effects associated with
urban development and nonnative invasive plants. Please see the Special
Management Considerations or Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat and potential
management considerations.
Subunit 7c: Calavera Hills Village H
Subunit 7c consists of 26 ac (11 ha) of private land in the City of
Carlsbad, in northern coastal San Diego County. Lands within this
subunit contain clay soil and consist primarily of annual and
needlegrass grassland. Subunit 7c contains the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia because
it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia, including loamy soils
underlain by a clay subsoil (PCE 1A) and areas with a natural,
generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure that support B.
filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); and (2) supports a stable,
persistent occurrence of at least 2,243 plants, as documented in 2008
(McConnell 2008, p. 9). The physical and biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonnative invasive plants. Please see the Special Management
Considerations or Protection section of this rule for a discussion of
the threats to B. filifolia habitat and potential management
considerations.

Unit 8: San Marcos, San Diego County

Unit 8 is located in San Marcos, northern San Diego County,
California, and consists of three subunits totaling 108 ac (44 ha) of
private land. Subunits 8a, 8c, and 8e as proposed in the December 8,
2004, rule (69 FR 71283) did not meet the definition of critical
habitat and were not proposed for revised designation.
Subunit 8b: Rancho Santalina/Loma Alta
Subunit 8b consists of 47 ac (19 ha) of private land in the City of
San Marcos, northern San Diego County, California. This subunit was not
included in the 2005 final critical habitat designation, but is
included in this rule based on new information related to the
distribution of Brodiaea filifolia. Lands within this subunit contain
clay, loam, or loamy fine sand soils and consist primarily of annual
and needlegrass grassland. Subunit 8b contains the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of B. filifolia
because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia, including loamy
soils underlain by a clay subsoil (PCE 1A) and areas with a natural,
generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure that support B.
filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); and (2) supports an
occurrence of at least 5,552 individuals of B. filifolia, as documented
in 2000, and approximately 12,000 B. filifolia corms were transplanted
to the area in 2004 (CNDDB 2009, p. 10). The physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit
may require special management considerations or protection to address
threats from the indirect effects associated with urban development,
unauthorized recreational activities, and nonnative invasive plants.
Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section
of this rule for a discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat
and potential management considerations.
Subunit 8d: Upham
Subunit 8d consists of 54 ac (22 ha) of private land in the City of
San Marcos, northern San Diego County. Hybrids between Brodiaea
filifolia and B. orcuttii have been reported from the Upham site
(Chester et al. 2007, p. 188),

[[Page 6870]]

however, based on the best scientific information available to us at
this time, we believe B. filifolia occurs in sufficient numbers in this
area to meet the criteria for critical habitat designation (see the
Special Management Considerations or Protection section of this rule
for a discussion of Brodiaea hybridization). Lands within this subunit
contain clay soils and consist primarily of annual and needlegrass
grassland and vernal pool habitat. Subunit 8d contains the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia
because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia, including loamy
soils underlain by a clay subsoil (PCE 1A) and areas with a natural,
generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure that support B.
filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); (2) supports a rare or unique
occurrence, representing one of three occurrences that are associated
with vernal pool habitat; and (3) supports an occurrence of at least
342,000 individuals of B. filifolia, as documented in 1993 (CNDDB 2009,
p. 9). The physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this subunit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats from the
indirect effects associated with urban development, unauthorized
recreational activities, and nonnative invasive plants. Please see the
Special Management Considerations or Protection section of this rule
for a discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat and potential
management considerations.
Subunit 8f: Oleander/San Marcos Elementary
Subunit 8f consists of 7 ac (3 ha) of land owned by the San Marcos
Unified School District near the City of San Marcos, in northern San
Diego County. This subunit was not included in the 2005 final critical
habitat designation, but is included in this rule based on new
information related to the distribution of Brodiaea filifolia. Lands
within this subunit contain clay, loam, or loamy fine sand soils and
consist primarily of annual grassland. Unit 8f contains the physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of B. filifolia
because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia, including loamy
soils underlain by a clay subsoil (PCE 1A) and areas with a natural,
generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure that support B.
filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); and (2) supports an
occurrence of at least 3,211 individuals of B. filifolia, as documented
in 2005 (Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2007, p.9). The physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species in
this subunit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats from nonnative invasive plants. Please
see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section of this
rule for a discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat and
potential management considerations.

Unit 11: Western Riverside County

Unit 11 is located in western Riverside County, California, and
consists of 6 subunits totaling 1,113 ac (450 ha). This unit contains
53 ac (21 ha) of Federal land, 366 ac (148 ha) of State land, 33 ac (13
ha) of local government land, and 661 ac (267 ha) of private land.
These totals do not include Subunits 11g (117 ac (47 ha)), 11h (44 ac
(18 ha)) and portions of Subunit 11f (221 ac (89 ha)) that we are
exercising our delegated discretion to exclude from this revised
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see the Exclusions under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section of this rule).
Subunit 11a: San Jacinto Wildlife Area
Subunit 11a consists of 366 ac (148 ha) of State land (California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)), 17 ac (7 ha) of local government
land, and 18 ac (7 ha) of private land at the San Jacinto Wildlife
Area, in western Riverside County. Lands within this subunit contain
Willows silty clay, Waukena loam and Waukena fine sandy loam, Traver
fine sandy loam and Traver loamy fine sand, and Hanford coarse sandy
loam soils and consist primarily of annual grassland, alkali scrub
habitat, and alkali playa habitat. Subunit 11a contains the physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of Brodiaea
filifolia because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia, including
silty loam soils underlain by a clay subsoil or caliche that are
generally poorly drained and moderately to strongly alkaline (PCE 1C)
and areas with a natural, generally intact surface and subsurface soil
structure that support B. filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); (2)
supports a rare or unique occurrence, representing one of four
occurrences associated with alkali playa habitat; and (3) supports a
stable, persistent occurrence. The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may
require special management considerations or protection to address
threats from nonnative invasive plants and construction of new roads or
improvements to existing roadways (Service 2004b, pp. 137-189). Please
see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section of this
rule for a discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat and
potential management considerations.
Subunit 11b: San Jacinto Avenue/Dawson Road
Subunit 11b consists of 117 ac (47 ha) of private land near San
Jacinto Avenue and Dawson Road, in western Riverside County. Lands
within this subunit contain Willows silty clay and Domino silt loam
soils and consist primarily of annual grassland, alkali scrub habitat,
and alkali playa habitat. Subunit 11b contains the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia
because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia, including silty
loam soils underlain by a clay subsoil or caliche that are generally
poorly drained and moderately to strongly alkaline (PCE 1C) and areas
with a natural, generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure
that support B. filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); and (2)
supports a rare or unique occurrence, representing one of four
occurrences that are associated with alkali playa habitat. The physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of the species in
this subunit may require special management considerations or
protection to address threats from discing, grazing, manure dumping,
and nonnative invasive plants (CNDDB 2009, p. 60). Please see the
Special Management Considerations or Protection section of this rule
for a discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat and potential
management considerations.
Subunit 11c: Case Road
Subunit 11c consists of 11 ac (4 ha) of local government land and
169 ac (68 ha) of private land near the City of Perris, in western
Riverside County. Lands within this subunit contain Willows silty clay
and Domino silt loam soils and consist primarily of agricultural land,
floodplain habitat, alkali scrub habitat, and alkali playa habitat.
Subunit 11c contains the physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia because it: (1) Contains the
PCEs for B. filifolia, including silty loam soils underlain by a clay
subsoil or caliche that are generally poorly drained and moderately to
strongly alkaline (PCE 1C) and areas with a natural, generally intact
surface and subsurface soil structure that support B. filifolia and

[[Page 6871]]

pollinator habitat (PCE 2); (2) supports a rare or unique occurrence,
representing one of four occurrences that are associated with alkali
playa habitat; and (3) supports an occurrence of at least 4,555
individuals of B. filifolia, as documented in 2000 (Glenn Lukos
Associates, Inc. 2000a, Map of San Jacinto River Stage 3 Project
Impacts Version 2 Alignment; Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. 2000b, pp.
17-18; CNDDB 2009, p. 2). The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may
require special management considerations or protection to address
threats from OHV activity, encroaching urban development, manure
dumping, and nonnative invasive plants. Please see the Special
Management Considerations or Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat and potential
management considerations.
Subunit 11d: Railroad Canyon
Subunit 11d consists of 53 ac (21 ha) of Federal land owned by the
Bureau of Land Management, 1 ac (<1 ha) of local government land, and
204 ac (83 ha) of private land north of Kabian County Park and
southwest of the City of Perris, in western Riverside County. Lands
within this subunit contain Lodo rocky loam, Garretson gravelly very
fine sandy loam and Garretson very fine sandy loam, Escondido fine
sandy loam, and Grangeville fine sandy loam soils and consist primarily
of annual grassland. Subunit 11d contains the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia because
it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia, including silty loam soils
underlain by a clay subsoil or caliche that are generally poorly
drained and moderately to strongly alkaline (PCE 1C) and areas with a
natural, generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure that
support B. filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); and (2) supports
an occurrence of at least 3,205 individuals of B. filifolia, as
documented in 2000 (Glenn Lukos Associates 2000a, pp. 13, 24; CNDDB
2009, p. 23). The occurrence in Railroad Canyon is at risk from the San
Jacinto River Flood Control Project. That project includes
channelization of the river, which may result in changes in floodplain
process essential to the species persistence in this subunit (Service
2004b, p. 382). The physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this subunit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats from the
indirect effects associated with urban development, river
channelization for flood control, and nonnative invasive plants. Please
see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section of this
rule for a discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat and
potential management considerations.
Subunit 11e: Upper Salt Creek (Stowe Pool)
Subunit 11e consists of 145 ac (59 ha) of private land in the Upper
Salt Creek drainage west of Hemet, in western Riverside County. Lands
within this subunit contain Willows silty clay, Chino silt loam, Honcut
loam, and Wyman loam and consist primarily of annual grassland, alkali
scrub habitat, and alkali playa habitat. Subunit 11e contains the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
Brodiaea filifolia because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia,
including silty loam soils underlain by a clay subsoil or caliche that
are generally poorly drained and moderately to strongly alkaline (PCE
1C), and areas with a natural, generally intact surface and subsurface
soil structure that support B. filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE
2); and (2) supports a rare or unique occurrence, representing one of
three occurrences that are associated with vernal pool habitat. This
subunit is crossed by roadways that, if altered (widened or realigned),
could change the topography and thereby negatively affect the
hydrologic integrity of the pool complexes and favor the growth of
nonnative invasive plant species (CNDDB 2009, p. 24; Service 2004b, p.
382). The physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this subunit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats from
nonnative invasive plants (such as Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum)
and transportation projects. Please see the Special Management
Considerations or Protection section of this rule for a discussion of
the threats to B. filifolia habitat and potential management
considerations.
Subunit 11f: Santa Rosa Plateau--Mesa de Colorado
Subunit 11f consists of 5 ac (2 ha) of local government land and 8
ac (3 ha) of private land in southwestern Riverside County. Lands
within this subunit contain Murrieta stony clay loam, and Las Posas
rocky loam and Las Posas loam soils and consist primarily of annual and
needlegrass grassland and vernal pool habitat. Subunit 11f contains the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
Brodiaea filifolia because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B. filifolia,
including clay loam soil series underlain by heavy clay loams or clays
derived from olivine basalt lava flows that generally occur on mesas
and gentle to moderate slopes (PCE 1D) and areas with a natural,
generally intact surface and subsurface soil structure that support B.
filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); (2) supports a rare or unique
occurrence, representing one of three occurrences that are associated
with vernal pool habitat; and (3) supports an occurrence of at least
31,725 individuals of B. filifolia, as documented in 1990 (CNDDB 2009,
p. 5). The physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this subunit may require special
management considerations or protection to address threats from the
indirect effects associated with urban development and nonnative
invasive plants. Please see the Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this rule for a discussion of the threats to B.
filifolia habitat and potential management considerations.

Unit 12: Central San Diego County--Artesian Trails

Unit 12 is located in central San Diego County, California, and
consists of 105 ac (43 ha). This unit contains 7 ac (3 ha) of local
government land and 98 ac (40 ha) of private land. These totals do not
include 4 ac (2 ha) of land in Unit 12 that we are exercising our
delegated discretion to exclude from this revised designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see the Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act section of this rule). This unit was not included in the 2005
final critical habitat designation, but is included in this rule based
on new information related to the distribution of Brodiaea filifolia.
Lands within this subunit contain fine loamy sands and consist
primarily of coastal sage scrub habitat and annual grassland. Unit 12
contains physical and biological features that are essential to the
conservation of B. filifolia because it: (1) Contains the PCEs for B.
filifolia, including loamy soils underlain by a clay subsoil (PCE 1A)
and areas with a natural, generally intact surface and subsurface soil
structure that support B. filifolia and pollinator habitat (PCE 2); and
(2) supports a stable, persistent occurrence. The physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species in
this subunit may require special management considerations or

[[Page 6872]]

protection to address threats from the indirect effects associated with
urban development and nonnative invasive plants. Please see the Special
Management Considerations or Protection section of this rule for a
discussion of the threats to B. filifolia habitat and potential
management considerations.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Decisions
by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated our
definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' (50 CFR 402.02)
(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378
F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)), and we do not rely
on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the
statutory provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse
modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of the
Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional
(or retain the current ability for the PCEs to be functionally
established) to serve its intended conservation role for the species
(Service 2004c, p. 3).
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency
(action agency) must enter into consultation with us in most cases. As
a result of this consultation, we document compliance with the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or designated
critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that are likely to
adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitat.
An exception to the concurrence process referred to in (1) above
occurs in consultations involving National Fire Plan projects. In 2004,
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) reached agreements with the Service to streamline a portion of
the section 7 consultation process (BLM-ACA 2004, pp. 1-8; FS-ACA 2004,
pp. 1-8). The agreements allow the USFS and the BLM the opportunity to
make ``not likely to adversely affect'' (NLAA) determinations for
projects implementing the National Fire Plan. Such projects include
prescribed fire, mechanical fuels treatments (thinning and removal of
fuels to prescribed objectives), emergency stabilization, burned area
rehabilitation, road maintenance and operation activities, ecosystem
restoration, and culvert replacement actions. The USFS and the BLM must
ensure staff are properly trained, and both agencies must submit
monitoring reports to the Service to determine if the procedures are
being implemented properly and that effects on endangered species and
their habitats are being properly evaluated. As a result, we do not
believe the alternative consultation processes being implemented as a
result of the National Fire Plan will differ significantly from those
consultations being conducted by the Service.
If we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable. We define ``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely
modifying its critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect Brodiaea filifolia or its
designated critical habitat will require section 7 consultation under
the Act. Activities on State, tribal, local, or private lands requiring
a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.) or a permit under section 10 of the Act from the Service) or
involving some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency) will also be subject to the section 7
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or
critical habitat, and actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require
section 7 consultations.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species, or would retain its current ability
for the primary constituent elements to be functionally established.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical and biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for
Brodiaea filifolia. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is
to support the life-history needs of the species and provide for the
conservation of the species. Generally, the conservation role of the B.
filifolia critical habitat units is to support viable occurrences in
appropriate habitat areas.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.

[[Page 6873]]

Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may adversely affect critical habitat and, therefore,
should result in consultation for Brodiaea filifolia include, but are
not limited to (please see Special Management Considerations or
Protection section for a more detailed discussion on the impacts of
these actions to the listed species):
(1) Actions that result in ground disturbance. Such activities
could include (but are not limited to) residential or commercial
development, OHV activity, pipeline construction, new road construction
or widening, existing road maintenance, manure dumping, and grazing.
These activities potentially impact the habitat and PCEs of Brodiaea
filifolia by damaging, disturbing, and altering soil composition
through direct impacts, increased erosion, and increased nutrient
content. Additionally, changes in soil composition may lead to changes
in the vegetation composition, thereby changing the overall habitat
type.
(2) Actions that result in alteration of the hydrological regimes
typically associated with Brodiaea filifolia habitat. Such activities
could include residential or commercial development, OHV activity,
pipeline construction, new road construction or widening, existing road
maintenance, and channelization of drainages. These activities could
alter surface layers and the hydrological regime in a manner that
promotes loss of soil matrix components and moisture necessary to
support the growth and reproduction of B. filifolia.
(3) Actions that would disturb the existing vegetation communities
adjacent to Brodiaea filifolia habitat prior to annual pollination and
seed set (reproduction). Such activities could include (but are not
limited to) grazing, mowing, grading, or discing habitat in the spring
and early summer months. These activities could alter the habitat for
pollinators leading to potential decreased pollination and
reproduction.
(4) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation,
and agricultural activities, or any activity funded or carried out,
permitted, or regulated by the Department of Transportation or
Department of Agriculture that could result in excavation, or
mechanized land clearing of Brodiaea filifolia habitat. These
activities could alter the habitat in such a way that soil, seeds, and
corms of B. filifolia are removed and which permanently alter the
habitat or the species' presence.
(5) Licensing or 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 Brodiaea
filifolia habitat. These activities could alter the habitat in such a
way that soil, seeds, and corms of B. filifolia are removed and that
permanently alter the habitat or the species' presence.

Exemptions Under Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act [Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act)] (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in
writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which
critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
The Sikes Act required each military installation that includes
land and water suitable for the conservation and management of natural
resources to complete an integrated natural resources management plan
(INRMP) by November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural
resources found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with federally listed species. Only one
military installation with a Service-approved INRMP, MCB Camp
Pendleton, is located within the range of Brodiaea filifolia and
supports the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. We analyzed MCB Camp Pendleton's INRMP to
determine if the lands subject to the INRMP should be exempted under
the authority of section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act.
MCB Camp Pendleton has committed to work closely with us, CDFG, and
California Department of Parks and Recreation to continually refine the
existing INRMP as part of the Sikes Act's INRMP review process. Based
on the considerations discussed below and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we determined that conservation efforts
identified in the INRMP provide a benefit to Brodiaea filifolia
occurring in habitats within or adjacent to MCB Camp Pendleton.
Therefore, approximately 1,531 ac (620 ha) of habitat on MCB Camp
Pendleton subject to the INRMP is exempt from critical habitat
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, and is not included in
this final revised critical habitat designation.
In the previous final critical habitat designation for Brodiaea
filifolia, we exempted lands determined to contain features essential
to the conservation of species on MCB Camp Pendleton from the
designation of critical habitat (70 FR 73820; December 13, 2005). We
based this decision on the conservation benefits to B. filifolia
identified in the INRMP developed by MCB Camp Pendleton in November
2001. A revised and updated INRMP was prepared by MCB Camp Pendleton in
March 2007 (MCB Camp Pendleton 2007). We determined that conservation
efforts identified in the INRMP provide a benefit to the populations of
B. filifolia and this species' habitat occurring on MCB Camp Pendleton
(MCB Camp Pendleton 2007, Section 4, pp. 51-76). The INRMP provides
measures that promote the conservation of B. filifolia within the 1,531
ac (620 ha) of habitat that we determined contain the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of B. filifolia on
MCB Camp Pendleton within the following areas: Cristianitos Canyon,
Bravo One, Bravo Two South, Basilone/San Mateo Junction, Camp Horno,
Pilgrim Creek, and South White Beach.
Measures included for Brodiaea filifolia in the MCB Camp Pendleton
INRMP require ongoing efforts to survey and monitor the species, and
provide this information to all necessary personnel through MCB Camp

[[Page 6874]]

Pendleton's GIS database on sensitive resources and in their published
resource atlas. The updated INRMP includes the following conservation
measures for B. filifolia:
(1) Surveys and monitoring, studies, impact avoidance and
minimization, and habitat restoration and enhancement;
(2) Species survey information stored in MCB Camp Pendleton's GIS
database and recorded in a resource atlas that is published and updated
on a semi-annual basis;
(3) Use of the resource atlas to plan operations and projects to
avoid impacts to B. filifolia and to trigger section 7 consultation if
an action may affect the species; and
(4) Transplantation when avoidance is not possible.
These measures are established and represent ongoing aspects of
existing programs that provide a benefit to B. filifolia. MCB Camp
Pendleton also has Base directives and Range and Training Regulations
that are integral to their INRMP and provide benefits to B. filifolia.
MCB Camp Pendleton implements Base Directives to avoid and minimize
adverse effects to B. filifolia, such as: (1) Limit bivouac, command
post, and field support activities such that they are no closer than
164 ft (50 m) to occupied habitat year round; (2) limit vehicle and
equipment operations to existing road and trail networks year round;
and (3) require environmental clearance prior to any soil excavation,
filling, or grading. Finally, MCB Camp Pendleton contracted and funded
surveys for B. filifolia in the summer of 2005 and the development of a
GIS-based monitoring system that will provide improved management of
natural resources on the installation, including for B. filifolia.
Additionally, MCB Camp Pendleton's environmental security staff
review projects and enforce existing regulations and orders that,
through their implementation, avoid and minimize impacts to natural
resources, including Brodiaea filifolia and its habitat. As a result,
activities occurring on MCB Camp Pendleton are currently being
conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts to B. filifolia habitat.
Finally, MCB Camp Pendleton provides training to personnel on
environmental awareness for sensitive resources on the Base, including
B. filifolia and its habitat.
Based on MCB Camp Pendleton's Sikes Act program (including the
management of Brodiaea filifolia), there is a high degree of certainty
that MCB Camp Pendleton will continue to implement their INRMP in
coordination with the Service and the CDFG in a manner that provides a
benefit to B. filifolia, coupled with a high degree of certainty that
the conservation efforts of their INRMP will be effective. Service
biologists work closely with MCB Camp Pendleton on a variety of issues
relating to endangered and threatened species, including B. filifolia.
The management programs, Base Directives, and Range and Training
Regulations that avoid and minimize impacts to B. filifolia are
consistent with section 7 consultations with MCB Camp Pendleton.
Therefore, the Secretary determined that the INRMP for MCB Camp
Pendleton has and will continue to provide a benefit for B. filifolia,
and lands subject to the INRMP for MCB Camp Pendleton containing the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species are exempt from critical habitat designation pursuant to
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. As a result, we are not including
approximately 1,531 ac (620 ha) of habitat for B. filifolia on MCP Camp
Pendleton in this final revised critical habitat designation.

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate
and revise critical habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an
area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the legislative history is clear that the Secretary has
broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight
to give to any factor.
In the following paragraphs, we address a number of general issues
that are relevant to our analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must consider the economic
impact, national security impact, or any other relevant impact of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we must
identify the benefits of including the area in the designation,
identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and
determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion. If based on this analysis, we make this determination, then
we can exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
We consider a number of factors in a section 4(b)(2) analysis. For
example, we consider whether there are lands owned or managed by the
Department of Defense (DOD) where a national security impact might
exist. We also consider whether the landowners have developed any
conservation plans for the area, or whether there are conservation
partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion
from, critical habitat. Additionally, we look at any tribal issues, and
consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States
with tribal entities. We also consider the economic impacts,
environmental impacts, and social impacts that might occur because of
the designation.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that
may apply to critical habitat.
In considering the benefits of including in a designation lands
that are covered by a current HCP or other management plan, we evaluate
a number of factors to help us determine if the plan provides
equivalent or greater conservation benefit than would likely result
from designation of critical habitat. Specifically, when evaluating a
conservation plan we consider, among other factors: whether the plan is
finalized; how it provides for the conservation of the essential
physical and biological features; whether the conservation management
strategies and actions contained in a management plan are in place and
there is a strong likelihood they will be implemented into the future;
whether the conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be
effective; and whether the plan contains a monitoring program or
adaptive management to ensure that the conservation measures are
effective and can be adapted in the future in response to new
information.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in long-term conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or
encouragement of partnerships that result in conservation

[[Page 6875]]

of listed species; or implementation of a management plan that provides
equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would
provide.
We may exercise our delegated discretion to exclude an area from
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act if we conclude that
the benefits of exclusion of the area outweigh the benefits of its
designation. We do not exclude areas based on the mere existence of
management plans or other conservation measures. The existence of a
plan may reduce the benefits of inclusion of an area in critical
habitat to the extent the protections provided under the plan are
redundant with conservation benefits of the critical habitat
designation. In particular, we believe that the exclusion of lands may
be justified when they are managed and conserved in perpetuity. Thus,
in some cases the benefits of exclusion in the form of sustaining and
encouraging partnerships that result in on the ground conservation of
listed species may outweigh the incremental benefits of inclusion.
After evaluating the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to determine whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If we determine that
they do, we then determine whether exclusion would result in
extinction. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat will result
in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.
In the case of Brodiaea filifolia, this revised critical habitat
designation does not include any tribal lands or tribal trust
resources. However, this revised critical habitat designation does
include some lands covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP, City
and County of San Diego Subarea Plans under the MSCP, Orange County
Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP, Orange County Southern Subregion HCP, and
Carlsbad HMP under the MHCP. No additional HCPs or conservation plans
covering B. filifolia were finalized since the proposed revised
designation published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2009 (74
FR 64930).

Benefits of Excluding Lands With HCPs

The benefits of excluding lands with approved HCPs from critical
habitat designation, such as HCPs that cover listed plant taxa, include
relieving landowners, communities, and counties of any additional
regulatory burden that might be imposed as a result of the critical
habitat designation. Many HCPs take years to develop, and upon
completion, are consistent with the recovery objectives for listed taxa
that are covered by the plan. Many conservation plans also provide
conservation benefits to unlisted sensitive species.
A related benefit of excluding lands covered by approved HCPs from
critical habitat designation is the unhindered, continued ability it
gives us to seek new partnerships with future plan participants,
including States, counties, local jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners, which together can implement
conservation actions that we would be unable to accomplish otherwise.
Habitat Conservation Plans often cover a wide range of species,
including listed plant species and species that are not State and
federally listed and would otherwise receive little protection from
development. By excluding these lands, we preserve our current
partnerships and encourage additional conservation actions in the
future.
We also note that permit issuance in association with HCP
applications requires consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act,
which would include the review of the effects of all HCP-covered
activities that might adversely impact the species under a jeopardy
standard, including possibly significant habitat modification (see
definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), even without the critical
habitat designation. In addition, all other Federal actions that may
affect the listed species would still require consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, and we would review these actions for
possibly significant habitat modification in accordance with the
definition of harm referenced above.
The information provided above applies to the following discussions
of exclusions under section (4)(b)(2) of the Act. Brodiaea filifolia is
covered under the Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP, Orange County
Southern Subregion HCP, Carlsbad HMP under the MHCP, Western Riverside
County MSHCP, and the City and County of San Diego Subarea Plans under
the MSCP. Brief descriptions of each plan, and lands excluded from
revised critical habitat covered by each plan, are described below. The
areas where we determined the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion are listed in Table 5. Additional details on
these areas can be found in the proposed revised critical habitat rule
74 FR 64930 (December 8, 2009) and the NOA (75 FR 42054, dated July 20,
2010).

San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP)--City of San Diego
Subarea Plan

We analyzed the benefits of including lands covered by the City of
San Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP in the final revised critical
habitat designation and the benefits of excluding those lands from the
designation. The plan has established valuable partnerships that are
intended to implement conservation actions for Brodiaea filifolia.
However, in conducting our evaluation of the conservation benefits to
B. filifolia and its proposed revised critical habitat that have
resulted to date from these partnerships, we did not conclude that the
benefits of excluding portions of Unit 12 under the City of San Diego
MSCP Subarea Plan from revised critical habitat outweighs the benefits
of inclusion. Therefore, we are not exercising our delegated discretion
to exclude any of the 7 ac (3 ha) within the City of San Diego Subarea
Plan from this final revised critical habitat designation.

Table 5--Areas Excluded From Brodiaea filifolia Final Revised Critical
Habitat Designation Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCP or management plan and associated
subunit Area excluded (acres/hectares) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park Resource Management Plan (Orange
County Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3. Central Orange County--Aliso 102 ac (42 ha).
Canyon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orange County Southern Subregion HCP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 4b. Caspers Wilderness Park.. 192 ac (78 ha).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 6876]]

Carlsbad HMP Under the San Diego MHCP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 7a. Letterbox Canyon......... 13 ac (5 ha).
Subunit 7c. Calavera Hills Village H. 45 ac (18 ha).
Subunit 7d. Villages of La Costa 98 ac (40 ha).
(Rancho La Costa).
----------------------------------
Subtotal Carlsbad HMP under the 156 ac (63 ha).
San Diego MHCP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Riverside County MSHCP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 11f. Santa Rosa Plateau--Mesa 221 ac (89 ha).
de Colorado.
Subunit 11g. Santa Rosa Plateau-- 117 ac (47 ha).
South of Tenaja Road.
Subunit 11h. Santa Rosa Plateau-- 44 ac (18 ha).
North of Tenaja Road.
----------------------------------
Subtotal for Western Riverside 381 ac (154 ha).
County MSHCP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County of San Diego Subarea Plan Under the San Diego MSCP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 12. Central San Diego County-- 4 ac (2 ha).
Artesian Trails.
----------------------------------
Total............................ 837 ac (339 ha).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values in this table may not sum due to rounding.

Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park Resource Management Plan (AWCWP
Resource Management Plan), Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP

We determined that approximately 113 ac (46 ha) in Unit 3 meet the
definition of critical habitat under the Act. Of this area, 102 ac (42
ha) are covered by the Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park Resource
Management Plan (AWCWP Resource Management Plan), and, for the reasons
discussed in the following sections, we are exercising our delegated
discretion to exclude these lands from this final revised critical
habitat designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In making
our final decision with regard to these lands, we considered several
factors including our relationship with stakeholders, existing
consultations, beneficial conservation measures that are in place on
these lands (including preservation and long-term management), and
impacts to current and future partnerships. As described in our section
4(b)(2) analysis below, we reached the determination to exclude these
lands in consideration of the benefits of exclusion balanced against
the benefits of inclusion in the final revised critical habitat
designation.
The AWCWP is a preserve area that covers approximately 3,873 ac
(1,567 ha) of land in Aliso and Wood Canyons and portions of Laguna
Canyon in the cities of Laguna Niguel, Laguna Hills, Aliso Viejo,
Laguna Beach, and Dana Point, Orange County, California. The AWCWP is
located within the Nature Reserve of Orange County (which is part of a
larger 17,000-ac (6,880-ha) regional coastal canyon ecosystem comprised
of Laguna Coast Wilderness Park, Crystal Cove State Park, and City of
Irvine Open Space) and is subject to the Orange County Central-Coastal
NCCP/HCP and associated implementing agreement (R.J. Meade Consulting
1996a, pp. 1-567; The California Resources Agency et al., 1996, pp. 1-
217; LSA Associates 2009, p. 25). Orange County Parks owns and operates
the AWCWP, which is designated as a wilderness park (according to the
Orange County General Plan) and encompasses a large island of habitat
(coastal sage scrub, chaparral, native grassland, and oak woodland)
that is almost entirely surrounded by urban development (LSA Associates
2009, p. 1).
The AWCWP Resource Management Plan provides comprehensive, long-
term management for the preserve area, including those lands
represented in Unit 3 of this rule. The fundamental objective for the
AWCWP Resource Management Plan is to identify the best way to manage,
protect, and enhance the natural resource values of the park while
providing safe recreational and educational opportunities to the public
(LSA Associates 2009, p. 25). As required by the Orange County Central-
Coastal NCCP/HCP Implementing Agreement, the AWCWP Resource Management
Plan includes policies for managing and monitoring the park, conducting
research, conducting habitat restoration and enhancement, implementing
fire management, and managing public access, recreation, and
infrastructure (LSA Associates 2009, p. 26). The management regime
addresses active management of resources with flexibility for adaptive
management strategies, including the gradual modification of management
techniques based on the results of ongoing management, research, and
monitoring activities.
The most significant threats for the AWCWP include habitat
fragmentation, invasive plant species, existing fuels and fire hazard
conditions, urban edge effects, public use, and erosion. The AWCWP
Resource Management Plan is designed to address these issues and
threats, and minimize impacts while supporting the intent of a county
wilderness park (LSA Associated 2009, p. 94). General management
strategies for the park's biological resources that would benefit
Brodiaea filifolia and its habitat identified in Unit 3 include:
(1) Protecting and maintaining populations of native plant and
wildlife with an emphasis on managing Orange County Central-Coastal
NCCP/HCP covered species;
(2) Improving biological productivity and diversity through
protection, enhancement, and restoration activities consistent with the
adaptive management strategy of the Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/
HCP;
(3) Monitoring enhancement and restoration activities as part of
the adaptive management program to evaluate effectiveness and progress.
Through monitoring, seek to identify

[[Page 6877]]

new enhancement and restoration opportunities and priorities within the
park; and
(4) Implementing and coordinating with adjacent landowners to
determine fire management methods that cause the least damage to park
resources while providing effective fire control to protect human life
and property (LSA Associates 2009, p. 103).
In addition to the preservation and management of the AWCWP as
described above, management zones were created to allow for describing
management goals by area or showing relationships between one area and
another in terms of land use and management strategies, and are based
on: (1) Geographic relationships; (2) resource values; (3) ecological
parameters; (4) management issues, goals, or objectives; (5) types and
intensities of land use; or (6) visitor use and experiences (LSA
Associates 2009, p. 105). Unit 3 for Brodiaea filifolia occurs in the
Lower Aliso Canyon Management Zone, which is managed to provide access
into the park to communities at the southernmost segment of Lower Aliso
Canyon, enhance recreation use, and improve riparian habitat and water
quality in Aliso Creek (LSA Associated 2009, p. 109). Specific
management strategies in the Lower Aliso Canyon Management Zone that
would benefit B. filifolia and the habitat identified in Unit 3 include
protecting and restoring riparian habitat along Aliso Creek through
habitat restoration efforts and control of invasive, nonnative species,
and continuing to participate in and support Aliso Creek Watershed
planning efforts to improve water quality and review all watershed
practices within the AWCWP (LSA Associates 2009, p. 109).
Approximately 102 ac (42 ha) of lands that meet the definition of
critical habitat within Unit 3 are conserved and managed by Orange
County Parks at the AWCWP. These conserved lands in Unit 3 are part of
the large, interconnected network of conserved lands that make up the
AWCWP, including areas that encompass occupancy records for Brodiaea
filifolia and lands adjacent to the occurrences that will conserve and
manage habitat that supports pollinators of B. filifolia and provide
for habitat connectivity between B. filifolia populations. Thus, the
AWCWP and associated management plan provides protection to the park's
B. filifolia habitat through the conservation and management of an area
that may otherwise be left unprotected without the wilderness park.
Benefits of Inclusion--AWCWP Resource Management Plan, Orange County
Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP
The principal benefit of including an area in a critical habitat
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure actions
they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of any designated critical habitat;
The regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which
consultation is completed. Federal agencies must consult with the
Service on actions that may affect critical habitat and must avoid
destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. Federal agencies
must also consult with us on actions that may affect a listed species
and refrain from undertaking actions that are likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such species. The analysis of effects to
critical habitat is a separate and different analysis from that of the
effects to the species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these
two analyses represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For
some species (including Brodiaea filifolia), and in some locations, the
outcome of these analyses will be similar, because effects to habitat
will often also result in effects to the species. However, the
regulatory standard is different, as the jeopardy analysis investigates
the action's impact to survival and recovery of the species, while the
adverse modification analysis investigates the action's effects to the
designated habitat's contribution to conservation. This will, in many
instances, lead to different results and different regulatory
requirements. Thus, critical habitat designations may provide greater
benefits to the recovery of a species than would listing alone.
Any protections provided by critical habitat that are redundant
with protections already in place reduce the benefits of inclusion in
critical habitat. The consultation provisions under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act constitute the regulatory benefits of designating lands as
critical habitat. As discussed above, Federal agencies must consult
with us on actions that may affect critical habitat and must avoid
destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. Critical habitat
may provide a regulatory benefit for Brodiaea filifolia when there is a
Federal nexus present for a project that might adversely modify
critical habitat. Specifically, we expect projects in wetland areas
where the species occurs would require a 404 permit under the Clean
Water Act from the Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, critical habitat
designation would have a regulatory benefit to the conservation of B.
filifolia by prohibiting adverse modification of revised critical
habitat in wetland areas. However, because all areas within the AWCWP
are already conserved and managed under the AWCWP Resource Management
Plan, Federal actions that could adversely affect B. filifolia or its
habitat are unlikely to occur, and if such actions do occur, it is
likely that the protections provided the species and its habitat under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be largely redundant with the
protections offered by the AWCWP Resource Management Plan. Thus, we
expect the regulatory benefit to the conservation of B. filifolia of
including the areas proposed for designation in the portion of Unit 3
covered by the AWCWP Resource Management Plan in revised critical
habitat would be minimal.
Another possible benefit of including lands in critical habitat is
public education regarding the potential conservation value of an area
that may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation
value for certain species. Any information about Brodiaea filifolia and
its habitat that reaches a wide audience, including parties engaged in
conservation activities, is valuable. The inclusion of lands in the B.
filifolia proposed and final revised critical habitat designation that
are not conserved and managed is beneficial to the species because the
proposed and final rules identify those lands that require management
for the conservation of B. filifolia. The process of proposing and
finalizing revised critical habitat provided the opportunity for peer
review and public comment on habitat we determined meets the definition
of critical habitat. This process is valuable to landowners and
managers in prioritizing conservation and management of identified
areas. Because the habitat identified in the portion of Unit 3 covered
by the AWCWP Resource Management Plan is already conserved and managed
under the AWCWP Resource Management Plan, no educational benefits would
be realized in this instance.
The designation of Brodiaea filifolia critical habitat may also
strengthen or reinforce some of the provisions in other State and
Federal laws, such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These laws analyze the
potential for projects to significantly affect the environment. In
Orange County, additional protections associated with critical habitat
may be beneficial in areas not currently conserved. However, in the
case of B. filifolia, all areas within the AWCWP

[[Page 6878]]

are conserved and managed under the AWCWP Resource Management Plan.
Therefore, B. filifolia critical habitat designation in this area would
not signal the presence of sensitive habitat that could otherwise be
missed in the review process for these other environmental laws.
In summary, we believe that designating revised critical habitat
would provide minimal regulatory benefits under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act in areas meeting the definition of critical habitat that are
conserved and managed by the AWCWP Resource Management Plan, nor would
any additional educational benefits be realized under these
circumstances.
Benefits of Exclusion--AWCWP Resource Management Plan, Orange County
Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP
We believe conservation benefits would be realized by forgoing
designation of revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia on lands
covered by the AWCWP Resource Management Plan including: (1)
Continuance and strengthening of our effective working relationships
with Orange County Parks and with all Orange County Central Coastal
NCCP/HCP jurisdictions and stakeholders to promote voluntary, proactive
conservation of B. filifolia and its habitat as opposed to reactive
regulation; (2) allowance for continued meaningful proactive
collaboration and cooperation in working toward species recovery,
including conservation benefits that might not otherwise occur; and (3)
encouragement of additional conservation and management in the future
on other lands for this and other federally listed and sensitive
species, including incorporation of protections for plant species which
is voluntary because the Act does not prohibit take of plant species.
In the case of B. filifolia in Orange County, the partnership and
commitment by the Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP jurisdictions
(and specifically Orange County Parks) resulted in lands being
conserved and managed for the long-term that will contribute to the
recovery of the species.
We developed close partnerships with all participating entities
through the development of the Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP,
including Orange County Parks through the development of the AWCWP
Resource Management Plan, which incorporates substantial protections
(conserved lands) and management for Brodiaea filifolia, its habitat,
and the physical and biological features essential to the conservation
of this species. By excluding 102 ac (42 ha) of lands in Unit 3 from
this revised critical habitat designation, we eliminate an essentially
redundant layer of regulatory review for projects covered by the AWCWP
Resource Management Plan, which helps preserve our ongoing partnership
with participating entities of the Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/
HCP (such as Orange County Parks), supporters/contributors to the long-
term preservation of AWCWP, and encourages new partnerships with other
landowners and jurisdictions and establishment of conservation and
management for the benefit of B. filifolia and other sensitive species
on additional lands; these partnerships and conservation actions are
crucial for proactive conservation of B. filifolia, as opposed to the
reactive, regulatory approach of consultation.
The Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP and the AWCWP Resource
Management Plan address conservation issues from a coordinated,
integrated perspective rather than a piecemeal, project-by-project
approach (as would occur under section 7 or section 10 of the Act for
smaller-scale management plans or HCPs), thus resulting in coordinated
landscape-scale conservation that can contribute to genetic diversity
by preserving covered species populations, habitat, and interconnected
linkage areas that support recovery of Brodiaea filifolia and other
listed species. Additionally, many landowners perceive critical habitat
as an unfair and unnecessary regulatory burden given the expense and
time involved in developing and implementing complex management plans
or regional and jurisdiction-wide HCPs (as discussed below in Comments
57 and 75 of the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section).
In summary, we believe excluding land covered by the AWCWP Resource
Management Plan (which is subject to the Orange County Central-Coastal
NCCP/HCP) from revised critical habitat could provide the significant
benefit of maintaining existing regional management plan and HCP
partnerships, and fostering new ones.
Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--AWCWP
Resource Management Plan, Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and benefits of
exclusion for all lands covered by the AWCWP Resource Management Plan
proposed as revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia. The
benefits of including lands covered by the AWCWP Resource Management
Plan and associated Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP in the
revised critical habitat designation are relatively small compared to
the benefits of exclusion. Currently, all (approximately 102 ac (42
ha), or 91 percent of lands in Unit 3) lands that meet the definition
of critical habitat within the AWCWP Resource Management Plan are
conserved and managed. Thus, it is unlikely that Federal actions that
would adversely affect B. filifolia or its habitat will occur within
the AWCWP, and any regulatory benefits provided by section 7(a)(2) of
the Act would be minimal and largely redundant with the protections
already in place for this habitat. Because this species has been a
focus of conservation in Orange County for more than 10 years (as
indicated by those measures evaluated and addressed by the Orange
County Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP), we do not believe critical habitat
designation for B. filifolia will provide additional educational
benefits.
In contrast to the benefits of inclusion, the benefits of excluding
conserved and managed land covered by the AWCWP Resource Management
Plan and associated Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP from revised
critical habitat are significant. The exclusion of these lands from
revised critical habitat will help preserve the partnerships and
conservation and management we developed with Orange County Parks and
other local stakeholders in the development of the AWCWP Resource
Management Plan and other management plans subject to the Orange County
Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP, and foster additional partnerships for the
benefit of Brodiaea filifolia and other species. Therefore, in
consideration of the relevant impact to current and future
partnerships, we determined the significant benefits of exclusion
outweigh the minor benefits of critical habitat designation for
conserved and managed lands.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--AWCWP Resource
Management Plan, Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP
We determined that the exclusion of approximately 102 ac (42 ha) of
land covered by the AWCWP Resource Management Plan in Unit 3 from the
final revised critical habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia will
not result in extinction of the species. The AWCWP Resource Management
Plan and associated Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP provides a
framework for long-term management and continued conservation of
excluded lands that meet the definition of critical habitat in Unit 3.
Therefore, based on the above discussion, we are exercising our
delegated discretion to exclude

[[Page 6879]]

approximately 102 ac (42 ha) or 91 percent of lands in Unit 3 from this
final revised critical habitat designation.

Orange County Southern Subregion HCP

We determined that approximately 925 ac (375 ha) of land in
Subunits 4b, 4c, and 4g owned by or under the jurisdiction of the
permittees of the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP meet the
definition of critical habitat under the Act. In making our final
decision with regard to these lands, we considered several factors
including our relationships with participating jurisdictions and other
stakeholders, existing consultations, conservation measures and
management that are in place on these lands, and impacts to current and
future partnerships. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, for the reasons
discussed in the following sections, we are exercising our delegated
discretion to exclude 192 ac (78 ha) of land conserved and managed by
Orange County Southern Subregion HCP permittees within a portion of
Subunit 4b from this final revised critical habitat designation. We are
not exercising our delegated discretion to exclude 732 ac (297 ha) of
land within the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP in Subunits 4c and
4g and a portion of Subunit 4b, and these lands are included in this
revised critical habitat designation. As described in our section
4(b)(2) analysis below, we reached this determination in consideration
of the benefits of exclusion balanced against the benefits of including
an area in the final revised critical habitat designation.
The Orange County Southern Subregion HCP is a large-scale HCP
encompassing approximately 86,021 ac (34,811 ha) in southern Orange
County (including lands within Subunits 4b, 4c, and 4g). Originally
developed as the Southern Subregion Natural Community Conservation
Plan/Master Streambed Alteration Agreement/Habitat Conservation Plan,
we now refer to the plan as the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP.
Although the plan is intended to be a subregional plan under the State
of California's Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act of
2001, the NCCP has not yet been permitted by the California Department
of Fish and Game. On January 10, 2007, the Service approved the Habitat
Conservation Plan and issued incidental take permits (TE144105-0,
TE144113-0, and TE144140-0) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to the
three permittees for a period of 75 years. The Orange County Southern
Subregion HCP was developed by the County of Orange (County), Rancho
Mission Viejo, LLC (Rancho Mission Viejo), and the Santa Margarita
Water District (Water District) to address impacts resulting from
residential and associated infrastructure development to 32 species
including Brodiaea filifolia. The Orange County Southern Subregion HCP
is a multi-species conservation program that minimizes and mitigates
expected habitat loss and associated incidental take of covered
species.
The Orange County Southern Subregion HCP addresses development and
associated infrastructure on Rancho Mission Viejo lands, installation
and maintenance of infrastructure by the Water District, expansion of
Prima Deshecha Landfill by the County, and monitoring and adaptive
management of covered species on reserve lands.
The Orange County Southern Subregion HCP will establish
approximately 30,426 ac (12,313 ha) of habitat reserve, which will
consist primarily of land owned by Rancho Mission Viejo and three pre-
existing County parks (Service 2007, pp. 10 and 19). The HCP provides
for a large, biologically diverse and permanent habitat reserve that
will protect: (1) Large blocks of natural vegetation communities that
provide habitat for the covered species; (2) ``important'' and
``major'' populations of the covered species in key locations; (3)
wildlife corridors and habitat linkages that connect the large habitat
blocks and covered species populations to each other, the Cleveland
National Forest, and the adjacent Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/
HCP; and (4) the underlying hydrogeomorphic processes that support the
major vegetation communities providing habitat for the covered species
(Service 2007, p. 10).
The overall habitat reserve will be managed and monitored according
to the collective Habitat Reserve Management and Monitoring Program
(Habitat Reserve Management Program). The Habitat Reserve Management
Program focuses on the development and implementation of a coordinated
monitoring and management program to sustain and enhance species
populations and their habitats over the long term, while adapting
management actions to new information and changing habitat conditions.
The management program comprises two components: (1) An ongoing
management program on County park lands within the habitat reserve; and
(2) an adaptive management program that will be implemented on the
Rancho Mission Viejo portion of the habitat reserve and on selected
portions of the County park lands within the habitat reserve (Service
2007, p. 12).
In addition to the creation of a habitat reserve, the following
conservation measures specific to Brodiaea filifolia and its habitat
include:
(1) Avoid and minimize potential impacts to B. filifolia associated
with construction activities on Rancho Mission Viejo through
preparation of Biological Resources Construction Plans in coordination
with the Service.
(2) Removal and control of the nonnative artichoke thistle (Cynara
cardunculus). This invasive plant species may compete with B. filifolia
for space and resources, and alter habitat in an area to the extent
that it no longer supports B. filifolia. Removal and control of
artichoke thistle occurs on Rancho Mission Viejo and is expected to
continue into the future as the Invasive Species Control Plan is
implemented within the reserve.
(3) Translocate and propagate B. filifolia under the Translocation,
Propagation and Management Plan for Special-Status Plants to the extent
feasible and appropriate, when impacts to B. filifolia are unavoidable.
Potential translocation and associated restoration areas will be
focused in areas that are also targeted for coastal sage scrub and
coastal sage scrub/valley needlegrass grassland restoration, including
Chiquita Ridge and Chiquadora Ridge (Subunit 4c). The plan also
provides success criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the
restoration of B. filifolia in areas of temporary impacts.
(4) Monitor B. filifolia populations, focusing on the Ca[ntilde]ada
Gobernadora/Chiquita Ridgeline (Subunit 4c) and Cristianitos Canyon
populations (Subunit 4g). Additionally, information will be gathered
regarding nonnative species, observations of pollinators, and signs of
disturbance. Annual monitoring will occur every year for the first 5
years after dedication to the reserve and thereafter in intervals as
determined by the Reserve Manager and Science Panel.
Below is a brief analysis of the lands in Subunit 4b that are
currently conserved and managed consistent with the Orange County
Southern Subregion HCP.
Approximately 192 ac (78 ha) of Subunit 4b within the Ronald W.
Caspers Wilderness Park (Caspers Wilderness Park) is covered by the
Ronald W. Caspers Wilderness Park General Development Plan Phase III
Habitat Conservation Program (Caspers Wilderness Park Program). The
Caspers Wilderness Park Program functions as an operational program
under the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP to ensure protection of
existing biological communities and sensitive plant and animal species
through

[[Page 6880]]

implementation of, at minimum: (1) An ongoing review of sensitive
habitat areas; and (2) identification of site-specific operational
directives for the protection of habitats, which include a mechanism
for review and adjustment of directives in light of new information
(Lewis 1987, pp. 1-1 and 2-11). Thus, the Caspers Wilderness Park
Program provides protection to Brodiaea filifolia proposed revised
critical habitat through the conservation and management of this area
that may otherwise be left unprotected.
Benefits of Inclusion--Orange County Southern Subregion HCP
The principal benefit of including an area in a critical habitat
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure actions
they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of any designated critical habitat,
the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which
consultation is completed. Federal agencies must consult with the
Service on actions that may affect critical habitat and must avoid
destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. Federal agencies
must also consult with us on actions that may affect a listed species
and refrain from undertaking actions that are likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such species. The analysis of effects to
critical habitat is a separate and different analysis from that of the
effects to the species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these
two analyses represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For
some species (including Brodiaea filifolia), and in some locations, the
outcome of these analyses will be similar, because effects to habitat
will often also result in effects to the species. However, the
regulatory standard is different, as the jeopardy analysis investigates
the action's impact to survival and recovery of the species, while the
adverse modification analysis investigates the action's effects to the
designated habitat's contribution to conservation. This will, in many
instances, lead to different results and different regulatory
requirements. Thus, critical habitat designations may provide greater
benefits to the recovery of a species than would listing alone.
Any protections provided by critical habitat that are redundant
with protections already in place reduce the benefits of inclusion in
critical habitat. The consultation provisions under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act constitute the regulatory benefits of designating lands as
critical habitat. As discussed above, Federal agencies must consult
with us on actions that may affect critical habitat and must avoid
destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. Critical habitat
may provide a regulatory benefit for Brodiaea filifolia when there is a
Federal nexus present for a project that might adversely modify
critical habitat. Specifically, we expect projects in wetland areas
would require a 404 permit under the Clean Water Act from the Army
Corps of Engineers. Therefore, critical habitat designation would have
an additional regulatory benefit to the conservation of B. filifolia by
prohibiting adverse modification of revised critical habitat. However,
because areas proposed for designation within Caspers Wilderness Park
in Subunit 4b are already conserved and managed under the Caspers
Wilderness Park Program, Federal actions that could adversely affect B.
filifolia or its habitat are unlikely to occur in these areas. If such
actions do occur, it is likely that the protections provided the
species and its habitat under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be
largely redundant with the protections offered by the Caspers
Wilderness Park Program. Therefore, we expect the regulatory benefit of
including this area in revised critical habitat would be minimal.
Another possible benefit of including lands in critical habitat is
public education regarding the potential conservation value of an area
that may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation
value for certain species. Any information about Brodiaea filifolia and
its habitat that reaches a wide audience, including parties engaged in
conservation activities, is valuable. The inclusion of lands in the B.
filifolia proposed and final revised critical habitat designation that
are not conserved and managed is beneficial to the species because the
proposed and final rules identify those lands that require management
for the conservation of B. filifolia. The process of proposing and
finalizing revised critical habitat provided the opportunity for peer
review and public comment on habitat we determined meets the definition
of critical habitat. This process is valuable to land owners and
managers in prioritizing conservation and management of identified
areas. Because the habitat identified in Caspers Wilderness Park within
Subunit 4b is already conserved and managed under the Caspers
Wilderness Park Program, no educational benefits would be realized in
this area.
The designation of Brodiaea filifolia critical habitat may also
strengthen or reinforce some of the provisions in other State and
Federal laws, such as CEQA or NEPA. These laws analyze the potential
for projects to significantly affect the environment. In Orange County,
the additional protections associated with revised critical habitat may
be beneficial in areas not currently conserved. Critical habitat may
signal the presence of sensitive habitat that could otherwise be missed
in the review process for these other environmental laws.
In summary, we believe that designating revised critical habitat
would provide minimal regulatory benefits under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act in areas meeting the definition of critical habitat that are
conserved and managed under the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP,
nor would any additional educational benefits be realized under these
circumstances. In areas that are not currently conserved and managed,
we believe there may be significant regulatory and educational benefits
of critical habitat designation.
Benefits of Exclusion--Orange County Southern Subregion HCP
We believe conservation benefits would be realized by forgoing
designation of revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia on lands
covered by the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP including: (1)
Continuance and strengthening of our effective working relationships
with all Orange County Southern Subregion HCP stakeholders to promote
conservation of B. filifolia and its habitat; (2) allowance for
continued meaningful collaboration and cooperation in working toward
species recovery, including conservation benefits that might not
otherwise occur; and (3) encouragement of additional conservation and
management in the future on other lands for this and other federally
listed and sensitive species, including incorporation of protections
for plant species, which is voluntary because the Act does not prohibit
take of plant species. In the case of B. filifolia in Orange County,
the partnership and commitment by the County resulted in lands being
conserved and managed for the long-term that will contribute to the
recovery of the species.
The Orange County Southern Subregion HCP addresses conservation
issues from a coordinated, integrated perspective rather than a
piecemeal, project-by-project approach (as would occur under sections 7
of the Act or through smaller HCPs), thus resulting in coordinated
landscape-scale conservation that can contribute to genetic diversity
by preserving covered species populations, habitat, and interconnected
linkage areas that support recovery of Brodiaea filifolia and other
listed species. Additionally, many landowners perceive critical

[[Page 6881]]

habitat as an unfair and unnecessary regulatory burden given the
expense and time involved in developing and implementing complex
regional and jurisdiction-wide HCPs, such as the Orange County Southern
Subregion HCP (as discussed below in Comments 57 and 75 of the Summary
of Comments and Recommendations section of this rule). Exclusion of
Orange County Southern Subregion HCP lands would help preserve the
partnership we developed with the County of Orange and other permittees
in the development of the HCP, and foster future partnerships and
development of future HCPs.
In summary, we believe excluding land covered by the Orange County
Southern Subregion HCP from revised critical habitat could provide the
significant benefit of maintaining existing regional HCP partnerships
and fostering new ones.
Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--Orange
County Southern Subregion HCP
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and benefits of
exclusion for all lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of Orange
County Southern Subregion HCP permittees as revised critical habitat
for Brodiaea filifolia. The benefits of including lands already
conserved and managed in the revised critical habitat designation are
relatively small compared to the benefits of exclusion. Approximately
192 ac (78 ha) of land in Subunit 4b at Caspers Wilderness Park are
conserved and managed. Thus, it is unlikely that Federal actions that
would adversely affect B. filifolia or its habitat will occur within
Caspers Wilderness Park, and any regulatory benefits provided by
section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be minimal and largely redundant with
the protections already in place for this habitat. Because the habitat
identified in Caspers Wilderness Park within Subunit 4b is already
conserved and managed under the Caspers Wilderness Park Program, we do
not believe critical habitat designation for B. filifolia will provide
additional educational benefits.
In contrast to the benefits of inclusion, the benefits of excluding
conserved and managed land covered by the Caspers Wilderness Park
Program (under the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP) from revised
critical habitat are significant. The exclusion of these lands from
revised critical habitat will help preserve the partnership and
conservation and management we developed with Orange County and other
local stakeholders in the development of the Orange County Southern
Subregion HCP and the Caspers Wilderness Park Program, and foster
additional partnerships for the benefit of Brodiaea filifolia and other
species. Therefore, in consideration of the relevant impact to current
and future partnerships, we determined the significant benefits of
exclusion outweigh the minor benefits of critical habitat designation.
We analyzed the benefits of including lands within Subunits 4c, 4g, and
the reminder of 4b (that is not conserved and managed) in the final
designation and the benefits of excluding those lands from the
designation. We recognize that the plan has established valuable
partnerships that are intended to implement conservation actions for B.
filifolia. However, in conducting our evaluation of the conservation
benefits to B. filifolia and its proposed revised critical habitat that
have resulted to date from these partnerships, we did not conclude that
the benefits of excluding Subunits 4c, 4g, and the remainder of 4b
(that is not conserved and managed) from revised critical habitat
outweighs the benefits of inclusion.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Subunit 4b,
Orange County Southern Subregion HCP
We determined that the exclusion of approximately 192 ac (78 ha) of
land in Subunit 4b owned by or under the jurisdiction of Orange County
Southern Subregion HCP permittees from the final revised critical
habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia will not result in
extinction of the species. These areas are permanently conserved and
managed to provide a benefit to B. filifolia and its habitat.
Therefore, based on the above discussion, we are exercising our
delegated discretion to exclude approximately 192 ac (78 ha) of land
conserved and managed by Orange County Southern Subregion HCP
permittees in Subunit 4b from this final revised critical habitat
designation.

San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP)--Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan (Carlsbad HMP)

We determined approximately 261 ac (106 ha) of land in Subunits 7a,
7b, 7c, and 7d within the Carlsbad HMP planning area meet the
definition of critical habitat under the Act. In making our final
decision with regard to these lands, we considered several factors,
including conservation measures and management that are in place on
these lands, our relationship with the participating MHCP jurisdiction,
our relationship with other MHCP stakeholders, existing consultations,
and impacts to current and future partnerships. Under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act, for the reasons discussed in the following sections, we are
exercising our delegated discretion to exclude 156 ac (63 ha) of land
within Subunit 7d and portions of Subunits 7a and 7c from this final
revised critical habitat designation. We are including approximately
106 ac (43 ha) of land within Subunit 7b and portions of Subunits 7a
and 7c in this revised critical habitat designation. As described in
our section 4(b)(2) analysis below, we reached this determination in
consideration of the benefits of exclusion balanced against the
benefits of including the areas in the final revised critical habitat
designation.
The Carlsbad HMP is a subarea plan under the purview of the San
Diego MHCP. The San Diego MHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional
planning program designed to create, manage, and monitor an ecosystem
preserve in northwestern San Diego County. The San Diego MHCP is also a
subregional plan under the State of California's Natural Communities
Conservation Plan (NCCP) program and was developed in cooperation with
CDFG. The MHCP preserve system is intended to protect viable
occurrences of native plant and animal species and their habitats in
perpetuity, while accommodating continued economic development and
quality of life for residents of northern San Diego County. The MHCP
includes an approximately 112,000-ac (45,324-ha) plan area within the
cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, San Marcos, Oceanside, Vista,
and Solana Beach. At this time, only the City of Carlsbad has completed
its Subarea Plan (Carlsbad HMP). The section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the
City of Carlsbad HMP was issued on November 9, 2004 (Service 2004a).
Brodiaea filifolia is a covered species under the Carlsbad HMP.
Nine occurrences of B. filifolia exist within the City of Carlsbad. We
proposed 4 of these 9 occurrences as revised critical habitat in
Subunits 7a, 7b, 7c, and 7d. Under the Carlsbad HMP, all known
occurrences of B. filifolia within existing preserve areas (7 of 9
known occurrences) will be conserved at 100 percent. All covered
activities impacting B. filifolia outside of already preserved areas
are required to be consistent with the MHCP's narrow endemic policy,
which requires mitigation for unavoidable impacts and management
practices designed to achieve no net loss of narrow endemic
populations, occupied acreage, or population viability within Focused
Planning Areas (planning areas within which preserves may be designated
by city subarea

[[Page 6882]]

plans). Additionally, cities cannot permit more than 5 percent gross
cumulative loss of narrow endemic populations or occupied acreage
within the Focused Planning Areas, and no more than 20 percent
cumulative loss of narrow endemic locations, population numbers, or
occupied acreage outside of Focused Planning Areas (AMEC 2003, pp. 2-
14, D-1). All conserved populations of B. filifolia will be
incorporated into the Carlsbad HMP's preserve areas. The Carlsbad HMP
includes provisions to manage the populations within the preserve areas
in order to provide for the long-term conservation of the species.
Portions of Subunits 7a and 7c, and Subunit 7b in its entirety are
within pre-existing open space easements owned by private landowners
outside Focused Planning Areas and are not yet incorporated into the
Carlsbad HMP's preserve. Therefore, additional regulatory protection
could provide significant conservation benefits to B. filifolia and its
habitat in portions of Subunits 7a and 7c, and the entirety of Subunit
7b.
At the time the Carlsbad HMP permit was issued (November 9, 2004),
Brodiaea filifolia was a conditionally covered species under the
Carlsbad HMP, as the proposed reserve on the Fox-Miller property within
Subunit 7a did not meet the conditions for coverage of the species
under the Carlsbad HMP. The project was subsequently redesigned to meet
the narrow endemic standards by impacting less than five percent of the
known population, and a long-term management plan was submitted. On
December 2, 2005, the Service and CDFG concluded that the City of
Carlsbad would receive full coverage for B. filifolia under the
Carlsbad HMP (CDFG and Service 2005, p. 1).
Approximately 13 ac (5 ha), of lands that meet the definition of
critical habitat within Subunit 7a are conserved and managed under the
Long-Term Management Plan for Fox-Miller Property Open Space (Fox-
Miller Management Plan) in conformance with the Carlsbad HMP, and, for
the reasons discussed in the following sections, we are exercising our
delegated discretion to exclude these lands from this final revised
critical habitat designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
The approximately 13 ac (5 ha) have been conserved and managed in a
preserve to mitigate impacts to the biological resources associated
with the development of the Fox-Miller property (RECON 2005, p. 1). The
Fox-Miller Management Plan provides a framework for the enhancement and
management of Brodiaea filifolia, its habitat, and other habitats
within the preserve. The preserve will be managed in perpetuity to
maintain and improve the habitat quality on-site. Scheduled management
activities include: (1) Vegetation mapping performed at a minimum of
every five years; (2) annual exotic species removal and control within
the preserve; (3) preserve signage creation, installation, and
monitoring; (4) monthly site visits to check fencing and identify any
threats to the habitat, such as unauthorized access to the site; (5)
annual monitoring of the B. filifolia population and its habitat; (6)
annual publication of an educational newsletter to surrounding
businesses; and (7) preparation of annual reports to the City of
Carlsbad, CDFG, and the Service (RECON 2005, pp. 12-13, 16, 18, 24).
Approximately 45 ac (18 ha), or 63 percent, of Subunit 7c is
covered by the Calavera Hills Phase II Final Habitat Management Plan
(Calavera Hills Management Plan) in conformance with the Carlsbad HMP,
and, for the reasons discussed in the following sections, we are
exercising our delegated discretion to exclude these lands from this
final revised critical habitat designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2)
of the Act. Within this area is a population of Brodiaea filifolia that
is conserved and managed within a 144 ac (58 ha) habitat preserve set
aside by the developer of Calavera Hills Phase II (Planning Systems
2002, pp. 1, 4). The purpose of the Calavera Hills Management Plan is
to establish parameters for the permanent protection and management of
the preserve (Planning Systems 2002, p. 3). Scheduled management
activities include, but are not limited to: (1) Habitat monitoring and
mapping; (2) patrolling for signs of trespassing, dumping, vandalism,
off-road vehicle use, homeowner encroachment, and any other
disturbances by humans; (3) trash removal conducted at a minimum of
every six months; (4) publication of an educational flyer for
distribution to surrounding property owners; (5) photograph
documentation of site conditions; (6) monitoring of preserve signage
and fencing; (7) exotic species removal and control; (8) erosion
control; and (9) preparation of annual reports to the City of Carlsbad,
CDFG, and the Service (Planning Systems 2002, pp. 9-14, 16, 25-26). In
addition to routine monitoring of the preserve, specific management
strategies that benefit B. filifolia and its proposed revised critical
habitat include: (1) Annual mapping and counting of the B. filifolia
population; and (2) protection from human trampling or other potential
threats to the degree feasible (Planning Systems 2002, p. 11).
Approximately 98 ac (40 ha), or 100 percent, of Subunit 7d is
covered by the Habitat Management Plan for the Rancho La Costa Habitat
Conservation Area (Rancho La Costa Management Plan) in conformance with
the Carlsbad HMP, and, for the reasons discussed in the following
sections, we are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude these
lands from this final revised critical habitat designation pursuant to
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Within this area is a population of
Brodiaea filifolia and its habitat that is conserved and managed in its
entirety within a 1,400 ac-(565-ha) habitat preserve set aside by the
property owners as mitigation for impacts to natural habitat as part of
the Villages of La Costa and University Commons developments (CNLM
2005, pp. 1, 5). Management strategies outlined in the plan include:
(1) Annual counts of the B. filifolia population; (2) exotic species
removal and control; (3) regular patrolling of the preserve to monitor
public use; (4) maintenance of access control (e.g., fencing and
signage) and trails; (5) informing and educating the local residents
through publication of outreach information, guided nature walks, and
annual publication of educational newsletters; and (6) preparation of
annual reports to the Cities of Carlsbad and San Marcos, CDFG, and the
Service (CNLM 2005, pp. 28, 32-34, 36, 38). In addition to routine
monitoring of the preserve, specific management strategies that would
benefit B. filifolia and its proposed revised critical habitat include
monitoring percent cover of native and nonnative annual plant species
within its habitat and removing nonnative plant species (CNLM 2005, p.
21).
Benefits of Inclusion--Carlsbad HMP
The principal benefit of including an area in a critical habitat
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure actions
they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of any designated critical habitat;
the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which
consultation is completed. Federal agencies must consult with the
Service on actions that may affect critical habitat and must avoid
destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. Federal agencies
must also consult with us on actions that may affect a listed species
and refrain from undertaking actions that are likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such species. The analysis of effects to
critical habitat is a separate and different analysis from that of the
effects

[[Page 6883]]

to the species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these two
analyses represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For
some species (including Brodiaea filifolia), and in some locations, the
outcome of these analyses will be similar, because effects to habitat
will often also result in effects to the species. However, the
regulatory standard is different, as the jeopardy analysis investigates
the action's impact to survival and recovery of the species, while the
adverse modification analysis investigates the action's effects to the
designated habitat's contribution to conservation. This will, in many
instances, lead to different results and different regulatory
requirements. Thus, critical habitat designations may provide greater
benefits to the recovery of a species than would listing alone.
Any protections provided by critical habitat that are redundant
with protections already in place reduce the benefits of inclusion in
critical habitat. The consultation provisions under section 7 of the
Act constitute the regulatory benefits of designating lands as critical
habitat. As discussed above, Federal agencies must consult with us on
actions that may affect critical habitat and must avoid destroying or
adversely modifying critical habitat. Critical habitat may provide a
regulatory benefit for Brodiaea filifolia when there is a Federal nexus
present for a project that might adversely modify critical habitat.
Specifically, we expect projects in wetland areas would require a 404
permit under the Clean Water Act from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Therefore, critical habitat designation could have an additional
regulatory benefit to the conservation of B. filifolia by prohibiting
adverse modification of revised critical habitat. However, the
probability of a project with a Federal nexus occurring in land covered
by the Carlsbad HMP within Subunits 7a, 7b, 7c, and 7d is low, as the
areas are outside any wetland areas, and are privately owned; the
probability of a project with a Federal nexus occurring in Subunit 7d
(which is conserved and managed) or the conserved and managed portions
of Subunits 7a and 7c is further lessened by the fact that these areas
are protected from development and other potential impacts. If such
actions do occur in the conserved and managed portions of Subunits 7a,
7c, or 7d, it is likely that the protections provided the species and
its habitat under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be largely redundant
with the protections offered by conservation under the Carlsbad HMP.
Thus, we expect the regulatory benefit to the conservation of B.
filifolia of including the conserved and managed areas proposed for
designation in Subunits 7a, 7c, and 7d in revised critical habitat
would be minimal. However, we expect the regulatory benefit to the
conservation of B. filifolia of including areas proposed for
designation that are not conserved and managed in Subunits 7a, 7b, and
7c in revised critical habitat would be greater than the benefit to the
conserved and managed areas.
Another possible benefit of including lands in critical habitat is
public education regarding the potential conservation value of an area
that may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation
value for certain species. Any information about Brodiaea filifolia and
its habitat that reaches a wide audience, including parties engaged in
conservation activities, is valuable. The inclusion of lands in the B.
filifolia proposed and final revised critical habitat designation that
are not conserved and managed is beneficial to the species because the
proposed and final rules identify those lands that require management
for the conservation of B. filifolia. The process of proposing and
finalizing revised critical habitat provided the opportunity for peer
review and public comment on habitat we determined meets the definition
of critical habitat. This process is valuable to landowners and
managers in prioritizing conservation and management of identified
areas. However, we do not believe critical habitat designation for B.
filifolia will provide significant additional educational benefits in
areas that are already conserved and managed because this species has
been a focus of conservation in the City of Carlsbad for several years.
The designation of Brodiaea filifolia critical habitat may also
strengthen or reinforce some of the provisions in other State and
Federal laws, such as CEQA or NEPA. These laws analyze the potential
for projects to significantly affect the environment. In the City of
Carlsbad, the additional protections associated with revised critical
habitat may be beneficial in areas not currently conserved. Critical
habitat may signal the presence of sensitive habitat that could
otherwise be missed in the review process for these other environmental
laws.
In summary, we believe that designating revised critical habitat
would provide minimal regulatory benefits under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act in areas that meet the definition of critical habitat and are
currently conserved and managed under the Carlsbad HMP. We also believe
no significant educational benefits will be realized in areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat and are currently conserved and
managed under the Carlsbad HMP because this species has been a focus of
conservation in the City of Carlsbad for many years. In areas that are
not currently conserved and managed, we believe there may be more
significant regulatory benefits of critical habitat designation.
Benefits of Exclusion--Carlsbad HMP
We believe conservation benefits would be realized by forgoing
designation of revised critical habitat on lands covered by the
Carlsbad HMP including: (1) Continuance and strengthening of our
effective working relationships with all MHCP jurisdictions and
stakeholders to promote conservation of Brodiaea filifolia and its
habitat; (2) allowance for continued meaningful proactive collaboration
and cooperation in working toward species recovery, including
conservation benefits that might not otherwise occur; (3) encouragement
of other jurisdictions to complete subarea plans under the MHCP (i.e.,
the cities of Encinitas, Escondido, San Marcos, Oceanside, Vista, and
Solana Beach); and (4) encouragement of additional conservation and
management in the future on other lands for this and other federally
listed and sensitive species, including incorporation of protections
for plant species, which is voluntary because the Act does not prohibit
take of plant species.
The Carlsbad HMP addresses conservation issues from a coordinated,
integrated perspective rather than a piecemeal, project-by-project
approach (as would occur under section 7 of the Act or through smaller
HCPs), thus resulting in coordinated landscape-scale conservation that
can contribute to genetic diversity by preserving covered species
populations, habitat, and interconnected linkage areas that support
recovery of Brodiaea filifolia and other listed species. Additionally,
many landowners perceive critical habitat as an unfair and unnecessary
regulatory burden given the expense and time involved in developing and
implementing complex regional and jurisdiction-wide HCPs, such as the
Carlsbad HMP (as discussed further in Comments 57 and 75 below in the
Summary of Comments and Recommendations section of this rule).
Exclusion of Carlsbad HMP lands would help preserve the partnership we
developed with the City of Carlsbad in the development of the HMP, and
foster

[[Page 6884]]

future partnerships and development of future HCPs.
In summary, we believe excluding land covered by the Carlsbad HMP
from revised critical habitat could provide the significant benefit of
maintaining existing regional HCP partnerships and fostering new ones.
Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--Carlsbad
HMP
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and benefits of
exclusion for all lands covered by the Carlsbad HMP proposed as revised
critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia. The benefits of including
lands covered by the Carlsbad HMP that are conserved and managed in the
revised critical habitat designation are relatively small compared to
the benefits of exclusion. Approximately 13 ac (5 ha) of land in
Subunit 7a at Fox-Miller, approximately 45 ac (18 ha) of land in
Subunit 7c at Calavera Hills, and all of the approximately 98 ac (40
ha) of land in Subunit 7d at Rancho La Costa are already conserved and
managed. Thus, it is unlikely that Federal actions that would adversely
affect B. filifolia or its habitat will occur within these areas, and
any regulatory benefits provided by section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be
minimal and largely redundant with the protections already in place for
this habitat. Because this species has been a focus of conservation in
the City of Carlsbad for several years, we do not believe critical
habitat designation for B. filifolia will provide additional
educational benefits in areas that are already conserved and managed.
In contrast to the benefits of inclusion, the benefits of excluding
conserved and managed land covered by the Carlsbad HMP from revised
critical habitat are significant. The exclusion of these lands from
revised critical habitat will help preserve the partnership and
conservation and management we developed with the City of Carlsbad and
other local stakeholders in the development of the Carlsbad HMP, and
foster additional partnerships for the benefit of Brodiaea filifolia
and other species. Therefore, in consideration of the relevant impact
to current and future partnerships, we determined the significant
benefits of exclusion outweigh the minor benefits of critical habitat
designation. We analyzed the benefits of including lands within Subunit
7b and portions of Subunits 7a and 7c (that are not conserved and
managed) in the final designation and the benefits of excluding those
lands from the designation. We recognize that the Carlsbad HMP has
established valuable partnerships that are intended to implement
conservation actions for B. filifolia. However, in conducting our
evaluation of the conservation benefits to B. filifolia and its
proposed revised critical habitat that have resulted to date from these
partnerships, we did not conclude that the benefits of excluding areas
that are not conserved and managed (Subunit 7b and portions of Subunits
7a and 7c) from revised critical habitat outweigh the benefits of
inclusion.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Subunits 7a,
7c, and 7d, Carlsbad HMP
We determined that the exclusion of approximately 156 ac (63 ha) of
land covered by the Carlsbad HMP in Subunit 7d and a portion of
Subunits 7a and 7c from the final revised critical habitat designation
for Brodiaea filifolia will not result in extinction of the species.
These areas are permanently conserved and managed to provide a benefit
to B. filifolia and its habitat. Therefore, based on the above
discussion, we are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude
approximately 156 ac (63 ha) of conserved and managed land in Subunit
7d and portions of Subunits 7a and 7c from this final revised critical
habitat designation.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(Western Riverside County MSHCP)

We determined that approximately 1,494 ac (604 ha) of land in
Subunits 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, 11f, 11g, and 11h that are within the
Western Riverside County MSHCP planning area meet the definition of
critical habitat under the Act. In making our final decision with
regard to these lands, we considered several factors including our
relationships with participating jurisdictions and other stakeholders,
existing consultations, conservation measures and management that are
in place on these lands, and impacts to current and future
partnerships. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, for the reasons
discussed in the following sections, we are exercising our delegated
discretion to exclude 381 ac (154 ha) of land within Subunits 11g, 11h,
and a portion of Subunit 11f from this final revised critical habitat
designation. We are including 1,113 ac (450 ha) of land within Subunits
11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, and a portion of Subunit 11f in this revised
critical habitat designation. As described in our analysis below, we
reached this conclusion by weighing the benefits of exclusion balanced
against the benefits of including an area in the final revised critical
habitat designation.
The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a regional, multi-
jurisdictional HCP encompassing approximately 1.26 million ac (510,000
ha) of land in western Riverside County. The Western Riverside County
MSHCP addresses 146 listed and unlisted ``covered species,'' including
Brodiaea filifolia. The Western Riverside County MSHCP includes a
multi-species conservation program designed to minimize and mitigate
the effects of expected habitat loss and associated incidental take of
covered species. On June 22, 2004, the Service issued a single
incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to 22
permittees under the Western Riverside County MSHCP for a period of 75
years (Service 2004b, TE-088609-0). We concluded in our biological
opinion (Service 2004b, p. 386) that implementation of the plan, as
proposed, was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of B.
filifolia. Our determination was based on our conclusion that 78
percent of B. filifolia suitable habitat and at least 76 percent of the
extant occurrences known at that time would be protected or will remain
within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Area.
The Western Riverside County MSHCP, when fully implemented, will
establish approximately 153,000 ac (61,917 ha) of new conservation
lands (Additional Reserve Lands) to complement the approximately
347,000 ac (140,426 ha) of pre-existing natural and open space areas
(Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) lands). These PQP lands include those under
ownership of public or quasi-public agencies, primarily the United
States Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as
well as permittee-owned or controlled open-space areas managed by the
State of California and Riverside County. Collectively, the Additional
Reserve Lands and PQP lands form the overall Western Riverside County
MSHCP Conservation Area. The configuration of the 153,000 ac (61,916
ha) of Additional Reserve Lands is not mapped or precisely identified
(``hard-lined'') in the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Rather, it is
based on textual descriptions of habitat conservation necessary to meet
the conservation goals for all covered species within the bounds of the
approximately 310,000-ac (125,453-ha) Criteria Area and is determined
as implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP takes place. In
an effort to predict one possible future configuration of the
Additional Reserve Lands, we internally

[[Page 6885]]

mapped a ``Conceptual Reserve Design'' based on our interpretation of
the textual descriptions of habitat conservation necessary to meet
conservation goals.
Specific conservation objectives in the Western Riverside County
MSHCP for Brodiaea filifolia include providing 6,900 ac (2,786 ha) of
occupied or suitable habitat for the species in the MSHCP Conservation
Area along portions of San Jacinto River (Subunits 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d),
Mystic Lake, and Salt Creek (Subunit 11e) (Service 2004b, p. 384). This
acreage can be attained through acquisition or other dedications of
land assembled from within the Criteria Area (as these lands are
acquired they become part of the Additional Reserve Lands). Floodplain
processes along the San Jacinto River and along Salt Creek will be
maintained to provide for persistence of the species. Additionally, at
least 76 percent of the known B. filifolia occurrences as of 2004 will
remain on existing PQP lands or be conserved within the Additional
Reserve Lands. Finally, areas within the Criteria Area where there is
potential suitable habitat for B. filifolia that is not yet protected
are subject to the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures Policy (see
Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, Western Riverside County MSHCP,
Volume 1, section 6.3.2 in Dudek & Associates, Inc. 2003b). In these
areas, surveys for B. filifolia are required as part of the project
review process for public and private projects where suitable habitat
is present (see Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA) Map, Figure
6-2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, Volume I in Dudek &
Associates, Inc. 2003b). For locations with positive survey results, 90
percent of those portions of the property that provide long-term
conservation value for the species will be avoided until it is
demonstrated that the conservation objectives for the species are met.
Once species-specific objectives are met, avoided areas would be
evaluated to determine whether they should be released for development
or included in the MSHCP Conservation Area.
Preservation and management of approximately 6,900 ac (2,786 ha) of
Brodiaea filifolia habitat under the Western Riverside County MSHCP
will contribute to the conservation and ultimate recovery of this
species. Brodiaea filifolia is threatened primarily by habitat
destruction and fragmentation from urban and agricultural development,
pipeline construction, alteration of hydrology and floodplain dynamics,
excessive flooding, channelization, OHV activity, trampling by cattle
and sheep, weed abatement, fire suppression practices (including
discing and plowing), and competition from nonnative plant species
(Service 2004b, p. 380). The Western Riverside County MSHCP will remove
and reduce threats to B. filifolia and the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species as the plan is
implemented by preserving large blocks of suitable habitat throughout
the Conservation Area. The plan also generates funding for long-term
management of conserved lands for the benefit of the species they
protect.
Below is a brief analysis of the lands in Subunits 11g, 11h, and a
portion of Subunit 11f that we are exercising our delegated discretion
to exclude under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and how these areas are
conserved and managed consistent with the Western Riverside County
MSHCP.
Approximately 381 ac (154 ha) of lands that meet the definition of
critical habitat within Subunits 11g, 11h, and a portion of Subunit 11f
are conserved and managed on PQP lands at the Santa Rosa Plateau
Ecological Reserve (Santa Rosa Plateau). This reserve has four
landowners: CDFG, the County of Riverside, the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, and The Nature Conservancy. The
landowners and the Service (which owns no land on the Santa Rosa
Plateau) signed a cooperative management agreement on April 16, 1991
(Dangermond and Associates, Inc. 1991), and meet regularly to work on
the management of the reserve (Riverside County Parks 2009, p. 2).
These conserved lands in Subunits 11g, 11h, and a portion of Subunit
11f are part of the large, contiguous area of approximately 8,500 ac
(3,432 ha) that make up the Santa Rosa Plateau, including areas that
provide for habitat connectivity between B. filifolia populations.
Thus, the Santa Rosa Plateau and associated management plan provides
protection to the reserve's B. filifolia proposed revised critical
habitat through the conservation and management of an area that may
otherwise be left unprotected without the reserve.
Benefits of Inclusion--Western Riverside County MSHCP
The principal benefit of including an area in a critical habitat
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure actions
they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of any designated critical habitat:
the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which
consultation is completed. Federal agencies must consult with the
Service on actions that may affect critical habitat and must avoid
destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. Federal agencies
must also consult with us on actions that may affect a listed species
and refrain from undertaking actions that are likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such species. The analysis of effects to
critical habitat is a separate and different analysis from that of the
effects to the species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these
two analyses represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For
some species (including Brodiaea filifolia), and in some locations, the
outcome of these analyses will be similar, because effects to habitat
will often also result in effects to the species. However, the
regulatory standard is different, as the jeopardy analysis investigates
the action's impact to survival and recovery of the species, while the
adverse modification analysis investigates the action's effects to the
designated habitat's contribution to conservation. This will, in many
instances, lead to different results and different regulatory
requirements. Thus, critical habitat designations may provide greater
benefits to the recovery of a species than would listing alone.
Any protections provided by critical habitat that are redundant
with protections already in place reduce the benefits of inclusion in
critical habitat. The consultation provisions under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act constitute the regulatory benefits of designating lands as
critical habitat. As discussed above, Federal agencies must consult
with us on actions that may affect critical habitat and must avoid
destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. Critical habitat
may provide a regulatory benefit for Brodiaea filifolia when there is a
Federal nexus present for a project that might adversely modify revised
critical habitat. Specifically, we expect projects in wetland areas
would require a 404 permit under the Clean Water Act from the Army
Corps of Engineers. Therefore, critical habitat designation will have
an additional regulatory benefit to the conservation of B. filifolia by
prohibiting adverse modification of revised critical habitat.
As discussed above, the Western Riverside County MSHCP provides for
protection of Brodiaea filifolia habitat considered necessary for
survival and recovery of the species. For locations with positive
survey results, impacts to 90 percent of portions of the property that
provide long-term conservation value for the species will be avoided
until it is demonstrated that the conservation objectives for the
species

[[Page 6886]]

have been met. The Western Riverside County MSHCP does not include
dumping of manure and other soil amendments as a covered activity, and
thus does not include measures to minimize or mitigate impacts from
that activity. However, the activity is occurring in some habitat areas
that have not yet been conserved. As discussed in Comment 28 below,
this threat is significant and ongoing within the Western Riverside
County MSHCP plan area (specifically in Subunits 11b, 11c, and 11e) in
habitat that is not yet conserved and managed to benefit the species.
Therefore, for activities covered under the plan, we believe that
protections provided by the designation of revised critical habitat
will be partially redundant with protections provided by the HCP;
however, additional regulatory protection from manure dumping could
provide significant conservation benefits to B. filifolia in Subunits
11b, 11c, and 11e.
Another possible benefit of including lands in critical habitat is
public education regarding the potential conservation value of an area
that may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation
value for certain species. Any information about Brodiaea filifolia and
its habitat that reaches a wide audience, including parties engaged in
conservation activities, is valuable. The inclusion of lands in the B.
filifolia proposed and final revised critical habitat designation that
are not conserved and managed is beneficial to the species because the
proposed rule identifies those lands that require management for the
conservation of B. filifolia. The process of proposing and finalizing
revised critical habitat provided the opportunity for peer review and
public comment on habitat we determined meets the definition of
critical habitat. This process is valuable to landowners and managers
in prioritizing conservation and management of identified areas. In
general, we believe the designation of critical habitat for B.
filifolia will provide to the public additional information not already
sufficiently emphasized through meetings, and educational materials
provided to the general public by the County of Riverside.
The benefit of educating the public about Brodiaea filifolia
habitat may be significant because the distribution of B. filifolia
habitat in Riverside County is not well known and the importance of
these habitat areas may not be known to the public. Activities are
taking place that harm habitat where B. filifolia occurs (including the
associated local watershed areas) in Riverside County possibly due to
the lack of public awareness. For example, manure dumping on private
property along the San Jacinto River is impacting habitat within the
Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area. These impacts are occurring
despite identification of these areas as important for the survival and
recovery of B. filifolia in the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the
critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register on
December 13, 2005 (70 FR 73820) (see Comment 27 in the Summary of
Comments and Recommendations section below). Manure dumping was not
discussed as an impact to B. filifolia in the Biological Opinion on the
Western Riverside County MSHCP (Service 2004b, pp. 378-386). We have
been working with permittees to implement additional ordinances that
will help to control activities (such as manure dumping) that may
impact the implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP
conservation objectives. To date, the City of Hemet is the only Western
Riverside County MSHCP permittee that has addressed the negative
impacts that manure dumping has on vernal pool habitat through the
enactment of Ordinance 1666 (i.e., the ordinance that prevents manure
dumping activities and educates its citizens). We believe including
areas in the B. filifolia revised critical habitat designation where
manure dumping still occurs on non-conserved land will provide
information to the public and local jurisdictions regarding the
importance of addressing this threat, which alters the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of B. filifolia.
Therefore, we believe there is a significant educational conservation
benefit of critical habitat designation in areas where manure dumping
occurs within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area. However, no
educational benefits would be realized in the approximately 381 ac (154
ha) of lands that meet the definition of critical habitat within
Subunits 11g, 11h, and a portion of Subunit 11f that are already
conserved and managed on PQP lands at the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological
Reserve.
The designation of Brodiaea filifolia critical habitat may also
strengthen or reinforce some of the provisions in other State and
Federal laws, such as CEQA or NEPA. These laws analyze the potential
for projects to significantly affect the environment. In Riverside
County, the additional protections associated with revised critical
habitat may be beneficial in areas not currently conserved. Critical
habitat may signal the presence of sensitive habitat that could
otherwise be missed in the review process for these other environmental
laws.
In summary, we believe that designating revised critical habitat
will provide minimal regulatory benefits under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act in areas currently conserved and managed, and no additional
educational benefits would be realized under these circumstances. In
areas that are not currently conserved or where no local ordinance
exists to protect Brodiaea filifolia habitat from manure dumping
activities (i.e., impacts that are not a covered activity under the
Western Riverside County MSHCP), we believe that there are significant
regulatory and educational benefits of critical habitat designation.
Benefits of Exclusion--Western Riverside County MSHCP
We believe conservation benefits would be realized by forgoing
designation of revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia on lands
covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP including:
(1) Continuance and strengthening of our effective working
relationships with all Western Riverside County MSHCP jurisdictions and
stakeholders to promote conservation of the B. filifolia, its habitat,
and 145 other species covered by the HCP and their habitat;
(2) Allowance for continued meaningful proactive collaboration and
cooperation in working toward protecting and recovering this species
and the many other species covered by the HCP, including conservation
benefits that might not otherwise occur;
(3) Encouragement for local jurisdictions to fully participate in
the Western Riverside County MSHCP; and
(4) Encouragement of additional HCPs and other conservation and
management activities in the future on other lands for this and other
federally listed and sensitive species, including incorporation of
protections for plant species which is voluntary because the Act does
not prohibit take of plant species.
We developed a close partnership with the permittees of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP through the development of the HCP, which
incorporates protections (conserved lands) and management for Brodiaea
filifolia, its habitat, and the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of this species. Additionally, many
landowners perceive critical habitat as an unfair and unnecessary
regulatory burden given the expense and time involved in

[[Page 6887]]

developing and implementing complex regional and jurisdiction-wide
HCPs, such as the Western Riverside County MSHCP (as discussed further
in Comments 57 and 75 below in the Summary of Comments and
Recommendations section of this rule). Exclusion of Western Riverside
County MSHCP lands would help preserve the partnerships we developed
with the County of Riverside and other local jurisdictions in the
development of the HCP, and foster future partnerships and development
of future HCPs, and encourage the establishment of future conservation
and management of habitat for B. filifolia and other sensitive species.
In summary, we believe excluding land covered by the Western
Riverside County MSHCP from revised critical habitat could provide the
significant benefit of maintaining existing regional HCP partnerships
and fostering new ones.
Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--Western
Riverside County MSHCP
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and benefits of
exclusion for lands covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP
proposed as revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia. The
benefits of including conserved and managed lands under the Western
Riverside County MSHCP in the revised critical habitat designation are
relatively small compared to the benefits of exclusion. Approximately
381 ac (154 ha) of lands that meet the definition of critical habitat
within Subunits 11g, 11h, and a portion of Subunit 11f are conserved
and managed on PQP lands at the Santa Rosa Plateau. Thus, it is
unlikely that Federal actions that would adversely affect B. filifolia
or its habitat will occur within these areas, and any regulatory
benefits provided by section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be minimal and
largely redundant with the protections already in place for this
habitat. Because these areas are conserved and managed, we do not
believe critical habitat designation for B. filifolia will provide
additional educational benefits.
In contrast to the benefits of inclusion, the benefits of excluding
conserved and managed land covered by the Western Riverside County
MSHCP from revised critical habitat are significant. The exclusion of
these lands from revised critical habitat will help preserve the
partnership and conservation and management we developed with Western
Riverside County and other permitees and stakeholders in the
development of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, and foster
additional partnerships for the benefit of Brodiaea filifolia and other
species. Therefore, in consideration of the relevant impact to current
and future partnerships, we determined the significant benefits of
exclusion outweigh the minor benefits of critical habitat designation
for lands that are conserved and managed. We analyzed the benefits of
including lands within Subunits 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, and a portion
of Subunit 11f (that are not conserved and managed) in the final
designation and the benefits of excluding those lands from the
designation. We recognize that the Western Riverside County MSHCP has
established valuable partnerships that are intended to implement
conservation actions for B. filifolia. However, in conducting our
evaluation of the conservation benefits to B. filifolia and its
proposed revised critical habitat that have resulted to date from these
partnerships, we did not conclude that the benefits of excluding areas
that are not conserved and managed (Subunits 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e,
and a portion of Subunit 11f) from revised critical habitat outweigh
the benefits of inclusion.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Subunits 11f,
11g, and 11h, Western Riverside County MSHCP
We determined exclusion of 381 ac (154 ha) of land in Subunits 11g,
11h, and a portion of 11f within the Western Riverside County MSHCP
planning area from the final revised critical habitat designation for
Brodiaea filifolia will not result in extinction of the species. These
areas are permanently conserved and managed to provide a benefit to B.
filifolia and its habitat. Therefore, based on the above discussion, we
are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude approximately 381 ac
(154 ha) of conserved and managed land in Subunits 11g, 11h, and 11f
from this final revised critical habitat designation.

San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP)--County of San
Diego Subarea Plan

The MSCP is a subregional HCP (one of multiple subregional HCPs in
the San Diego County region) made up of several subarea plans. The MSCP
has been in place for more than a decade. The subregional plan area
encompasses approximately 582,243 ac (235,626 ha) (MSCP 1998, p. 2-1)
and provides for conservation of 85 federally listed and sensitive
species (``covered species''). The conservation of these species is
being achieved through the establishment and management of
approximately 171,920 ac (69,574 ha) of preserve lands within the
Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) (City of San Diego Subarea Plan),
Pre-Approved Mitigation Areas (PAMA) (County of San Diego Subarea
Plan), and Mitigation Area (City of Poway Subarea Plan). The MSCP was
developed in support of applications for incidental take permits by 12
participating jurisdictions in southwestern San Diego County. Under the
umbrella of the MSCP, each of the 12 participating jurisdictions is
required to prepare a subarea plan that implements the goals of the
MSCP within that particular jurisdiction. Brodiaea filifolia was
evaluated in the MSCP subregional plan, and is a covered species under
the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. The Service issued the
County of San Diego a single incidental take permit (TE-840414) under
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act for the County of San Diego Subarea Plan
under the MSCP for a period of 50 years on March 17, 1998.
The County of San Diego has both ``hardline'' boundaries as well as
preserve areas that do not have ``hardline'' boundaries. In areas where
the ``hardlines'' are not defined, the County's subarea plan identifies
areas where mitigation activities should be focused to assemble its
preserve areas or the PAMA. Those areas of the County of San Diego
Subarea preserve, and other MSCP subarea preserves that are either
conserved or designated for inclusion in the preserves under the plan
are referred to as the ``MSCP preserve'' in this discussion. When the
preserve is completed, the public sector (Federal, State, and local
government) and private landowners will have contributed 108,750 ac
(44,010 ha) (63 percent) to the preserve, of which 81,750 ac (33,083
ha) (48 percent) was existing public land when the MSCP was established
and 27,000 ac (10,927 ha) (16 percent) will have been acquired. At
completion, the private sector will have contributed 63,170 ac (25,564
ha) (37 percent) to the preserve as part of the development process,
either through avoidance of impacts or as compensatory mitigation for
impacts to biological resources outside the preserve. Currently and in
the future, Federal and State governments, local jurisdictions and
special districts, and managers of privately owned lands will manage
and monitor their lands in the preserve for species and habitat
protection (MSCP 1998, p. 2-1).
At the time the permit was issued for the County of San Diego
subarea plan, no occurrences of Brodiaea filifolia were known to exist
within the MSCP. As B. filifolia is on the MSCP's list of narrow

[[Page 6888]]

endemic species, each subarea plan specifies conservation measures for
the species if an occurrence is newly identified. Occurrences within
the County of San Diego Subarea will be avoided to the maximum extent
practicable. Where complete avoidance is infeasible, encroachment may
be authorized but will not exceed 20 percent.
As discussed under the Benefits of Excluding Lands with HCPs
section of this rule, we considered excluding lands under the County of
San Diego Subarea Plan. After reviewing the areas covered by the County
of San Diego Subarea Plan, for the reasons discussed in the following
sections, we are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude
approximately 4 ac (2 ha) in Unit 12. We determined that approximately
109 ac (44 ha) of land in Unit 12 within the County of San Diego
Subarea Plan meet the definition of critical habitat under the Act. We
are including 105 ac (43 ha) of land within Unit 12 (within the County
of San Diego Subarea Plan) in this revised critical habitat
designation. In making our final decision with regard to these lands,
we considered several factors including our relationships with
participating jurisdictions and other stakeholders, existing
consultations, conservation measures and management that are in place
on these lands, and impacts to current and future partnerships. As
described in our analysis below, we reached this conclusion by weighing
the benefits of exclusion against the benefits of including an area in
the final revised critical habitat designation.
Approximately 4 ac (2 ha), or 9 percent, of Unit 12 is covered by
the Artesian Trails Resource Management Plan (Artesian Trails
Management Plan) in conformance with the County of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan, and, for the reasons discussed in the following sections,
we are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude these lands from
this final revised critical habitat designation pursuant to section
4(b)(2) of the Act. In this area, a population of Brodiaea filifolia is
conserved and managed within a preserve set aside by the property
owners consistent with a biological mitigation ordinance as part of the
Artesian Trails Minor Subdivision project (Tierra Environmental 2007,
pp. 1-2). The Artesian Trails Management Plan provides an overview of
the property's operation, maintenance, and personnel requirements to
implement management goals in perpetuity (Tierra Environmental 2007,
pp. 1, 3). Planned management activities include: (1) Annual monitoring
of the B. filifolia population; (2) exotic species removal and control;
(3) maintenance of access control (such as fencing and signage); (4)
site assessments with photo documentation; (5) trash removal; (6)
notifying property owners of conditions degrading habitat; (7)
maintaining community awareness of sensitive habitat and protection of
area; and (8) preparation of annual reports to the County of San Diego,
CDFG, and the Service (Tierra Environmental 2007, pp. 11-15, 17).
Benefits of Inclusion--County of San Diego Subarea Plan
The principal benefit of including an area in a critical habitat
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure actions
they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of any designated critical habitat;
the regulatory standard of section 7 of the Act under which
consultation is completed. Federal agencies must consult with the
Service on actions that may affect critical habitat and must avoid
destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. Federal agencies
must also consult with us on actions that may affect a listed species
and refrain from undertaking actions that are likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such species. The analysis of effects to
critical habitat is a separate and different analysis from that of the
effects to the species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these
two analyses represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For
some species (including Brodiaea filifolia), and in some locations, the
outcome of these analyses will be similar, because effects to habitat
will often also result in effects to the species. However, the
regulatory standard is different, as the jeopardy analysis investigates
the action's impact to survival and recovery of the species, while the
adverse modification analysis investigates the action's effects to the
designated habitat's contribution to conservation. This will, in many
instances, lead to different results and different regulatory
requirements. Thus, critical habitat designations may provide greater
benefits to the recovery of a species than would listing alone.
Any protections provided by critical habitat that are redundant
with protections already in place reduce the benefits of inclusion in
critical habitat. The consultation provisions under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act constitute the regulatory benefits of designating lands as
critical habitat. As discussed above, Federal agencies must consult
with us on actions that may affect critical habitat and must avoid
destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. Critical habitat
may provide a regulatory benefit for Brodiaea filifolia when there is a
Federal nexus present for a project that might adversely modify revised
critical habitat. Specifically, we expect projects in wetland areas
where the species occurs would require a 404 permit under the Clean
Water Act from the Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, critical habitat
designation would have a regulatory benefit to the conservation of B.
filifolia by prohibiting adverse modification of revised critical
habitat in wetland areas. In areas within Unit 12 that are not
conserved and managed, we believe critical habitat designation would
have a significant regulatory benefit to the conservation of B.
filifolia due to the presence of a potential Federal nexus, and because
the regulatory protections afforded by the designation of critical
habitat would not be entirely redundant with protections already in
place. However, in areas within the Artesian Trails Resource Management
Plan area which are conserved and managed under the Artesian Trails
Resource Management Plan, Federal actions that could adversely affect
B. filifolia or its habitat are unlikely to occur. If such actions do
occur in conserved and managed areas, it is likely that the protections
provided the species and its habitat under section 7(a)(2) of the Act
would be largely redundant with the protections offered by the Artesian
Trails Resource Management Plan. Thus, we expect the regulatory benefit
to the conservation of B. filifolia of including areas proposed for
designation in revised critical habitat in Unit 12 that have not been
conserved and managed could be significant, while the regulatory
benefit of including areas that have been conserved and managed would
be minimal.
Another possible benefit of including lands in critical habitat is
public education regarding the potential conservation value of an area
that may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation
value for certain species. Any information about Brodiaea filifolia and
its habitat that reaches a wide audience, including parties engaged in
conservation activities, is valuable. The inclusion of lands in the B.
filifolia proposed and final revised critical habitat designation that
are not conserved and managed is beneficial to the species because the
proposed and final rules identify those lands that require management
for the conservation of B. filifolia. The process of proposing and
finalizing revised critical habitat provided the opportunity for peer
review and public comment on

[[Page 6889]]

habitat we determined meets the definition of critical habitat. This
process is valuable to landowners and managers in prioritizing
conservation and management of identified areas that are not already
conserved and managed. No educational benefits would be realized in
portions of Unit 12 that are already conserved and managed under the
Artesian Trails Resource Management Plan. However, the inclusion of
lands in the B. filifolia revised critical habitat designation that are
not conserved and managed could be beneficial to the species because
designation will identify lands that require conservation and
management for the recovery of B. filifolia.
The designation of B. filifolia critical habitat may also
strengthen or reinforce some of the provisions in other State and
Federal laws, such as CEQA or NEPA. These laws analyze the potential
for projects to significantly affect the environment. In the County of
San Diego, the additional protections associated with revised critical
habitat may be beneficial in areas not currently conserved. Critical
habitat may signal the presence of sensitive habitat that could
otherwise be missed in the review process for these other environmental
laws.
In summary, we believe designating revised critical habitat would
provide minimal regulatory benefits under section 7(a)(2) of the Act in
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat currently conserved
and managed under the County of San Diego Subarea Plan, nor would any
additional educational benefits be realized under these circumstances.
In areas that are not expected to be conserved, we believe there are
significant regulatory and educational benefits of critical habitat
designation.
Benefits of Exclusion--County of San Diego Subarea Plan
We believe conservation benefits would be realized by forgoing
designation of revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia on lands
covered by the County of San Diego Subarea Plan including: (1)
Continuance and strengthening of our effective working relationships
with all MSCP jurisdictions and stakeholders; (2) allowance for
continued meaningful proactive collaboration and cooperation in working
toward species recovery, including conservation benefits that might not
otherwise occur; (3) the encouragement for local jurisdictions to fully
participate in the MSCP; and (4) encouragement of additional
conservation and management in the future on other lands for this and
other federally listed and sensitive species, including incorporation
of protections for plant species which is voluntary because the Act
does not prohibit take of plant species. In the case of B. filifolia in
San Diego County, the partnership and commitment by the County of San
Diego resulted in lands being conserved and managed for the long-term
that will contribute to the recovery of the species.
We developed a close partnership with the County of San Diego
through the development of the subregional MSCP and the County of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, which incorporates substantial protections
(conserved lands) and management for Brodiaea filifolia, its habitat,
and the physical and biological features essential to the conservation
of this species. By excluding approximately 4 ac (2 ha) of Unit 12 from
this revised critical habitat designation, we eliminate an essentially
redundant layer of regulatory review for projects covered by the
Artesian Trails Management Plan (in conformance with the County of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plan), which helps preserve our ongoing partnership
with the County of San Diego, supporters/contributors to the long-term
preservation of the Artesian Trails preserve area, and encourages new
partnerships with other landowners and jurisdictions and establishment
of conservation and management for the benefit of B. filifolia and
other sensitive species on additional lands; these partnerships and
conservation actions are crucial for proactive conservation of B.
filifolia, as opposed to the reactive, regulatory approach of
consultation.
The County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan addresses conservation
issues from a coordinated, integrated perspective rather than a
piecemeal, project-by-project approach (as would occur under section 7
or section 10 of the Act for smaller scale management plans or HCPs),
thus resulting in coordinated landscape-scale conservation that can
contribute to genetic diversity by preserving covered species
populations, habitat, and interconnected linkage areas that support
recovery of Brodiaea filifolia and other listed species. Additionally,
many landowners perceive critical habitat as an unfair and unnecessary
regulatory burden given the expense and time involved in developing and
implementing complex management plans or regional and jurisdiction-wide
HCPs (as discussed below in Comments 57 and 75 of the Summary of
Comments and Recommendations section).
In summary, we believe excluding land covered by the County of San
Diego Subarea Plan from revised critical habitat could provide the
significant benefit of maintaining existing regional management plan
and HCP partnerships and fostering new ones.
Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--County of
San Diego Subarea Plan
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and benefits of
exclusion from revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia for
lands under the County of San Diego Subarea Plan. The benefits of
including conserved and managed lands covered by the Artesian Trails
Resource Management Plan in the revised critical habitat designation
are relatively small compared to the benefits of exclusion.
Approximately 4 ac (2 ha), of land in Unit 12 at the Artesian Trails
Minor Subdivision is already conserved and managed. Thus, it is
unlikely that Federal actions that would adversely affect B. filifolia
or its habitat will occur within this area, and any regulatory benefits
provided by section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be minimal and largely
redundant with the protections already in place for this habitat. We do
not believe critical habitat designation for B. filifolia will provide
additional educational benefits for conserved and managed portions of
Unit 12 since these benefits (protection and management of the habitat
area) have already been realized. However for the portions of Unit 12
that have not been conserved and managed, we believe inclusion in the
revised critical habitat designation could have significant regulatory
and educational benefits due to the existence of a potential Federal
nexus, the lack of existing protections that would diminish the
likelihood of development or other impacts and that would be redundant
with additional regulatory protection, and the need for additional
protection and management that may be brought about through public
education.
In contrast to the benefits of inclusion, the benefits of excluding
conserved and managed land covered by the County of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan from revised critical habitat are significant. The
exclusion of these lands from revised critical habitat will help
preserve the partnership and conservation and management we developed
with the County of San Diego and other local stakeholders in the
development of the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan and the
Artesian Trails Resource Management Plan, and foster additional
partnerships for the benefit of Brodiaea filifolia and other species.
Therefore, in consideration of the relevant impact to current and
future partnerships, we determined the

[[Page 6890]]

significant benefits of exclusion outweigh the minor benefits of
critical habitat designation for lands that are conserved and managed.
We analyzed the benefits of including lands within Unit 12 that are not
conserved and managed in the final revised designation and the benefits
of excluding those lands from the designation. We recognize that the
County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan has established valuable
partnerships that are intended to implement conservation actions for B.
filifolia. However, in conducting our evaluation of the conservation
benefits to B. filifolia and its proposed revised critical habitat that
have resulted to date from these partnerships, we did not conclude that
the benefits of excluding areas in Unit 12 that are not conserved and
managed from revised critical habitat outweighs the benefits of
inclusion.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Unit 12, County
of San Diego Subarea Plan
We determined that the exclusion of approximately 4 ac (2 ha) of
land covered by the County of San Diego Subarea Plan in Unit 12 from
the final revised critical habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia
will not result in extinction of the species. These areas are
permanently conserved and managed to provide a benefit to B. filifolia
and its proposed revised critical habitat. Therefore, based on the
above discussion, we are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude
approximately 4 ac (2 ha) of conserved and managed land in Unit 12 from
this final revised critical habitat designation.

Economics

An analysis of the economic impacts for the previous proposed
critical habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia was conducted and
made available to the public on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58361). That
economic analysis was finalized for the final rule to designate
critical habitat for B. filifolia published in the Federal Register on
December 13, 2005 (70 FR 73820). The analysis determined that the costs
associated with critical habitat for B. filifolia across the entire
area considered for designation (across designated and excluded areas)
were primarily a result of the potential effects of critical habitat
designation on residential, industrial, and commercial development;
water supply; flood control; transportation; agriculture; the
development of HCPs; and the management of military bases, other
Federal lands, and other public or conservation lands. After excluding
land in Riverside, Orange, and San Diego counties from the 2004
proposed critical habitat (December 8, 2004 (69 FR 71284)), the
economic impact was estimated to be between $1.0 and $3.3 million over
the next 20 years expressed in undiscounted dollars. Based on the 2005
economic analysis, we concluded that the designation of critical
habitat for B. filifolia, as proposed in 2004, would not result in
significant small business impacts. This analysis is presented in the
NOA for the economic analysis published in the Federal Register on
October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58361).
We prepared a new economic impact analysis associated with this
revised critical habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia. In the
revised DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small
business entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions
related to the proposed revision to critical habitat for B. filifolia.
The analysis is based on the estimated incremental impacts associated
with the proposed rulemaking as described in Chapters 2 through 6 of
the analysis. We announced the availability of the draft economic
analysis in the Federal Register on July 20, 2010 (75 FR 42054).
The final economic analysis determined that the costs associated
with revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia, across the entire
area considered for designation (both designated and excluded areas),
are primarily a result of residential and commercial development,
transportation, utility, and flood control projects, and public and
conservancy lands management. The incremental economic impact of
designating revised critical habitat was estimated to be between $500
and $600 thousand over the next 20 years using a 7 percent discount
rate (Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) 2010, p. ES-7). The difference
between the economic impacts projected with this designation compared
to those in the 2005 designation are due to the use of an incremental
analysis in this designation rather than the broader coextensive
analysis used in the 2005 designation. Based on the 2010 final economic
analysis, we concluded that the designation of revised critical habitat
for B. filifolia, as proposed in 2009, would not result in significant
small business impacts. This analysis is presented in the Economic
Analysis of Revised Critical Habitat Designation for Thread-Leaved
Brodiaea (IEc 2010).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We requested written comments from the public on the proposed rule
to designate revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia during two
comment periods. The first comment period opened with the publication
of the proposed revised rule in the Federal Register on December 8,
2009 (74 FR 64930), and closed on February 8, 2010. The second comment
period opened with the publication of the notice of availability of the
Draft Revised Economic Analysis (DEA) in the Federal Register on July
20, 2010 (75 FR 42054), and closed on August 19, 2010. During both
public comment periods, we contacted appropriate Federal, State, and
local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties
and invited them to comment on the proposed revised rule to designate
critical habitat for B. filifolia and the associated revised DEA.
During the comment periods, we requested that all interested parties
submit comments or information related to the proposed revised critical
habitat, including (but not limited to) the following: reasons why we
should or should not designate habitat as ``critical habitat'';
information that may assist us in clarifying or identifying more
specific PCEs; the appropriateness of designating critical habitat for
this species; the amount and distribution of B. filifolia habitat
included in this proposed rule; what areas are essential to the
conservation of the species; unit boundaries and methodology used to
delineate the areas proposed as revised critical habitat; land use
designations and current or planned activities in the areas proposed as
revised critical habitat; special management considerations; economic,
national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area;
the exclusions being considered under section 4(b)(2) of the Act;
whether the benefit of an exclusion of any particular area outweighs
the benefit of inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act; and how to
improve public outreach during the critical habitat designation
process.
During the first comment period, we received 11 comment letters-3
from peer reviewers and 8 from public organizations or individuals.
During the second comment period we received 6 comment letters
addressing the proposed revised critical habitat designation and the
DEA. Of these latter comments, 1 was from a peer reviewer and 5 from
public organizations or individuals. We did not receive any requests
for a public hearing. We appreciate all peer reviewer and public
comments submitted and their contributions to the improvement of the
content and accuracy of this document.

[[Page 6891]]

Peer Review

In accordance with our Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species
Act Activities, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited
expert opinions from four knowledgeable individuals with scientific
expertise that included familiarity with Brodiaea filifolia, the
geographic region in which it occurs, and conservation biology
principles pertinent to the species. Three peer reviewers submitted
responses that included additional information, clarifications, and
suggestions that we incorporated into this final revised critical
habitat rule.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information regarding the
designation of revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia. All
comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into
this final revised rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer's Comments

Comment 1: Two peer reviewers expressed the opinion that the
methods, analysis, and results of the proposed revised critical habitat
for Brodiaea filifolia were careful, thoughtful, and in strict
adherence to the requisite methodology to define and designate critical
habitat. The peer reviewers also stated that the best available science
and methodology was used to arrive at the conclusions in the proposed
revised rule, and that the proposed revised critical habitat
designation encompasses a representative range of habitat types,
geographic distribution, and population sizes that meet the
requirements of the Act (59 FR 34270, July 1, 1994) for designation of
critical habitat. The peer reviewers believe the proposed revised
critical habitat for B. filifolia is more comprehensive and more
accurate than the December 13, 2005, final critical habitat rule for B.
filifolia (70 FR 73820).
Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewers' critical reviews.
Comment 2: One peer reviewer expressed confusion and concern with
the Service's use of number of flowering stalks of Brodiaea filifolia
as a measure of occurrence size, as discussed on page 64932 of the
December 8, 2009, proposed revised rule (74 FR 64930). The peer
reviewer stated that the number of flowering stalks does not provide a
maximum number of B. filifolia in an occurrence and believed the
Service should instead compare numbers of non-flowering plants between
occurrences, which presents a more accurate estimate of relative size
between populations. The peer reviewer believes that densities of B.
filifolia are larger than reported based on flowering stalk counts, and
appear to be dependent on soil types and geographical location.
A second peer reviewer believes that we did not clearly state that
the locality counts used to determine the importance of each locality
were based on stem counts. The second peer reviewer also questioned our
reasoning concerning how to determine which occurrences should be
considered the largest for this species, since any locality may in fact
contain many more Brodiaea filifolia plants than surveys might
indicate.
Our Response: As stated in the December 8, 2009, proposed revised
rule (74 FR 64930) on page 64932, the Service considers the number of
flowering Brodiaea filifolia stalks at a site to be an estimate of the
minimum number of B. filifolia plants present, not a maximum number or
an exact count. We understand that the number of B. filifolia
individuals in a population is larger than the number of flowering
stalks; thus, we only used the number of flowering stalks as an
estimate useful in comparing the relative abundance of B. filifolia at
various sites across the species' range. We thank the peer reviewer for
the information regarding soil type and geographic location.
In response to the issues brought up by the second peer reviewer;
we stated plainly in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
section--rather than being buried in a discussion of various survey
methods--that we are using counts of flowering stalks to estimate
relative Brodiaea filifolia population sizes. It is possible that a
very large population of the species could be mistakenly recorded as
having an average or low number of plants if only a few individuals
flower and the vegetative portions of the plants are difficult to see.
It seems unlikely, however, that the largest occurrences would be so
cryptic as to appear to be average or small occurrences.
Comment 3: One peer reviewer asked if it is known whether the field
study on Santa Rosa Plateau that noted the 8:1 ratio of corms to
flowering stems might have been conducted using Brodiaea santarosae
instead of B. filifolia.
Our Response: Comparing the description of the occurrence used in
the field study (EO 5 in Morey (1995, p. 2)) and the description of the
only known occurrence of Brodiaea filifolia within the range of B.
santarosae in Chester et al. (2007, p. 195), it appears the two are the
same occurrence. The field study was conducted on an occurrence of B.
filifolia; although some individuals of B. santarosae may have been
present as well.
Comment 4: One peer reviewer noted that the text in the ``Taxonomy
andFamily Placement--Movement of Brodiaea From Liliaceae (Lily Family)
to Themidaceae (Cluster Lily Family)'' section of the proposed revised
rule describing hybrids being described as Brodiaea santarosae should
have cited Chester et al. (2007), since this reference provides the
original description for this species.
Our Response: We thank the peer reviewer for this observation;
Chester et al. (2007) is cited later in the passage, but should have
been cited at the first mention of Brodiaea santarosae in that section
of the text.
Comment 5: One peer reviewer suggested that the term ``systematic
surveys'' should be replaced with ``comprehensive surveys'' at the top
of page 64933 in the proposed revised rule, stating that in close
proximity with the discussion on taxonomy, the use of the term
``systematic surveys'' suggests a study of the relationship of species
within the genus Brodiaea.
Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewer's critical review,
and will note the potential for confusion when using the word
``systematic'' when we mean ``methodical'' when drafting future rules.
Comment 6: One peer reviewer recommended revision to a sentence on
page 64933 in the Background section of the proposed revised rule to
read, ``Additionally, plants that were previously identified as hybrids
and not pure B. filifolia have now been described as B. santarosae
(Chester et al. 2007). Pires (2007.1) and Preston (2007, pers. comm.)
intend to include B. santarosae as a separate species in their
treatment of the genus Brodiaea for the revision of the Jepson Manual
that is now in progress.'' The peer reviewer felt the passage was
awkward as written in the proposed rule. Pires (2007.1) refers to J.C.
Pires, Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences, University of
Missouri-Columbia, pers. comm. to G. Wallace, Service September 17,
2007; Preston (2007, pers. comm.) refers to R. Preston, Senior
Botanist, IFC Jones and Stokes, Sacramento, California, pers. comm. to
G. Wallace, Service September 17, 2007.
Our Response: We agree that the revision provided by the peer
reviewer communicates the information in question more clearly;
however, we could not revise this passage for the final revised rule
because the Background section is not repeated in the final revised
rule.
Comment 7: Two peer reviewers expressed concern regarding the

[[Page 6892]]

Service's argument that adding an 820-ft (250-m) radius area around
populations of Brodiaea filifolia to provide adequate habitat for
pollinators based on flight distances for the pollinators is the best
way to determine critical habitat subunit boundaries. Both peer
reviewers believe the arguments behind this methodology are speculative
in part because studies have not established what species is or are the
most important pollinators for B. filifolia or the pollinator's
conservation requirements. One peer reviewer reported speaking with a
local insect expert who believes bumblebees cannot pollinate B.
filifolia because they are too heavy.
Our Response: On page 64936 of the December 8, 2009, proposed
revised rule (74 FR 64930), we outline a number of insects known to
pollinate Brodiaea filifolia and cite documented observations of these
insects pollinating B. filifolia, including bumblebees (Bombus
californicus). While we may not know what species is the most frequent
pollinator of B. filifolia, we do know that the majority of species
that have been observed pollinating B. filifolia have flight distances
that fall within the 820-ft (250-m) range; therefore, we believe using
this measurement to define critical habitat boundaries is appropriate
and not speculative.
Comment 8: One peer reviewer believes that the critical habitat
boundaries should not be limited to the 820-ft (250-m) pollinator area
if there is additional contiguous suitable or restorable habitat, or if
the population is within a larger landscape feature such as a
floodplain with an ecology that relies upon a suite of characters such
as hydrology and soils to support Brodiaea filifolia. According to the
peer reviewer, this is because there is much scientific information
indicating that soils, hydrology, and plant community structure are the
most important factors in plant distribution; because if there are
additional populations separated by 300 to 1,000 meters within a
contiguous block of suitable habitat it is not always certain
additional B. filifolia populations could not exist in the intervening
habitat; and because habitat conservation works more effectively with
larger conservation areas than in small areas. The peer reviewer
suggests that soil type boundaries (recommends using the boundaries of
the Willows soils unit, at least from San Jacinto Ave. south), changes
in plant community type, drainage watershed boundaries, or barriers
such as roads and existing development may make more appropriate
critical habitat boundary limits. A second peer reviewer was in
agreement, stating that developing critical habitat based on pollinator
dispersal does not appear to be as valid as a basic habitat approach in
conserving the PCEs for B. filifolia at critical localities. The second
peer reviewer suggested that the determination of the critical habitat
for this species should be based on potential habitat that could be
occupied by this species in the vicinity of occupied habitat, and
should also consider the basics of reserve design, and developing more
consolidated critical habitat areas rather than fragmented and isolated
pockets of habitat.
Our Response: To include areas in the revised critical habitat
designation that are contiguous suitable or restorable unoccupied
habitat between areas occupied by Brodiaea filifolia at the time of
listing, we need evidence that these areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. Additionally, our regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(e) state that we ``shall designate as critical habitat areas
outside the geographical area presently occupied by a species only when
a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to
ensure the conservation of the species.'' Based on the best scientific
information available to us at this time, we believe that limiting the
designation to the species' present range is adequate to ensure the
conservation of B. filifolia, and except for unoccupied habitat areas
within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of
listing needed to sustain pollinators of the species, unoccupied
habitat, in and of itself, is not essential for the conservation of B.
filifolia.
Comment 9: One peer reviewer stated that pollinators should only be
one element considered in drawing critical habitat unit boundaries, and
noted that many populations of B. filifolia reproduce largely by clone
and some (e.g., the Glendora population) appear to have been isolated
from cross-pollination for some time and continue to persist as
significant contributors to the species.
Our Response: In addition to identifying undisturbed habitats able
to support pollinators as a criterion for determining the revised
critical habitat boundaries we used numerous other criteria such as:
(1) Areas supporting occurrences on rare or unique habitat within the
species' range; (2) areas supporting the largest known occurrences of
Brodiaea filifolia; or (3) areas supporting stable occurrences. We
thank the peer reviewer and have taken into consideration B. filifolia
population dynamics and other interactions through the use of the above
criteria as identified in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat section of this rule.
Comment 10: One peer reviewer recommended altering PCE 2 to read
``Areas with a natural, generally intact or lightly disturbed surface *
* *'' According to the peer reviewer B. filifolia can persist in areas
that have been disked, especially if the subsoil structure is intact. A
second peer reviewer also felt PCE 2 should be eliminated or altered to
reduce its significance for the same reasons.
Our Response: We appreciate the suggestion, but do not believe this
change is necessary since ``generally intact'' was meant to indicate
that the surface could be lightly disturbed as long as the disturbance
did not result in permanent alteration of the surface or subsurface
soil structure.
Comment 11: One peer reviewer asked how an intact soil surface
provides habitat for pollinators, and whether this was an error and we
meant ``intact plant community.''
Our Response: The passage actually reads, ``* * * generally intact
surface and subsurface soil structure and support habitat for
pollinators * * *'' In other words, the soil surface should be able to
support pollinator habitat, not the pollinators themselves.
Comment 12: One peer reviewer suggested that the Special Management
Considerations or Protection section of the revised critical habitat
rule should discuss potential gaps in the conservation or management of
localities that could be considered critical habitat for Brodiaea
filifolia within existing or proposed HCPs. The peer reviewer goes on
to state that some HCPs have little control over current land use
practices on lands proposed for inclusion into the reserve system, and
some HCPs have limited control on agricultural conversion of these
lands.
Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewer's suggestion, however
the appropriate place for this discussion is in the Exclusions under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section of the rule. In this section, we
discuss the protections afforded the species and its habitat by various
relevant HCPs and management plans.
Comment 13: One peer reviewer asked whether extremely large
localities, e.g., over 10,000 plants, should be given a higher priority
as a factor in determining occurrences being determined for critical
habitat.
Our Response: It is unclear what the peer reviewer means by giving
occurrences `priority.' All occurrences

[[Page 6893]]

that met one or more of the criteria were proposed as critical habitat
in the proposed revised critical habitat designation. Critical habitat
designation acreage is not limited; therefore, there was no need to
prioritize or rank occurrences to make sure those with the highest
conservation value were included in the proposal.
Comment 14: One peer reviewer felt that Criterion 3 was
inconsistently applied to Brodiaea filifolia occurrences in the
proposed revised critical habitat rule. According to the peer reviewer,
it is unclear whether the Service intended Criterion 3 to mean that the
population is stable and persistent despite recent losses, stable and
persistent because it is in protected habitat without immediate future
threat, or has not suffered declines in recent years.
Our Response: We meant ``stable and persistent'' in the ecological
sense, i.e., to mean that a population is resilient--it contains enough
individuals to sustain the population over time. We did not consider
impacts or threats when evaluating Brodiaea filifolia occurrences in
the context of this criterion.
Comment 15: One peer reviewer pointed out that, according to Table
1 of the December 8, 2009, proposed revised critical habitat rule (74
FR 64930), the Brodiaea filifolia occurrence in Subunit 11a does not
meet Criterion 2, but according to the text on page 64942 this
occurrence does meet Criterion 2.
Our Response: We thank the peer reviewer for this observation. The
text on page 64942 of the December 8, 2009, proposed revised rule (74
FR 64930) is incorrect; this occurrence does not meet criterion 2.
Table 1 in the proposed revised rule (Table 3 in this final revised
rule) is correct.
Comment 16: One peer reviewer suggested that we confirm the
Brodiaea filifolia occurrence in Corona Cala Camino is in fact B.
filifolia. According to the peer reviewer, this area is within the
general range of B. santarosae, and the plants may actually be
affiliated with that taxon.
Our Response: We will attempt to verify this occurrence as time
permits. The data reported in the proposed revised critical habitat
rule represents the best data available to us at the time the proposed
revision was written. Because this occurrence does not meet any of the
criteria for designation as Brodiaea filifolia critical habitat, this
uncertainty is outside the scope of this critical habitat analysis and
will not be addressed here.
Comment 17: One peer reviewer stated that the Cristianitos Canyon
Pendleton occurrence is actually within San Onofre State Beach,
therefore, it would appear that this occurrence would not be exempt
from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Our Response: According to the GIS data provided to us by MCB Camp
Pendleton, the Cristianitos Canyon Pendleton occurrence is located on
the northern end of MCB Camp Pendleton.
Comment 18: One peer reviewer pointed out that Devil Canyon
(Subunit 5b) is noted as both occurrence 38 and 39 in CNDDB. The
reviewer suggests noting in the revised rule whether this subunit
includes both occurrences or is limited to occurrence 39. The peer
reviewer adds that since CNDDB notes this site as a hybrid population,
additional citations should be provided in the revised rule, noting the
current opinion on the species of Brodiaea found at this locality.
Our Response: Subunit 5b includes occurrence 39 only. We see the
reviewer's point regarding adding a note to the revised rule to
indicate that Subunit 5b does not contain CNDDB occurrence 38; however,
we feel this may cause unnecessary confusion for readers who are not
familiar with the situation. Our understanding at this point is that
occurrence 39 (Subunit 5b) does not entirely comprise hybrids (Chester
2007, p. 191).
Comment 19: One peer reviewer asked how areas with PCEs were mapped
if there was no actual field review of the localities being considered
for critical habitat. According to the peer reviewer, a more precise
mapping would require actual field examinations of the localities being
mapped.
Our Response: We used GIS data from multiple sources as well as
other resources outlined in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat section of this revised final rule to map the areas containing
PCEs. We do not have staffing or resources to field identify each
occurrence; therefore, we must rely on the best information available.
Comment 20: According to one peer reviewer, the Brodiaea filifolia
occurrence in Subunit 11e meets Criterion 1 because it is the only
remaining occurrence known to be associated with relatively high-
quality annual alkali grassland. This occurrence is also unique because
it persists in a more mesic habitat than is typically found along the
San Jacinto River.
Our Response: Our analysis found the Brodiaea filifolia occurrence
in Subunit 11e to meet Criterion 1 (see Table 3 above).
Comment 21: One peer reviewer pointed out that some of the survey
results used to determine whether a population of Brodiaea filifolia
had sufficient number of plants to be considered stable (850 flowering
plants) were counts of non-flowering plants while others were counts of
flowering plants.
Our Response: We consider the number of flowering Brodiaea
filifolia stalks at a site to be an estimate of the minimum number of
B. filifolia plants present. We understand that the number of B.
filifolia individuals in a population is larger than the number of
flowering stalks, thus we only used the number of flowering stalks as
an estimate useful in comparing the relative abundance of B. filifolia
at various sites across the species' range. If survey results for a
site are reported in counts of non-flowering plants, and the numbers
exceeded 850 plants, we could say with confidence that the site
contained a sufficient number of plants to meet Criterion 3; if survey
results reported in counts of non-flowering plants and were less than
850 plants, we would take into consideration the fact that non-
flowering plant counts were used and also examine other characteristics
of the occurrence to determine whether the occurrence met the stability
standards of Criterion 3: ``Additionally, we looked at all occurrences
with fewer than 850 flowering stalks to determine if any of these
exhibited the same persistence and stability characteristics to provide
similar conservation value as the other identified occurrences with
greater than 850 flowering stalks (since the counts for an occurrence
vary from year to year)'' (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat section above).
Comment 22: One peer reviewer suggested that the ``2005 fCH'' box
for Unit 10 in Table 2 of the proposed revised critical habitat rule
should read ``Not designated; based on misidentification of Brodiaea
orcuttii'' rather than ``Not designated, did not meet the definition of
critical habitat'' because the suggested revision more accurately
reflects the situation. The peer reviewer feels it is important to
separate such reports from those that actually support B. filifolia but
did not meet the criteria for critical habitat.
Our Response: We have changed the entry in the ``2005 fCH'' box for
Unit 10 in Table 2 of the proposed revised critical habitat rule to
``Not designated; could not verify occurrence'', because that is the
language used in the 2005 final critical habitat rule (see 70 FR
73834).
Comment 23: Two peer reviewers suggested that Table 2 should
indicate that the Corona North, Corona South, and Moreno Valley
occurrences were not designated as critical habitat in 2005

[[Page 6894]]

because they were based on unsubstantiated claims that the locations
were occupied by Brodiaea filifolia. The peer reviewers feel it is
important to separate such reports from those that actually support B.
filifolia but did not meet the criteria for critical habitat.
Our Response: We have changed the entry in the ``2005 fCH'' box for
the Corona North, Corona South, and Moreno Valley occurrences to ``Not
designated, could not verify occurrence'' as suggested by the peer
reviewer.
Comment 24: One peer reviewer recommended the Service verify the
number of Brodiaea filifolia plants found in Unit 3. The peer reviewer
is not aware of any reports substantiating this number, and other
sources (including the peer reviewer's own survey data) indicate a much
smaller number of B. filifolia in this area. The peer review added that
the population should be considered stable and persistent.
Our Response: We will attempt to verify these data as time permits.
The data reported in the proposed revised critical habitat rule
represents the best data available to us at the time the proposed
revision was written. Because this occurrence meets Criterion 1 and
thus qualifies for designation as Brodiaea filifolia critical habitat
regardless of the accuracy of the survey data in question, this
uncertainty is outside the scope of this critical habitat analysis and
will not be addressed here.
Comment 25: One peer reviewer stated that the unit descriptions in
the proposed revised rule generally provide a good overview of each
locality proposed for critical habitat. However, the reviewer
recommended that the Service add more information regarding the plant
communities that occur in each of the units/subunits. The peer reviewer
believes the unit descriptions are overly repetitive, and that these
descriptions should focus on the existing plant communities, soils, and
unique features of each locality. According to the reviewer, these
descriptions should also provide more information on sites with large
Brodiaea filifolia populations, noting the total number and
distribution of plants within the unit or subunit of critical habitat.
The reviewer then provides specific suggestions along these lines for a
number of units/subunits as well as proposing instances where subunits
could be expanded into adjacent unoccupied habitat, providing
corrections where inaccurate information is given for an occurrence.
Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewer's thorough review,
suggestions, and information provided to improve this revised critical
habitat rule and associated designation. We have incorporated the
reviewer's suggested edits where appropriate.
Comment 26: One peer reviewer noted that many of the Brodiaea
plants in Subunit 8b could be B. orcuttii or B. filifolia x B. orcuttii
hybrids; however, the peer reviewer agrees with the Service that there
is a sizable population of B. filifolia at this site and that the site
qualifies for critical habitat based on supporting a persistent
population. The reviewer also added that recent evidence suggests that
B. filifolia and B. orcuttii do not hybridize readily, so hybridization
may not be a long-term concern.
Our Response: We thank the peer reviewer for this information.
Please see the Special Management Considerations Or Protection section
above for further discussion of hybridization among species of
Brodiaea.
Comment 27: One peer reviewer argued that in cases where
conservation for species facing significant threats is not a priority
of landowners, designating critical habitat will probably have little
additional negative impact on either the condition of habitat or the
willingness of landowners to participate in conservation because
landowners are already actively degrading the habitat on their
properties and are already unwilling to participate in conservation
activities.
According to the peer reviewer, in Western Riverside County in
particular, there are many examples indicating that designation of
critical habitat would likely not make the conservation situation any
worse than it is, or make the private stakeholders any less willing to
participate in conservation actions than they have historically been.
The peer reviewer believes that landowners in Western Riverside County
are aware of the conservation value of lands such as the areas along
the San Jacinto River and at Hemet that are necessary to the
conservation of Brodiaea filifolia and other sensitive species, and are
purposely working to eradicate resources via increases in discing
frequency, early season discing, manure dumping, and irrigated
cultivation rather than partner with regulators.
Because of this, the peer reviewer believes that in Western
Riverside County there is no merit to the Service's argument that
designating critical habitat on lands already covered by HCPs
discourages landowners from participating in conservation actions and
makes landowners believe having endangered species on their property is
a liability because it has been clearly demonstrated that the
landowners hold these views regardless. Thus Service should employ all
regulatory mechanisms available including critical habitat designations
to protect biological resources in these areas.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act authorizes the Secretary
to designate critical habitat after taking into consideration the
economic impacts, national security impacts, and any other relevant
impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. An area
may be excluded from critical habitat if it is determined that the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designating a particular
area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate will result
in the extinction of the species. We believe the exclusions made in
this final revised rule are legally supported under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act and scientifically justified. After analyzing the benefits of
inclusion and exclusion of proposed revised critical habitat units and
subunits on lands covered under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, we
determined that the benefits of exclusion outweighed the benefits of
inclusion of lands already conserved and managed in Subunits 11g, 11h,
and portions of 11f (see Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against
Benefits of Inclusion--Western Riverside County MSHCP section above).
Service biologists continue to work with the County of Riverside and
permittees of the HCP to ensure B. filifolia and its habitat receive
the full extent of protections anticipated by the Western Riverside
County MSHCP.
Comment 28: One peer reviewer stated that manure dumping is
probably the most significant and immediate threat to the seasonally
flooded alkali vernal plains habitat and B. filifolia along the San
Jacinto River. The peer reviewer further stated that the Western
Riverside County MSHCP appears to have provided no mechanism to stop
the manure dumping.
Our Response: We realize that manure dumping is not a covered
activity under the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Because of the lack
of protection afforded to biological resources against manure dumping
by the Western Riverside County MSHCP, we have not excluded any areas
that are subject to this activity from this revised critical habitat
designation.
Comment 29: One peer reviewer expressed doubt that the partnership
between the Service and the County of Riverside provides enough
conservation potential to warrant excluding lands covered under the
Western Riverside County MSHCP from critical habitat

[[Page 6895]]

designation in order to preserve this partnership. The peer reviewer
believes that preserving this partnership is important, but if the
partnership does not result in significant conservation benefits and
does little to offset immediate and clearly identifiable threats, it
should not preclude the introduction of additional regulatory
conservation tools (such as critical habitat designations).
The peer reviewer goes on to state that the partnerships between
the Service and the City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego are
more meaningful, making the argument in favor of excluding lands
covered under the Carlsbad HMP and the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea
Plan in order to preserve these partnerships more valid.
Our Response: Although we are striving to maintain and improve our
partnerships with the Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees, they
do not restrict the Service from designating critical habitat on lands
covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. In this revised critical
habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia, we have not concluded that
the partnership benefits of excluding lands in areas owned by or under
the jurisdiction of Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees outweigh
the benefits of including those lands in Subunits 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d,
11e, and a portion of 11f that are not currently conserved and managed
(see Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--
Western Riverside County MSHCP section above).
We also agree with the peer reviewer that the conservation actions
taken by the City of Carlsbad over time, and the willingness of the
County of San Diego to work toward species conservation, serve to
support the argument in favor of excluding under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act lands covered under the Carlsbad HMP and the County of San Diego
MSCP Subarea Plan. However, in our balancing analysis under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, we relied more heavily on the presence of
conservation and management on lands considered for exclusion than
partnership benefits. As a result, we are only exercising our delegated
discretion to exclude lands covered by the Carlsbad HMP (in Subunit 7d,
and portions of Subunit 7a and 7c) and the County of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan (portion of Unit 12), which are conserved and managed (see
Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--Carlsbad
HMP and Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--
County of San Diego Subarea Plan sections above).
Comment 30: One peer reviewer stated that although the Orange
County Southern Subregion HCP is untested at this point, the 2006
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the HCP
proposed significant impacts to rare plants, including Brodiaea
filifolia, suggests that while the plan will not jeopardize B.
filifolia, it could significantly reduce recovery options within Orange
County. The peer reviewer believes that the proposed revised rule did
not offer enough specifics in its discussion of this HCP to support an
exclusion of lands that are covered under the Orange County Southern
Subregion HCP under section 4(b)(2).
Our Response: We may exercise our delegated discretion to exclude
an area from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act if we
conclude that the benefits of exclusion of the area outweigh the
benefits of its designation. We do not exclude areas based on the mere
existence of management plans or other conservation measures. The
existence of a plan may reduce the benefits of inclusion of an area in
critical habitat to the extent the protections provided under the plan
are redundant with conservation benefits of the critical habitat
designation. In particular, we believe that the exclusion of lands may
be justified when they are managed and conserved in perpetuity. Thus,
in some cases the benefits of exclusion in the form of sustaining and
encouraging partnerships that result in on the ground conservation of
listed species may outweigh the incremental benefits of inclusion. The
areas covered by the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP in Subunits
4c, and 4g, and approximately 12 ac (5 ha) in Subunit 4b, are not
currently conserved and managed for the benefit of Brodiaea filifolia,
and we have not concluded that the partnership benefits of excluding
these areas outweigh the benefits of including these areas in the final
revised designation. We are not exercising our delegated discretion to
exclude these areas under section 4(b)(2) of the Act in this the final
revised critical habitat designation (see Weighing Benefits of
Exclusion Against Benefits of Inclusion--Orange County Southern
Subregion HCP section).
Comment 31: One peer reviewer discussed numerous problems he
believes exist within the Western Riverside County MSHCP that may
impede Brodiaea filifolia conservation or even contribute to the
decline of the species:
There is no guarantee that many of the MSHCP goals will be
achieved.
Establishment of baseline populations, monitoring, and
management take place only after the County of Riverside has acquired
lands for conservation or when an environmental review is triggered for
a specific development project.
There are no hard-line conservation goals. Criteria Areas
are merely guidelines for where conservation will take place but do not
assure that the most suitable habitat is set aside in an appropriate
configuration.
The goals of the Western Riverside County MSHCP may be
irrelevant to occurrences of B. filifolia along the San Jacinto River
that could be extirpated or near extirpation before conservation
triggers are activated within the HCP. If impacts continue at the
current rate, there will be almost no B. filifolia habitat remaining
along the San Jacinto River outside of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area
within another 5 years.
There has been no effort to stop land use activities that
are greatly reducing the viability of habitats, such as proposed flood
control projects along the San Jacinto River.
The requirement that 90 percent of those portions of a
property with long-term conservation value within the Criteria Area
Species Survey Area will be avoided until the species conservation
objectives are met is (1) unachievable relative to historic baseline
conditions because over 10 percent of the original habitat has been
degraded or developed, and (2) ineffective relative to a baseline
established after habitat has been degraded.
The current rate of acquiring land and implementing
management on these lands is too slow to appreciably contribute to the
stabilization and recovery of B. filifolia.
Contradicting designations and directives within the
Western Riverside County MSHCP undermine the effectiveness of proposed
conservation measures.
The Western Riverside County MSHCP calls for 6,900 ac
(2,792 ha) of B. filifolia habitat to be set aside to provide adequate
conservation and contribute to the recovery of the species. However,
the Santa Rosa Plateau, which was likely expected to constitute a
significant portion of this conservation area, can no longer contribute
much acreage to the conservation area as only a small portion of the
Santa Rosa Plateau is occupied by B. filifolia.
Our Response: The Western Riverside County MSHCP has provided an
opportunity for valuable partnerships to be established and
conservation measures for Brodiaea filifolia to be

[[Page 6896]]

implemented. Although we are striving to maintain and improve our
partnerships with the Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees, they
do not restrict the Service from designating critical habitat on lands
covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. In this revised critical
habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia, in evaluating the
partnership benefits contributed by the Western Riverside County MSHCP
in the context of the current status the species and its habitat, we
have not concluded that the benefits of excluding areas owned by or
under the jurisdiction of Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees
outweigh the benefits of including those lands in Subunits 11a, 11b,
11c, 11d, 11e, and a portion of 11f that are not currently conserved
and managed (see Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of
Inclusion--Western Riverside County MSHCP section above).
Comment 32: One peer reviewer stated that HCPs are required only to
meet an extinction (i.e., jeopardy) standard, and because recovery is
not a requirement of HCPs, Section 10/HCP requirements to avoid
jeopardy could result in reducing a species to a minimal existence that
contributes little to the overall biotic community, and could also
leave a species at perpetual risk of extinction from a variety of
factors, while technically not qualifying as a jeopardy.
Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewer's concerns regarding
the long-term recovery of Brodiaea filifolia. Although not specifically
stated by the peer reviewer, their comment indicates they believe that
lands covered under an HCP should not be a basis for exclusion from a
critical habitat designation because the plans do not protect a listed
species to the level beyond that evaluated in a jeopardy analysis under
section 7 of the Act. We do not agree that protections given to listed
species under HCPs are necessarily limited to avoidance of jeopardy; we
believe the protections afforded by each HCP for each species differ
and need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, which is what we have
done in our exclusion analysis. See the Exclusions under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act section above for a detailed discussion.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be
designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific
data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national
security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. An area may be excluded from
critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as critical
habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the species. Consequently, we may
exercise our delegated discretion to exclude an area from critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on economic impacts,
impacts on national security, or other relevant impacts, such as
preservation of conservation partnerships, if we determine the benefits
of excluding an area from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of
including the area in critical habitat, provided the action of
excluding the area will not result in the extinction of the species. We
do not exclude areas based on the mere existence of management plans or
other conservation measures. The existence of a plan may reduce the
benefits of inclusion of an area in critical habitat to the extent the
protections provided under the plan are redundant with conservation
benefits of the critical habitat designation. In particular, we believe
that the exclusion of lands may be justified when they are managed and
conserved in perpetuity. Thus, in some cases the benefits of exclusion
in the form of sustaining and encouraging partnerships that result in
on the ground conservation of listed species may outweigh the
incremental benefits of inclusion. See Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act and Benefits of Excluding Lands with HCPs section for
further discussion.
We found the benefits of excluding lands that are both conserved
and managed under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the County of San
Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, the Carlsbad HMP, and the Orange County South
and Central-Coastal HCPs to be greater than the benefits of including
these lands. See the Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
section above for a detailed discussion.
Comment 33: One peer reviewer stated that critical habitat is
intended to provide for the conservation of the species (i.e., to go
beyond just preventing extinction and achieve a status where the
protections afforded by the Act are no longer necessary); and that
critical habitat designations within the context of regional HCPs could
assure that the intent of the Act is achieved and improve the
opportunity for recovery. The peer reviewer stated that relinquishing
an important tool for conservation (i.e., critical habitat) in cases
where a Federal nexus would otherwise exist because of the HCP overlay
is not wise if the overall strategic goal is to recover or stabilize an
endangered species.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 32.
Comment 34: One peer reviewer stated that critical habitat is a
tool that Federal agencies can use for conservation and by excluding
lands within HCP boundaries other Federal agencies may miss
opportunities to conserve species and their critical habitat.
Our Response: As a conservation tool, a critical habitat
designation ensures that when actions with a Federal nexus may impact
critical habitat, the Federal action agency consults with the Service
to determine if the action will adversely modify critical habitat.
Critical habitat does not require a Federal agency to perform any
additional conservation actions nor does it direct conservation
actions. With regard to areas that are within the boundaries of an HCP,
each exclusion is based on our determination that the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion of an
area will not result in extinction of a species. For the areas that we
are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude under section
4(b)(2) of the Act from this final rule, we have evaluated the benefits
of highlighting the importance of these areas for Federal agencies and
the public, but found that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion for the areas we are excluding (see the
Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above for details).
Comment 35: One peer reviewer submitted numerous comments
requesting additions to the text of the revised critical habitat rule
regarding the life history, ecology, and habitat of Brodiaea filifolia:
More information should have been presented on the
significance of the clonal populations, even if seed production is a
rare occurrence.
More information on the population biology of monocots in
this genus would be very helpful in determining the needs for habitat
conservation.
Any known information on seed viability in this or related
species of Brodiaea should also be presented. Seed viability should
provide some information on the rate of successful out-crossing in
known occurrences of this species.
The recorded localities of the two Brodiaea species on or
near Santa Rosa Plateau need to be carefully reviewed to determine the
actual remaining localities of Brodiaea filifolia found on the plateau
or adjacent areas.
Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer that having more
information on the species would be helpful. We

[[Page 6897]]

have based our determinations in this revised critical habitat
designation on the best available information, and have addressed the
need for further information in our five-year review of the species
(Service 2009a, pp. 35-36).
Comment 36: One peer reviewer stated that the description of
Brodiaea filifolia habitat should also include riparian habitats,
specifically riparian herb communities.
Our Response: We thank the peer reviewer for this information, and
have added this to the text of the final revised critical habitat rule.
Comment 37: One peer reviewer suggested that the text of the rule
be expanded to note that all areas excluded from the revised critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act are found within
the Western Riverside County MSHCP Criteria Area cells or CASSA survey
areas.
Our Response: We are exercising our delegated discretion to exclude
only those areas that are both conserved and managed from this revised
designation. These areas are protected from development impacts.
Therefore, whether or not excluded areas under the Western Riverside
County MSHCP fall within the Criteria Area or CASSA survey areas is not
relevant.
Comment 38: One peer reviewer submitted a number of comments
recommending edits or changes to the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County MSHCP)
section of the revised critical habitat rule to correct or clarify
information presented in the proposed revised rule, or add information
the peer reviewer felt was relevant but missing from the rule.
Our Response: The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County MSHCP) section of the final
revised rule includes the changes and additional information suggested
by the peer reviewer as appropriate.
Comment 39: One peer reviewer requested additional explanation
detailing why Brodiaea filifolia occurrences in San Diego and Riverside
counties have been excluded from this revised critical habitat
designation when more protected occurrences of the species are needed
to offset the loss of many ``secure'' B. filifolia locations on Santa
Rosa Plateau which were to be an important component of the recovery
strategy for the species.
Our Response: Only units/subunits protected by conservation and
management have been excluded from this revised critical habitat
designation; the peer reviewer's issue is therefore moot. The
Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and Benefits of Excluding
Lands with HCPs sections of this revised critical habitat rule explain
in detail our exclusion analyses and the outcomes thereof.
Comment 40: One peer reviewer expressed dissatisfaction with the
Service's practice of not publishing ``literature cited'' sections with
the text of Federal Register rules or on-line following the publication
of a rule in the Federal Register.
Our Response: Complete lists of all references cited in any Service
rulemaking are made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov
following publication of a rule. For rules written by the Carlsbad Fish
and Wildlife Office, reference cited lists are also available upon
request from the Field Supervisor of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the rule).
Comment 41: One peer reviewer pointed out that apparently some
previous summaries of location information on Brodiaea filifolia
prepared by Service staff (Roberts 1997, Roberts and Vanderwier 1997)
were overlooked in the preparation of the proposed revised critical
habitat rule. The peer reviewer believes that this material should have
been used as the basis for the information in the text of the proposal
and could have potentially eliminated some of the errors in the
proposed revised rule. The peer reviewer added that other important
updates provided to the Service by the California Native Plant Society
(CNPS) (Roberts 2002a and 2002b) were also not reviewed in the
preparation of the proposed revised critical habitat rule.
Our Response: We do have copies of the references the peer reviewer
referred to in his comment. We used information from these resources to
complete the 5-year review for Brodiaea filifolia; much of the
occurrence information in this revised critical habitat rule was
derived from the 5-year review.

Public Comments

Comment 42: One commenter expressed agreement with the Service's
proposed exclusion of all lands covered by the Western Riverside County
MSHCP from the revised critical habitat designation for Brodiaea
filifolia (Subunits 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, 11f, 11g, and 11h). The
commenter stated that under provisions in section 6.9 of the Western
Riverside County MSHCP and section 14.10 of the Implementing Agreement
for the Western Riverside County MSHCP, no critical habitat for
Brodiaea filifolia should be designated in the Western Riverside County
MSHCP plan area; that the proposed exclusion of lands covered by the
Western Riverside MSHCP was consistent with the United States District
Court's (E.D.Cal. Nov. 11, 2006) Case No. 05-629-WBS-KJMA, which upheld
the Service's decision to exclude the Western Riverside County MSHCP
from the designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool
species, finding that this exclusion was a reasonable exercise of the
Service's discretion; and that the Western Riverside County MSHCP
already adequately provides for the survival and recovery of the
species.
Our Response: With regard to the commenter's assertion that lands
owned or under the jurisdiction of the Western Riverside County MSHCP
should be excluded because the HCP provides adequate protection for the
species, the adequacy of an HCP to protect a species and its essential
habitat is one consideration taken into account in our evaluation under
section 4(b)(2). Exclusion of an area from critical habitat is based on
our determination that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits
of inclusion, and that exclusion of an area will not result in
extinction of a species, which is a more complex analysis process. We
have examined the protections afforded Brodiaea filifolia by the
Western Riverside County MSHCP during our exclusion analysis in this
revised critical habitat designation for B. filifolia, and have not
concluded that the benefits of excluding areas owned by or under the
jurisdiction of Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees outweigh the
benefits of including Subunits 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, and a portion
of Subunit 11f that are not currently conserved and managed, and we are
not exercising our delegated discretion to exclude these lands under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act in this final revised critical habitat rule.
Our determination not to exercise our delegated discretion to exclude
areas from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act is committed to agency discretion by law and is not reviewable (see
Home Builders Ass'n of N. Cal. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 2006 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 80255 at *66 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2006); Cape Hatteras Access
Preservation Alliance et al. v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 2010 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 84515 ** 36-38 (D.D.C. August 17, 2010)). We did, however,
determine that the benefits of excluding lands in areas owned by or
under the jurisdiction of Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees
that are conserved and managed (Subunits 11g, 11h, and a portion of
Subunit 11f) outweigh the

[[Page 6898]]

benefits of including those lands as revised critical habitat for B.
filifolia (see Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against Benefits of
Inclusion--Western Riverside County MSHCP section above).
With regard to the commenter's belief that critical habitat should
not be designated in the Western Riverside County MSHCP Plan Area based
on language in section 6.9 of the HCP and the associated Implementing
Agreement, section 14.10 of the Implementing Agreement does not
preclude critical habitat designation within the plan area (Dudek &
Associates 2003b, p. 6-109; Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Authority et al., p. 51). Consistent with our commitment
under the Implementing Agreement, and after public review and comment
on the proposed revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia, we
determined through our analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act that
the maximum extent of allowable exclusions under the Western Riverside
County MSHCP is limited to the exclusion of lands owned by or under the
jurisdiction of the permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP
that are both conserved and managed (Subunits 11g, 11h, and a portion
of Subunit 11f) (see Benefits of Exclusion--Western Riverside County
MSHCP section above for a detailed discussion of the exclusion
analysis).
Comment 43: Two commenters stated that the Orange County Southern
Subregion Habitat Conservation Plan provides for the conservation and
management of Brodiaea filifolia. One of the commenters requested that
the Secretary exercise his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
to exclude the Orange County Southern Subregion Subarea 1 lands from
the revised critical habitat designation for B. filifolia, and provided
a number of reasons in support of a 4(b)(2) exclusion of the Orange
County Southern Subregion Subarea 1 lands.
Our Response: We may exercise our delegated discretion to exclude
an area from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act if we
conclude that the benefits of exclusion of the area outweigh the
benefits of its designation. We do not exclude areas based on the mere
existence of management plans or other conservation measures. The
existence of a plan may reduce the benefits of inclusion of an area in
critical habitat to the extent the protections provided under the plan
are redundant with conservation benefits of the critical habitat
designation. In particular, we believe that the exclusion of lands may
be justified when they are managed and conserved in perpetuity. Thus,
in some cases the benefits of exclusion in the form of sustaining and
encouraging partnerships that result in on the ground conservation of
listed species may outweigh the incremental benefits of inclusion.
However, in reviewing the specific circumstances of Brodiaea filifolia,
we have not concluded that the partnership benefits of excluding lands
covered by the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP, the Western
Riverside County MSHCP, the Carlsbad HMP, and the City and County of
San Diego MSCP Subarea Plans that are not currently conserved and
managed outweigh the regulatory and educational benefits afforded under
section 7 of the Act as a consequence of designating critical habitat
in these areas (see Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section
above for details), and we are not exercising our delegated discretion
to exclude these lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act in this final
revised critical habitat rule. Our determination not to exercise our
delegated discretion to exclude areas from critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act is committed to agency discretion by
law and is not reviewable (see Home Builders Ass'n of N. Cal. v. U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Serv., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80255 at *66 (E.D. Cal.
Nov. 2, 2006); Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance et al. v.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84515 ** 36-38
(D.D.C. August 17, 2010)).
Comment 44: Two commenters stated that the Service should have
conducted the 4(b)(2) analysis in the proposed revised critical habitat
rule and based its proposed revision on that analysis, because deferral
of this analysis deprives the commenting public of information that is
necessary to review and to provide meaningful comments on the proposed
revised rule.
Our Response: Generally, it is our practice to include a discussion
of areas we are considering for exclusion in proposed critical habitat
rules in order to inform the commenting public of what areas may be
excluded from the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
and why, and allow the public opportunity to comment on potential
exclusions prior to conducting a final exclusion analysis under section
4(b)(2) of the Act.
Comment 45: Two commenters stated that the Service should exclude
the proposed 241 Completion Project right-of-way from Subunit 4c of the
revised critical habitat designation. One of the commenters also
pointed out that the Service issued a biological opinion finding that
the construction of the 241 Completion Project would not appreciably
reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of Brodiaea
filifolia.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 43. While the 241
Completion Project did not specifically factor into our exclusion
analysis, it is within the plan boundaries of the Orange County
Southern Subregion HCP and our section 4(b)(2) analysis for the HCP
covers this area.
Comment 46: One commenter expressed a belief that the proposed
revised critical habitat rule for Brodiaea filifolia is flawed because
it does not include all areas of occupied habitat. The commenter
believes that at least 33 extant populations of B. filifolia that were
present at the time of listing were arbitrarily dismissed from the
proposed revised designation because they do not meet the criteria.
According to the commenter, at least one of these populations is at the
edge of the species range, and may thus have unique genetic
characteristics that can impart novel evolutionary potential that may
be particularly important under climate change scenarios.
Our Response: All currently occupied and formerly occupied habitat
(including all extant CNDDB Element Occurrences) was considered for
designation as revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia, and all
occurrences were included in the proposed revised critical habitat
unless they were known to have been extirpated, presumed to have been
extirpated based on documented negative survey results, are not natural
occurrences (transplants or plants moved from their natural location
with fill soil), or did not meet the criteria used to identify critical
habitat (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section above).
While we recognize that climate change is an important issue with
potential effects to listed species and their habitats, we lack
adequate information to make accurate predictions regarding its effects
to B. filifolia at this time. However, the revised critical habitat
subunits have been designed to capture the areas we believe to support
the most stable and persistent populations, unique and rare habitat,
and the largest populations of the species (see Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat section above). We believe these areas will
be important to the conservation of B. filifolia under climate change
scenarios.
Comment 47: One commenter expressed a belief that the Service
failed to justify why the three criteria used to define revised
critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia are the only criteria

[[Page 6899]]

used to identify habitat critical for the survival and recovery of the
species. The commenter believes that the three criteria fail to
incorporate the effect of global climate change on the persistence of
B. filifolia and that many more criteria are needed to identify
essential plant habitat.
Our Response: We believe the three criteria used to define revised
critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia were broad enough to result in
the proposal of a wide range of occurrences of the species. As a
result, we expect the revised designation will afford protections to
the species that will enhance its overall stability and persistence as
well as providing for conservation. Because we cannot predict what
effects global climate change may have on B. filifolia, its habitat, or
distribution of the species and its habitat, we are unable to craft
criteria that specifically address this issue.
Comment 48: One commenter expressed a belief that the proposed
revised rule is flawed because it does not include unoccupied habitat
that the commenter considers essential to the recovery of the species.
The commenter further states that not including additional habitat that
may not be occupied currently but was occupied in the recent past and
where field conditions have not changed precludes the opportunity for
species recovery in these areas, which the commenter considers
essential.
Our Response: Critical habitat designation is a different process
than development of recovery goals and objectives that are outlined in
a recovery plan (which has not yet been developed for Brodiaea
filifolia). A critical habitat designation is a regulatory action that
defines specific areas that are essential to the conservation of the
species in accordance with the statutory definition. A recovery plan
(and the associated recovery goals and objectives) is a guidance
document developed in cooperation with partners, which provides a
roadmap with detailed site-specific management actions to help conserve
listed species and their ecosystems. Recovery plans provide important
information about the species and the actions that are needed to bring
about a species' recovery.
We believe we have, to the best of our ability and based on the
best available scientific and commercial information, identified all
habitat areas that are essential to the conservation of Brodiaea
filifolia. We recognize that the designation of revised critical
habitat may not include all of the habitat that may eventually be
determined to be necessary for the recovery of B. filifolia, and
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not contribute to recovery. Areas
outside the revised critical habitat designation will continue to be
subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of
the Act and regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2)
jeopardy standard and the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if
actions occurring in these areas may affect B. filifolia; these
protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to
recovery of this species.
Comment 49: One commenter stated that species with designated
critical habitat are more likely to be recovering than species that
lack the designation, citing Taylor et al. 2005. This commenter
believes that without critical habitat, Brodiaea filifolia has a
reduced chance of persisting and recovering. This commenter goes on to
state that the Service should consider and evaluate the recovery
benefits of critical habitat designation in order to promulgate a
legally valid critical habitat rule (which the commenter believes was
not done in the proposed revised rule).
Our Response: Taylor et al. (2005) did not evaluate the effects of
the conservation benefits provided by HCPs, long-term management plans,
or INRMPs on the population trends of the species they evaluated in
their study. We believe that the conservation benefits provided by
critical habitat designation in areas we have included in the revised
designation and by INRMPs, long-term management plans, and HCPs in
areas exempted or excluded from the designation will provide the
protection to Brodiaea filifolia anticipated by section 4 of the Act.
Please see the response to comment 49 regarding recovery benefits to
the species.
Comment 50: One commenter expressed opposition to any exclusions
from the proposed revised critical habitat of areas that may be covered
by other management plans, HCPs or INRMPs, pursuant to section 3(5)(A)
under the logic that they do not need ``special management'' or under
section 4(b)(2). The commenter believes that all Brodiaea filifolia
essential habitat needs special management because of the variety of
direct and indirect impacts to the habitat. The commenter stated that
areas that require special management considerations but which are
covered or will be covered in the future by management plans or
conservation plans should not be excluded pursuant to ESA section
3(5)(A) or 4(b)(2) from the protection that a designation of critical
habitat provides. The commenter went on to state that, in Center for
Biological Diversity, et al. v. Norton, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1099 (D.
Az. 2003), the court found that the existence of a management plan, far
from being a reason to exclude an area from critical habitat, is
indisputable proof that the area qualifies as critical habitat. An
additional comment states that the Service fails to conduct the
required 4(b)(2) analysis of the benefits of exclusion versus inclusion
of lands covered by the existing HCPs.
Our Response: The Service does not interpret the definition of
critical habitat (section 3(5)(A) of the Act) to mean that areas
receiving protection or management do not meet the definition of
critical habitat. We agree with the commenter that prong one of the
definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A) of the Act requires
only that an area contain a physical or biological feature essential to
the conservation of the species that ``may require'' special management
considerations or protection; it does not require an absolute finding
that the area requires special management considerations or protection.
Prong two of the definition of critical habitat does not require a
finding that special management considerations or protection may be
required.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, exclusion of an area from
critical habitat designation is based on our determination that the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and that
exclusion of the area will not result in extinction of a species, which
is a complex analysis process. We found the benefits of exclusion of
lands that are both conserved and managed under HCPs or long-term
management plans to be greater than the benefits of including these
lands in the revised critical habitat designation in large part because
the associated HCPs and management plans afford protection to the
excluded areas, and due to the benefits of preserving partnerships and
encouraging development of additional HCPs and other conservation plans
in the future. We believe we appropriately applied our exclusion
analysis as required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act for existing HCPs.
For more information, see the Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act section for a detailed discussion.
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act states: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources

[[Page 6900]]

management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act
[Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act)] (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to
the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
We determined that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP
provide a benefit to the populations of Brodiaea filifolia and this
species' habitat occurring on MCB Camp Pendleton (the only military
lands on which the species is known to occur) (MCB Camp Pendleton 2007,
Section 4, pp. 51-76). The INRMP provides measures that promote the
conservation of B. filifolia within the 1,531 ac (620 ha) of habitat
that we believe contain the features essential to the conservation of
B. filifolia on MCB Camp Pendleton, which are subject to the INRMP,
within the following areas: Cristianitos Canyon, Bravo One, Bravo Two
South, Basilone/San Mateo Junction, Camp Horno, Pilgrim Creek, and
South White Beach. As a result, we are not including these areas in
this final revised critical habitat designation.
Comment 51: One commenter stated that whether habitat does or does
not require special management is not determinative on whether or not
that habitat is ``critical'' to a threatened or endangered species;
what is determinative is whether or not the habitat is ``essential to
the conservation of the species'' and special management of that
habitat is possibly necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)). Thus,
according to the commenter, the fact that a particular habitat does, in
fact, require special management is demonstrative evidence that the
habitat is ``critical.''
Our Response: We agree with the commenter that prong one of the
definition of critical habitat in section 3(5)(A) of the Act requires
only that an area contain a physical or biological feature essential to
the conservation of the species that ``may require'' special management
considerations or protection; it does not require an absolute finding
that the area requires special management considerations or protection.
Prong two of the definition of critical habitat does not require a
finding that special management considerations or protection may be
required. Please see the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat and
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act sections for a detailed
discussion of the process followed to delineate critical habitat for
this revised designation.
Comment 52: One commenter stated that any exclusion of critical
habitat that relies on not yet adopted, preliminary and not publicly
reviewed plans for conservation is unacceptable and provides only a
highly speculative conservation benefit at best. The commenter does not
believe that the proposed revised critical habitat rule demonstrates
unequivocally that the benefits of excluding these areas from the
revised critical habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia outweigh
the benefits of including them in the designation.
Our Response: We did not exclude any habitat from this revised
critical habitat designation that falls within the plan area of an HCP
permit that has not yet been issued. Please see the Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section for a detailed discussion on our
exclusion analyses of those areas we considered for exclusion in the
proposed revised critical habitat designation (74 FR 64292).
Comment 53: One commenter recommended that the revised critical
habitat designation carefully consider all of the existing conservation
investments through mitigation of impacts to Brodiaea filifolia and
support those investments so that they can succeed. The commenter
expressed concern that withdrawing these lands from the revised
critical habitat designation would undermine and devalue the previous
conservation investments because the surrounding land would no longer
be highly valued for conservation, which would lead to isolation and
fragmentation of adjacent areas which would degrade the mitigation
lands, and ultimately make irrelevant the mitigation.
Our Response: We have excluded only lands that are both conserved
and managed from this revised designation. Some of these excluded areas
include lands set aside as mitigation or as a result of consultations
under section 7 of the Act to offset project impacts. We do not agree
with the commenter's assertion that not designating revised critical
habitat would decrease the perceived conservation value of mitigation
areas because these lands are understood to have high conservation
value due to their conserved status.
Comment 54: One commenter asserted that the Service needs to
include all occupied and suitable unoccupied habitat in the revised
final economic analysis (FEA) and final revised critical habitat rule,
and not rely on the proposed revised critical habitat rule as the basis
for the economic analysis.
Our Response: The purpose of the economic analysis is to identify
and analyze the potential incremental economic impacts associated with
the revised designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia.
Occupied areas not proposed as revised critical habitat are outside the
scope of the Economic Analysis, as they are not expected to be impacted
by the designation.
Comment 55: One commenter noted that Subunit 8f is in
unincorporated San Diego County, not the City of San Marcos as
indicated in the proposed revised critical habitat rule. It is within
the County of San Diego MSCP North County Plan, but owned by the San
Marcos Unified School District. School districts are their own
jurisdiction and not subject to the County plans and regulations. The
commenter does not object to the designation of this area as critical
habitat for Brodiaea filifolia.
Our Response: We thank the commenter for this information and have
incorporated it into the final revised critical habitat rule.
Comment 56: One commenter noted that Unit 12 is in a Minor
Amendment area of the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan; therefore,
proposed projects require Service concurrence of proposed impacts and
mitigation to move forward. Because Service concurrence is required,
the commenter believes there will be no additional benefit from
critical habitat. Approximately 28 ac (11 ha) of the southern portion
of Unit 12 are Take Authorized and approximately 3.5 ac (1.4 ha) are
hardline preserve. Mitigation for the Take Authorized area was
coordinated with the Service prior to the approval of the Subarea Plan;
therefore these areas should not be included in the revised critical
habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia according to this commenter.
Our Response: We may exercise our delegated discretion to exclude
an area from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act if we
conclude that the benefits of exclusion of the area outweigh the
benefits of its designation. We do not exclude areas based on the mere
existence of management plans or other conservation measures. The
existence of a plan may reduce the benefits of inclusion of an area in
critical habitat to the extent the protections provided under the plan
are redundant with conservation benefits of the critical habitat
designation. In particular, we believe that the exclusion of lands may
be justified when they are managed and conserved in perpetuity. Thus,
in some cases the benefits of exclusion in the form of sustaining and
encouraging partnerships that result in on the ground conservation of
listed species may outweigh the incremental benefits of inclusion. Only
a portion of the Minor Amendment area of the

[[Page 6901]]

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan is both conserved and managed,
and we have not concluded that the partnership benefits of excluding
all lands within the Minor Amendment area under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act outweigh the benefits of including these areas in the final revised
critical habitat designation. Based on the results of our exclusion
analysis for proposed lands covered under the County of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan, we did determine that the benefits of exclusion
outweighed the benefits of inclusion in the area already conserved and
managed under the Artesian Trails Management Plan, and this is the only
portion of the Minor Amendment area of the County of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan that has been excluded from this revised designation.
Comment 57: One commenter suggested we exclude the Metropolitan
Water District right-of-way from Unit 11a of the revised critical
habitat designation. According to the commenter, the right-of-way
includes the shoulders of Davis Road, which are highly disturbed and
not suitable for sensitive plants. Alternatively, the commenter
suggests we exclude all of Subunit 11a under 4(b)(2) of the Act because
it is within the area covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
The commenter further expressed concern that the designation of revised
critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia may delay, limit, or impede
access needed to ensure safe and effective operation of critical
infrastructure (Metropolitan Water District) facilities in Subunit 11a.
The commenter is concerned that maintenance activities in these areas
could be delayed or prevented by additional permitting requirements of
regulatory agencies due to the revised critical habitat designation.
Our Response: When determining the revised critical habitat
boundaries, we made every effort to map precisely only the areas that
contain the PCEs and provide for the conservation of Brodiaea
filifolia. However, we cannot guarantee that every fraction of critical
habitat contains the PCEs due to the mapping scale we use to draft
critical habitat boundaries. We made every attempt to avoid including
developed areas such as lands underlying buildings, paved areas, and
other structures that lack PCEs for B. filifolia. The scale of maps
prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed
areas. Any developed structures and the land under them inadvertently
left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final
revised critical habitat designation are excluded by text in this rule
and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions
involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with
respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse
modification unless the specific actions may affect the species or PCEs
in adjacent critical habitat.
Please see our response to Comment 42 for a discussion regarding
our 4(b)(2) analysis for areas covered by the Western Riverside County
MSHCP. We are not exercising our delegated discretion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude Subunit 11a from this final revised
critical habitat designation. Therefore, any Metropolitan Water
District activities that might impact lands in Subunit 11a outside of
the Davis Road right-of-way will require consultation with the Service
if there is a Federal nexus; this may result in project delays.
Comment 58: One commenter pointed out that Metropolitan Water
District purchased 74 ac (30 ha) of land and funded research to
conserve and enhance populations of Brodiaea filifolia as part of the
consultation under section 7 of the Act for the Inland Feeder Project
(Service 1999 (1-6-99-F-18)). The commenter stated that these lands
should be excluded from the revised critical habitat designation for B.
filifolia because they have been conferred to CDFG for inclusion into
the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, and are protected and managed by CDFG as
part of the wildlife area.
Our Response: Please see our response to Comment 42 for a
discussion regarding our 4(b)(2) analysis for areas covered by the
Western Riverside County MSHCP. We are not exercising our delegated
discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude lands within the
San Jacinto Wildlife Area from this final revised critical habitat
designation. Therefore, any Metropolitan Water District activities that
might impact lands in Subunit 11a outside of the Davis Road right-of-
way will require consultation with the Service if there is a Federal
nexus.
Comment 59: One commenter submitted several comments describing
needed and planned research activities for the Devil's Canyon (Subunit
5b) occurrence of Brodiaea filifolia.
Our Response: We thank the commenter for this information. We will
consider this information in our next 5-year review for this species.

Economic Analysis Comments

General Comments About Framework, Assumptions, and Economic Benefits
Comment 60: Two commenters stated the discount rate applied and the
development projections should be reevaluated given current economic
conditions. The next few years will have far lower economic activity
than expected, and should be reevaluated given current economic
conditions.
Our Response: The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
requires Federal agencies to report results using discount rates of
three and seven percent (see OMB, Circular A-4, 2003). The DEA relies
on growth projections at the census tract level provided by the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG). These projections forecast growth
over a 20-year period; however, they generally do not provide
information about the percent of this growth occurring in intermediate
time periods. It is possible that, given current economic conditions,
development activity will be slower in the early part of this timeframe
and more aggressive during the latter half. However, lacking specific
data on which to base assumptions about a variable growth rate, we
assume linear growth between 2010 and 2030. A note has been added to
Exhibit 3-13 of the FEA to draw attention to this assumption (IEc 2010,
p 3-20).
Comment 61: One commenter stated that as a result of decreased
development and associated construction spending, it appears that there
may not be funding available for many of the conservation efforts
included in the HCPs. Therefore, the DEA's assumptions regarding the
implementation of conservation measures under the HCPs and the
availability of funds to carry out these measures are flawed.
Our Response: The DEA does not evaluate the broader goals of the
regional HCPs and whether they will be achieved. The costs of
implementing the HCPs outside of proposed revised critical habitat are
not estimated. Rather, the DEA identifies development that is likely to
occur over the next 20 years based on data obtained from regional
planning agencies and uses the conservation and mitigation requirements
defined in the HCPs as proxies for the best estimate of the outcome of
future section 7 consultations. Specifically, the DEA assumes that 95
percent of critical habitat acres overlapping a development project
must be preserved and salvaging

[[Page 6902]]

and transplantation of plants occurs on the remaining 5 percent. We
agree that if a developer does not have the funds to carry out these
measures, then the project is unlikely to move forward. However, the
loss in land value that occurs as a result of these requirements is
real, regardless of whether the individual projects actually take
place.
Comment 62: One commenter stated that the DEA does not clearly
define how it estimates potential cost associated with time delays,
regulatory uncertainty, and stigma.
Our Response: Chapter 2 defines these categories of cost for the
purposes of the analysis (IEc 2010, pp. 2-1-2-22). Data are not readily
available to quantify potential impacts from regulatory uncertainty and
stigma, thus they are discussed qualitatively.
Comment 63: One commenter stated that because all units within the
proposed revised critical habitat are currently occupied by Brodiaea
filifolia, no additional expenses would be incurred during section 7
consultation to address adverse modification of critical habitat.
Our Response: As is described in Chapter 2, new consultations
taking place after critical habitat designation must include additional
analysis and text to address whether the action will adversely modify
critical habitat (IEc 2010, pp. 2-12-2-14). The Service, relevant
action agencies, and third party participants in section 7
consultations have provided information for this and other economic
analyses of critical habitat designation estimating the additional
regulatory and administrative burdens imposed by this requirement.
These costs are incremental because absent designation, no requirement
to evaluate, comment on, or address the potential for adverse
modification exists.
Comment 64: One commenter stated that including the cost of
considering additional land for pollinators as an incremental cost of
the designation is inappropriate because the Service must consider
pollinators in consultations for impacts to the species regardless of
designation of critical habitat.
Our Response: This assumption is explained in detail in the
incremental effects memorandum from the Service provided in Appendix D
(IEc 2010, p. D-1). It represents the professional judgment of Service
staff and represents the best available information.
Comment 65: One commenter stated that no data are presented to
justify the assumption that in areas greater than 50 ft (15 m) of a
known Brodiaea filifolia occurrence, 20 percent of the time the action
agency would not have been aware of the need to consult on potential
effects to B. filifolia. Furthermore, relying upon this assumption to
assign all costs associated with these consultations to the designation
of critical habitat is not accurate. The commenter argues that these
consultations should be required under the listing of the species and
thus should be considered a baseline cost.
Our Response: The incremental effects memorandum provided in
Appendix D justifies this assumption (IEc 2010, p. D-1). The Service
relies upon consultation data for the San Diego fairy shrimp to
determine the number of consultations which would not have occurred
absent critical habitat. The Service states that ``similar to [Brodiaea
filifolia], impacts to lands adjacent to the habitat physically
occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp (i.e., the local watershed that
surrounds a vernal pool) were not necessarily addressed through
consultation with the Service prior to critical habitat designation''
(Service 2010, in litt.). The Service determines that the designation
of critical habitat for the fairy shrimp resulted in a 20 percent
increase in the number of consultations and believes that it may see a
comparable increase in the number of consultations for B. filifolia
after the designation of revised critical habitat. This behavioral
change is directly attributable to the designation of revised critical
habitat; thus we count the costs of this new behavior as incremental.
This assumption represents the professional judgment of Service staff
and represents the best available information.
Comment 66: Two commenters stated that the administrative costs of
consultation used in the analysis are underestimated. One commenter
suggested that based on personal experience, the cost for technical
assistance varies from $5,000 to $10,000 and can be more if outside
legal counsel is necessary. Similarly, the costs for preparing a
biological assessment are also underestimated; a more accurate figure
would be $10,000 to $25,000. Another commenter suggested that the cost
of preparing a biological assessment for a new consultation considering
only adverse modification should be 5-10 times higher than the amount
given in Exhibit 2-3 ($4,200). Additionally, the commenter believes
that third party costs of consultation are substantially
underestimated.
Our Response: We have reviewed the cost estimates presented by the
commenters and find that they fall within acceptable range limits
identified through discussions with other project proponents and as a
result, have adjusted the FEA to reflect this new information on
administrative costs associated with the designation. The FEA uses an
administrative cost of preparing a biological assessment of $25,000;
this estimate reflects the high-end estimate provided by one commenter
and falls within the range provided by another commenter. The FEA uses
an administrative cost to third parties of $10,000 for all types of
consultation. It should be noted that a cost of $250,000 for a
programmatic consultation and CEQA review of the Inland Feeder Project
is used in place of the costs provided in Exhibit 2-3; because a cost
estimate specific to the project was provided by the stakeholder (IEc
2010, p. 2-15).
Comment 67: One commenter stated that the Service's methodological
approach of separately estimating incremental impacts of the
designation relative to existing baseline protections omits substantial
economic impacts resulting from the proposed rule.
Our Response: The identification and estimation of incremental
impacts is consistent with direction provided by OMB to Federal
agencies for the estimation of the costs and benefits of Federal
regulations (see OMB, Circular A-4, 2003). It is also consistent with
several recent court decisions, including Cape Hatteras Access
Preservation Alliance v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 344 F. Supp.
2d 108 (D.D.C.) and Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of
Land Management, 422 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Those decisions
found that estimation of incremental impacts stemming solely from the
designation is proper.
Comment 68: One commenter stated that the Service's framework
ignores indirect and cumulative effects of the designation of critical
habitat. The measurement of these types of impacts is required under
another Federal environmental law, the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
Our Response: Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, and OMB's Circular A-4, which provides direction to Federal
agencies on the implementation of Executive Order 12866, represent the
framework used to estimate the costs and benefits of regulations
promulgated by all Federal agencies. They do not require the estimation
of indirect or cumulative impacts. Furthermore, section 4(b)(2) of the
ESA is silent on the definition of ``economic impacts'' to be
considered prior to the designation of critical habitat. Thus, the
Service relies on the well-established and universally followed
principles laid out in Circular A-4.

[[Page 6903]]

Also it is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in
connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. See
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
section below.
Comment 69: One commenter stated that the DEA does not consider
added environmental reviews by other regulatory agencies that could
trigger more complex permits and more mitigation measures. Nor did it
assess the costs of consultation under section 10 of the Act.
Our Response: Chapter 2 of the DEA explains that critical habitat
designation may provide new information to a community about the
sensitive ecological nature of a geographic region, potentially
triggering additional economic impacts under State or local laws, such
as CEQA (IEc 2010, pp. 2-1-2-22). Where appropriate the DEA includes
costs associated with CEQA review. We are not aware of any new HCPs
likely to be prepared under section 10 of the Act to cover Brodiaea
filifolia. The HCPs currently in place were developed prior to the
designation of critical habitat for B. filifolia and thus are outside
of the scope of this analysis. Additionally, HCPs are usually not
prepared for plant species because there is no prohibition against take
of plants. In general, plant species will be covered by an HCP only if
a listed animal species is present in the area.
Comment 70: One commenter stated that the DEA should consider
cumulative effects (defined as the impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other
actions (40 CFR 1508.7)) of the revised critical habitat designation
for Brodiaea filifolia and other existing or pending critical habitat
designations in Southern California. The commenter stated NEPA and its
implementing regulations require Federal agencies to evaluate these
cumulative impacts.
Our Response: It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses as defined by NEPA in connection with
designating critical habitat under the Act, including the economic
analyses performed as part of the critical habitat designation process.
We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in
the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). The Ninth
Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld this position (Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S.
1042 (1996)).
Comment 71: One commenter stated that the DEA fails to include
consideration of all the benefits resulting from the designation, such
as the positive impact on property values in the surrounding community
due to the designation and non-development of open space; protection of
clean water and clean air; preservation of natural habitat for other
species which may alleviate the need for listing species in the future;
and maintaining a mosaic of habitat types that native species use as
movement corridors in arid southern California. The commenter asserts
that these benefits should be assessed and quantified where possible or
otherwise included in a detailed qualitative analysis.
Our Response: As described in Chapter 6 of the DEA, the purpose of
critical habitat is to support the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia
(IEc 2010, pp. 6-1-6-4). The data required to estimate and value in
monetary terms the incremental changes in the probability of
conservation resulting from the designation are not available.
Depending on the project modifications ultimately implemented as a
result of the regulation, other ancillary benefits that are not the
stated objective of critical habitat (such as increasing the value of
homes adjacent to preserved habitat or preserving habitat for other
non-listed species) may occur. These benefits are discussed
qualitatively. The DEA includes a discussion of the potential benefits
to property values as well as the overall benefit to ecosystem health
that is shared by other, coexisting species. The FEA has been revised
to include discussion of the new ancillary benefit categories
referenced in the comment (see Exhibit 6-1 of the FEA) (IEc 2010, p. 6-
4).

Impacts to Residential and Commercial Development Activities

Comment 72: One commenter stated that the DEA's assertion that the
areas proposed for designation covered by the Orange County Southern
Subregion HCP are within lands mapped as Reserves and Open Space Areas
is incorrect. The commenter calculates that the proposed revised
critical habitat designation covers 43.8 ac (17.7 ha) of land
designated for development in Planning Area 2. This land falls within
Subunit 4c.
Our Response: Chapter 3 of the DEA states that 90 ac (36 ha) out of
a total 133 ac (54 ha) in Subunit 4c is or will be conserved under the
Orange County Southern Subregion HCP (see Exhibit 3-2) (IEc 2010, p. 3-
4). This leaves 43 ac (17 ha) of land that is not within lands mapped
as Reserves and Open Space. The text on page 2-18 has been revised to
clarify that only a portion of the land covered by the Orange County
Southern Subregion HCP is within lands mapped as Reserves and Open
Space (IEc 2010, p. 2-18).
Comment 73: One commenter stated that acres of private developable
land attributable to Subunit 4c should be 43.8 ac (17.7 ha), not 18.53
ac (7.49 ha) set forth in Exhibit 3-3.
Our Response: The DEA characterizes potentially developable land as
that where development is not currently restricted (e.g., lands not
conserved under an HCP) that has been categorized as ``vacant'' by SCAG
or SANDAG. The FEA has been revised to reflect the information about
potentially developable land in Subunit 4c provided by this comment.
The FEA considers 25.01 ac (10.12 ha) categorized as ``non-irrigated
cropland and improved pastureland'' as potentially developable land in
addition to the 18.53 ac (7.49 ha) of vacant land. Exhibit 3-3 has been
revised to reflect this new information and the economic impact
estimates in the FEA have been revised accordingly (IEc 2010, p. 3-6).

Impacts to Transportation, Utility, and Flood Control Activities

Comment 74: One commenter stated that the DEA should include an
evaluation of the impacts of designating revised critical habitat on
the 241 Completion Project and all other transportation projects
including project delays, the economic impact of designing, refining,
and negotiating a preferred alternative to avoid Brodiaea filifolia
critical habitat, costs associated with mitigation measures, and
impacts arising from reduction in housing supply.
Our Response: The FEA evaluates potential economic impacts of this
revised critical habitat designation on all known transportation
projects within the areas proposed as revised critical habitat.
Regarding the 241 Completion Project, we have become aware that the
proposed project does not meet the requirements of the Coastal Zone
Management Act and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) has denied a
permit for this project as currently planned based on concerns related
to a portion of the project located outside of revised critical
habitat. Based on the

[[Page 6904]]

CCC's concerns, it appears that no viable project alternatives exist at
this time and the proposed project as currently designed cannot move
forward without project modification. Because the issues related to the
CCC's permit denial concern areas not proposed as revised critical
habitat, we consider these costs to be baseline and have identified
these costs in the FEA (see 241 Completion Project in the FEA) (IEc
2010, p. 4-3). All other impacts on known transportation projects as a
result of the designation are identified in Chapter 4 of the FEA (IEc
2010, pp. 4-1-4-3).
Comment 75: One commenter stated that designation of revised
critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia may result in increased
economic burden to the Metropolitan Water District in Subunit 11a due
to increased number of consultations with permitting agencies including
consultations under section 10 of the Act where there is no Federal
nexus (technically referred to as issuing an incidental take permit;
the term `consultation' refers to the process under section 7 of the
Act, not under section 10 of the Act), increased environmental
compliance costs for mitigation and CEQA documentation, and increased
time and cost to obtain permits for maintenance operations.
Our Response: The FEA evaluated potential economic impacts of this
revised critical habitat designation on all landowners and project
proponents within the designated area. Regarding Metropolitan Water
District activities, the FEA assumes that a programmatic consultation
resulting entirely from the designation of revised critical habitat and
CEQA review will occur in 2011. The FEA estimated the incremental costs
to Metropolitan Water District to be $250,000. Additionally, according
to the FEA, any project modifications that are requested as a result of
the consultation are also considered incremental costs of the
designation. However, because specific project modifications likely to
be requested were not known at the time the FEA was completed, project
modification costs have not been quantified for this project. Also,
note that if there is no Federal nexus, issuing an incidental take
permit under section 10 of the Act is not required for plant species.
Comment 76: One commenter stated that during consultation for the
Inland Feeder project in Subunit 11A additional mitigation requirements
may be imposed increasing the cost of compliance with the Act.
Our Response: The DEA includes the costs of a programmatic
consultation resulting entirely from the designation of revised
critical habitat and CEQA review for this project. Because this
consultation would not have occurred absent critical habitat, any
project modification costs would be considered incremental impacts of
the designation. At this time we do not know specific project
modifications that may be requested and thus cannot estimate potential
costs. A qualitative discussion of the potential for additional project
modification costs has been added to Chapter 4.
Comment 77: One commenter stated that the DEA should have included
transportation projects in the regional and interregional
transportation plans prepared for regional and Federal transportation
planning and Federal air quality conformity such as the Regional
Transportation Plans and Regional Transportation Improvement Plans.
Our Response: The SCAG and SANDAG Regional Transportation Plans and
Regional Transportation Improvement Plans have been reviewed for the
FEA. This review identified two projects that may occur within Subunit
11c: the widening of Case Road between Goetz Road and I-215 and
construction of a two-lane arterial and two-lane grade separation on
Ellis Avenue. These projects are identified as ``financially
constrained projects'' that are subject to available funding. Because
these projects are not yet funded and are, therefore, uncertain they
will not be included in this analysis. A footnote to this effect has
been added to Chapter 4 of the FEA.
Comment 78: One commenter stated that the DEA improperly and in
violation of the requirement to use the ``best scientific data
available'' excludes the 241 Completion Project from consideration of
economic impacts resulting from the proposed rule. The commenter states
that: the Service's conclusion that no viable alternatives exist for
the 241 Completion Project is outside of the scope of the agency's
expertise; new information alone is not a trigger for re-initiation of
consultation; and the Service cannot determine at this time whether the
2008 biological opinion is no longer valid.
Our Response: As is described in the text box on page ES-11 and in
Chapter 4 of the DEA the Service believes that no viable alternative
exists for this project (IEc 2010, pp. ES-11, 4-2). The Service
maintains that the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency
would need to engage in additional consultation under section 7 of the
Act for a redesigned project.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this proposed rule under
Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon
the following four criteria:
(1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

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

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions),
as described below. However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is
required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In this final rule, we are certifying that the revised critical habitat
designation for Brodiaea filifolia will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following
discussion explains our rationale.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and

[[Page 6905]]

heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual
business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in
annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less
than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these
small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities
that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as
types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term
``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small
business firm's business operations.
To determine if the designation of revised critical habitat for
Brodiaea filifolia would significantly affect a substantial number of
small entities, we consider the number of small entities affected
within particular types of economic activities, such as residential and
commercial development. We apply the ``substantial number'' test
individually to each industry to determine if certification is
appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not explicitly define
``substantial number'' or ``significant economic impact.''
Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of small
entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers the
relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area. In
some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat affects only activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. Some kinds of
activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not
be affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species
is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us
under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or
implement that may affect Brodiaea filifolia. Federal agencies also
must consult with us if their activities may affect critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat, therefore, could result in an
additional economic impact on small entities due to the requirement to
reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities (see Application
of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard section).
In our final economic analysis of the revised critical habitat
designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small
business entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions
related to the revised designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea
filifolia. The analysis is based on the estimated impacts associated
with the rulemaking as described in sections 3 through 5 of the
analysis and evaluates the potential for economic impacts related to:
Commercial and residential development; transportation, utility, and
flood control; and public and conservancy lands management (IEc 2010,
p. 1-5). The FEA estimates the total incremental impacts associated
with development as a whole to be $280,000 to $384,000 over the 20-year
timeframe of the FEA. The FEA identifies incremental impacts to small
entities to occur only due to residential and commercial development
(IEc 2010, p. A-4). The other categories of projects either will have
no impacts (transportation, utility, and flood control; management of
public and conservation lands) or are Federal, State, or public
entities not considered small or exceed the criteria for small business
status (IEc 2010, p. A-4). Of the approximately 1,025 ac (415 ha) of
land considered developable in the designation, only 132 ac (53 ha)
have been forecasted to be developed over the next 20-year timeframe
(IEc 2010, p. A-5). The FEA equates this acreage to 23 projects, with
one developer per project (IEc 2010, p. A-6). The FEA summarizes that
less than one new project is likely to occur annually that may be
affected by the designation of revised critical habitat resulting in
total annualized incremental impacts to small entities of $24,700 to
$33,900 (IEc 2010, p. 3-19). The FEA assumes all developers are
considered small; this estimate may overstate impacts if not all of the
developers are small. Please refer to our final economic analysis of
the revised critical habitat designation for B. filifolia for a more
detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
In summary, we considered whether this designation would result in
a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities. The total number of small businesses impacted annually by the
designation is estimated to be fewer than one, with an annualized
impact of approximately $24,700 to $33,900. This impact is less than 10
percent of the total incremental impact identified for development
activities. Based on the above reasoning and currently available
information, we concluded this rule would not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for
transportation, development, and flood control impacts as identified in
the FEA (IEc 2010, p. A-1-A-6). Therefore, we are certifying that the
designation of revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, we make the
following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments,'' with
two exceptions. First, it excludes ``a condition of federal
assistance.'' Second, it also excludes ``a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal program,'' unless the regulation
``relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000
or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments
under entitlement authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the
stringency of conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or
otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide
funding'' and the State, local, or Tribal governments ``lack
authority'' to adjust accordingly. ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
Critical habitat designation does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act,
the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that
their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under
section 7. Designation of critical habitat may indirectly impact non-
Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits,
or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal
agency. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or
adverse

[[Page 6906]]

modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly
impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a
voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large
entitlement programs listed above on to State governments.
(2) As discussed in the FEA of the proposed designation of revised
critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia, we do not believe that this
rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments because
it would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in
any year; that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The FEA concludes incremental impacts
may occur due to administrative costs of section 7 consultations for
development activities; however, these are not expected to affect small
governments. Incremental impacts stemming from various species
conservation and development control activities are expected to be
borne by the Federal Government, California Department of
Transportation, CDFG, Riverside County, Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, and City of Perris, which are not
considered small governments. Consequently, we do not believe that the
revised critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely
affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency
Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia in a
takings implications assessment. Critical habitat designation does not
affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or
permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation
programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that
do require Federal funding or permits. The designation of revised
critical habitat for B. filifolia does not pose significant takings
implications for the above reasons.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we
requested information from, and coordinated development of this
proposed revised critical habitat designation with, appropriate State
resource agencies in California. The designation may have some benefit
to these governments because the areas that contain the features
essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined,
and the PCEs of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This information does not alter
where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it
may assist these local governments in long-range planning (because
these local governments no longer have to wait for case-by-case section
7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), it
has been determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial
system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We have designated critical habitat in accordance with
the provisions of the Act. This rule uses standard property
descriptions and identifies the PCEs within the designated areas to
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of Brodiaea
filifolia.

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

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

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

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

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we have a responsibility to communicate
meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-
government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5,
1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available
to Tribes.
We determined that there are no tribal lands occupied at the time
of listing that contain the features essential to the conservation of
the species, nor are there any unoccupied tribal lands that are
essential for the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia. Therefore,
critical habitat for B. filifolia is not being designated on tribal
lands.

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

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for
implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may
constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking
the regulatory action under consideration. The economic analysis finds
that none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based
on information in the economic analysis, energy-related

[[Page 6907]]

impacts associated with Brodiaea filifolia conservation activities
within revised critical habitat are not expected. As such, the
designation of revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-
0073 and upon request from the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

Author(s)

The primary author of this notice is the staff from the Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec. 17.12(h), revise the entry for ``Brodiaea filifolia
(thread-leaved brodiaea)'' under family Themidaceae to read as follows:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
--------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special rules
Scientific name Common name habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * *
Brodiaea filifolia............. Thread-leaved U.S.A. (CA)...... Themidaceae...... T................ 650 17.96(a) NA
brodiaea.

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec. 17.96(a) by:
0
a. Removing the entry for ``Brodiaea filifolia (thread-leaved
brodiaea)'' under Family Liliaceae; and
0
b. Adding a new entry for ``Brodiaea filifolia (thread-leaved
brodiaea)'' under Family Themidaceae in alphabetic order by family name
to read as follows:

Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.

(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Themidaceae: Brodiaea filifolia (thread-leaved brodiaea)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties, California, on
the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements (PCE) for
Brodiaea filifolia consist of two components:
(i) PCE 1--Appropriate soil series at a range of elevations and in
a variety of plant communities, specifically:
(A) Clay soil series of various origins (such as Alo, Altamont,
Auld, or Diablo), clay lenses found as unmapped inclusions in other
soils series, or loamy soils series underlain by a clay subsoil (such
as Fallbrook, Huerhuero, or Las Flores) occurring between the
elevations of 100 and 2,500 ft (30 and 762 m).
(B) Soils (such as Cieneba-rock outcrop complex and Ramona family-
Typic Xerothents soils) altered by hydrothermal activity occurring
between the elevations of 1,000 and 2,500 ft (305 and 762 m).
(C) Silty loam soil series underlain by a clay subsoil or caliche
that are generally poorly drained, moderately to strongly alkaline,
granitic in origin (such as Domino, Grangeville, Traver, Waukena, or
Willows) occurring between the elevations of 600 and 1,800 ft (183 and
549 m).
(D) Clay loam soil series (such as Murrieta) underlain by heavy
clay loams or clays derived from olivine basalt lava flows occurring
between the elevations of 1,700 and 2,500 ft (518 and 762 m).
(E) Sandy loam soils derived from basalt and granodiorite parent
materials; deposits of gravel, cobble, and boulders; or hydrologically
fractured, weathered granite in intermittent streams and seeps
occurring between 1,800 and 2,500 ft (549 and 762 m).
(ii) PCE 2--Areas with a natural, generally intact surface and
subsurface soil structure, not permanently altered by anthropogenic
land use activities (such as deep, repetitive discing, or grading),
extending out up to 820 ft (250 m) from mapped occurrences of Brodiaea
filifolia to provide for space for individual population growth, and
space for pollinators.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures existing
on the effective date of this rule and not containing one or more of
the primary constituent elements, such as buildings, aqueducts,
airports, and roads, and the land on which such structures are located.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using a base of U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' quadrangle maps.
Critical habitat units were then mapped using Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) zone 11, North American Datum (NAD) 1983 coordinates.
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units for Brodiaea
filifolia (thread-leaved brodiaea) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6908]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.006

(6) Unit 1: Los Angeles County. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map
Glendora, Los Angeles County, California.
(i) Subunit 1a: Glendora. Land bounded by the following Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 11, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)
coordinates (E, N): 422408, 3779882; 422462, 3779764; 422424, 3779771;
422405, 3779809; 422356, 3779811; 422323, 3779723; 422353, 3779662;
422391, 3779567; 422397, 3779509; 422224, 3779417; 422051, 3779401;
422039, 3779437; 422008, 3779452; 421977, 3779480; 421925, 3779519;
421920, 3779598; 421883, 3779624; 421826, 3779599; 421803, 3779670;
421860, 3779684; 421896, 3779720; 421919, 3779713; 421945, 3779727;
421896, 3779760; 421809, 3779730; 421815, 3779760; 421829, 3779825;
421899, 3779920; 422002, 3779999; 422139, 3780025; 422294, 3779985;
thence returning to 422408, 3779882.
(ii) Subunit 1b: San Dimas. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83
coordinates (E, N): 425325, 3778572; 425359, 3778490; 425367, 3778364;
425315, 3778234; 425284, 3778164; 425246, 3778076; 425149, 3777990;
425092, 3777884; 425044, 3777802; 424905, 3777719; 424787, 3777708;
424656, 3777764; 424662, 3777823; 424647, 3777849; 424590, 3777886;

[[Page 6909]]

424590, 3777928; 424597, 3778011; 424571, 3777991; 424529, 3777914;
424515, 3777936; 424506, 3778028; 424518, 3778113; 424537, 3778181;
424582, 3778271; 424644, 3778345; 424667, 3778401; 424676, 3778492;
424719, 3778597; 424795, 3778660; 424826, 3778640; 424843, 3778626;
424851, 3778608; 424889, 3778602; 424920, 3778616; 424940, 3778637;
424968, 3778629; 424993, 3778622; 424973, 3778619; 424951, 3778602;
424961, 3778582; 424985, 3778568; 424985, 3778557; 424964, 3778557;
424936, 3778546; 424928, 3778529; 424953, 3778490; 424979, 3778462;
424990, 3778449; 424984, 3778438; 424930, 3778435; 424896, 3778429;
424896, 3778402; 424908, 3778387; 424931, 3778378; 424945, 3778359;
425004, 3778379; 425004, 3778413; 425016, 3778438; 425027, 3778427;
425044, 3778433; 425072, 3778426; 425076, 3778399; 425064, 3778387;
425066, 3778358; 425087, 3778364; 425112, 3778384; 425097, 3778407;
425089, 3778424; 425098, 3778441; 425095, 3778477; 425095, 3778509;
425067, 3778508; 425052, 3778572; 425058, 3778633; 425038, 3778671;
424916, 3778705; 424914, 3778733; 425001, 3778749; 425169, 3778727;
425271, 3778648; thence returning to 425325, 3778572.
(iii) Note: Map of Unit 1, Los Angeles County, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.007

(7) Unit 2: San Bernardino County. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
map San Bernardino North, San Bernardino County, California.
(i) Arrowhead Hot Springs. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83

[[Page 6910]]

coordinates (E, N): 475756, 3783146; 475763, 3783104; 475808, 3783104;
475830, 3783096; 475842, 3783067; 475744, 3783060; 475761, 3783023;
475827, 3783025; 475863, 3783021; 475876, 3782965; 475854, 3782962;
475836, 3782958; 475800, 3782956; 475773, 3782962; 475744, 3782971;
475721, 3782983; 475709, 3783006; 475684, 3783005; 475682, 3782992;
475686, 3782947; 475711, 3782920; 475716, 3782905; 475709, 3782895;
475705, 3782874; 475681, 3782844; 475668, 3782829; 475666, 3782807;
475682, 3782791; 475714, 3782768; 475748, 3782753; 475784, 3782755;
475820, 3782787; 475838, 3782735; 475827, 3782707; 475801, 3782677;
475790, 3782677; 475744, 3782680; 475705, 3782677; 475677, 3782696;
475654, 3782661; 475660, 3782581; 475612, 3782573; 475545, 3782573;
475482, 3782592; 475504, 3782635; 475472, 3782646; 475440, 3782672;
475403, 3782667; 475358, 3782674; 475324, 3782715; 475290, 3782821;
475289, 3782917; 475311, 3783037; 475380, 3783142; 475483, 3783208;
475584, 3783230; 475689, 3783208; 475767, 3783164; 475773, 3783155;
thence returning to 475756, 3783146.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2, San Bernardino County, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.008

[[Page 6911]]

(8) Unit 3: Central Orange County. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
map San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, California.
(i) Aliso Canyon. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83
coordinates (E, N): 432560, 3711875; 432501, 3711891; 432471, 3711899;
432436, 3711909; 432389, 3711922; 432289, 3711950; 432288, 3712146;
432371, 3712127; 432467, 3712061; 432539, 3711960; thence returning to
432560, 3711875.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 3, Central Orange County, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.009

[[Page 6912]]

(9) Unit 4: Southern Orange County. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
map Ca[ntilde]ada Gobernadora, Orange County, California.
(i) Subunit 4b: Caspers Wilderness Park. Land bounded by the
following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 446657, 3715594; 446679,
3715660; 446777, 3715754; 446787, 3715756; 446802, 3715670; 446787,
3715650; 446749, 3715599; thence returning to 446657, 3715594. Continue
to 446672, 3715282; 446635, 3715383; 446634, 3715424; 446664, 3715452;
446750, 3715379; 446725, 3715324; thence returning to 446672, 3715282.
Continue to 447195, 3715710; 446853, 3715710; 446834, 3715765; 446831,
3715772; 446952, 3715811; 447141, 3715767; thence returning to 447195,
3715710.
(ii) Subunit 4c: Ca[ntilde]ada Gobernadora/Chiquita Ridgeline. Land
bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 444988, 3710736;
444822, 3710714; 444688, 3710749; 444620, 3710811; 444555, 3710909;
444525, 3711030; 444549, 3711176; 444622, 3711280; 444769, 3711366;
444952, 3711370; 445174, 3711382; 445357, 3711387; 445494, 3711375;
445509, 3711195; 445478, 3710975; 445371, 3710832; 445127, 3710778;
thence returning to 444988, 3710736.
(iii) Subunit 4g: Cristianitos Canyon. Land bounded by the
following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 448505, 3704899; 448619,
3704865; 448693, 3704908; 448753, 3704920; 448807, 3704923; 448869,
3704911; 448913, 3704891; 448985, 3704826; 449023, 3704752; 449034,
3704695; 449095, 3704664; 449153, 3704605; 449187, 3704527; 449193,
3704439; 449172, 3704362; 449116, 3704286; 449051, 3704239; 448973,
3704215; 448885, 3704225; 448831, 3704215; 448781, 3704219; 448727,
3704235; 448660, 3704282; 448631, 3704315; 448603, 3704363; 448423,
3704282; 448272, 3704282; 448162, 3704323; 448074, 3704378; 448026,
3704460; 448012, 3704611; 448012, 3704741; 448012, 3704830; 448012,
3704912; 447930, 3705117; 447800, 3705206; 447704, 3705275; 447635,
3705535; 447717, 3705816; 447724, 3706014; 447635, 3706076; 447505,
3706199; 447444, 3706336; 447519, 3706480; 447684, 3706606; 447615,
3706809; 447498, 3707014; 447615, 3707206; 447724, 3707603; 447950,
3707795; 448176, 3707567; 448204, 3707309; 448128, 3706809; 448073,
3706701; 448057, 3706368; 448033, 3706154; 448231, 3706001; 448430,
3705877; 448512, 3705802; 448594, 3705631; 448525, 3705487; thence
returning to 448505, 3704899.
(iv) Note: Map of Unit 4, Southern Orange County, follows:

[[Page 6913]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.010

(10) Unit 5: Northern San Diego County. From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle maps Fallbrook and Margarita Peak, San Diego County,
California.
(i) Subunit 5b: Devil Canyon. Land bounded by the following UTM
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 465203, 3702184; 465318, 3702168; 465420,
3702168; 465439, 3702023; 465428, 3701850; 465333, 3701622; 465239,
3701500; 465113, 3701402; 464908, 3701394; 464732, 3701504; 464665,
3701669; 464716, 3701889; 464645, 3702050; 464448, 3702235; 464342,
3702416; 464248, 3702534; 464228, 3702719; 464323, 3702888; 464464,
3702990; 464633, 3703049; 464775, 3703026; 464885, 3702963; 464948,
3702872; 464964, 3702739; 464987, 3702616; 465070, 3702463; 465144,
3702322; thence returning to 465203, 3702184.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 5, Northern San Diego County, follows:

[[Page 6914]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.011

(11) Unit 6: Oceanside, San Diego County, California. From USGS
1:24,000 quadrangle map San Luis Rey, San Diego County, California.
(i) Subunit 6a: Alta Creek. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83
coordinates (E, N): 470033, 3673422; 470028, 3673364; 470103, 3673390;
470049, 3673279; 469947, 3673268; 469933, 3673297; 469861, 3673292;
469765, 3673271; 469754, 3673290; 469733, 3673288; 469694, 3673241;
469647, 3673203; 469340, 3673150; 469290, 3673280; 469454, 3673280;
469472, 3673385; 469461, 3673464; 469459, 3673517; 469775, 3673595;
469819, 3673600; 469861, 3673591; 469965, 3673540; 469936, 3673513;
469941, 3673452; thence returning to 470033, 3673422. Continue to
469160, 3673457; 469299, 3673146; 469251, 3673150; 469207, 3673154;
469101, 3673149; 469028, 3673175; 468994, 3673187; 468917, 3673248;
468862, 3673350; 468862, 3673358; 468853, 3673464; 468852, 3673477;
thence returning to 469160, 3673457.
(ii) Subunit 6b: Mesa Drive. Land bounded by the following UTM
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 468915, 3674517; 468893, 3674517; 468892,
3674526; 468877, 3674541; 468863, 3674561; 468863, 3674587; 468857,
3674609; 468848, 3674625; 468844, 3674648; 468835, 3674670; 468864,
3674678; 468878, 3674689; 468899, 3674707;

[[Page 6915]]

468918, 3674700; thence returning to 468915, 3674517. Continue to
468732, 3674337; 468733, 3674299; 468680, 3674337; 468641, 3674369;
468652, 3674387; 468664, 3674416; 468674, 3674490; 468682, 3674548;
468687, 3674609; 468687, 3674641; 468711, 3674605; 468736, 3674562;
468736, 3674526; 468736, 3674474; 468739, 3674441; 468749, 3674423;
468750, 3674395; 468750, 3674374; 468743, 3674350; thence returning to
468732, 3674337. Continue to 468977, 3674272; 468936, 3674260; 468942,
3674457; 469035, 3674460; 469086, 3674475; 469154, 3674504; 469216,
3674523; 469195, 3674471; 469172, 3674417; 469150, 3674383; 469103,
3674339; 469064, 3674311; 469028, 3674288; thence returning to 468977,
3674272.
(iii) Subunit 6c: Mission View/Sierra Ridge. Land bounded by the
following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 471256, 3676540; 471308,
3676525; 471322, 3676525; 471325, 3676497; 471325, 3676436; 471323,
3676399; 471318, 3676384; 471293, 3676426; 471285, 3676401; 471265,
3676381; 471248, 3676356; 471263, 3676342; 471293, 3676341; 471310,
3676341; 471323, 3676329; 471323, 3676322; 471306, 3676295; 471293,
3676269; 471310, 3676248; 471318, 3676235; 471312, 3676210; 471305,
3676181; 471313, 3676166; 471313, 3676151; 471313, 3676137; 471301,
3676117; 471275, 3676100; 471265, 3676085; 471241, 3676075; 471182,
3676137; 471149, 3676188; 471137, 3676205; 471137, 3676236; 471145,
3676267; 471167, 3676279; 471167, 3676346; 471182, 3676354; 471228,
3676354; 471236, 3676386; 471263, 3676413; 471280, 3676418; 471288,
3676440; 471253, 3676466; 471234, 3676476; 471226, 3676502; 471216,
3676525; 471216, 3676540; thence returning to 471256, 3676540.
(iv) Subunit 6d: Taylor/Darwin. Land bounded by the following UTM
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 475246, 3676994; 475198, 3676860; 474920,
3676914; 474920, 3676911; 474917, 3676900; 474843, 3676895; 474840,
3676895; 474762, 3676777; 474688, 3676855; 474720, 3676903; 474720,
3677197; 474818, 3677296; 474888, 3677325; 474968, 3677352; 474925,
3677213; 474936, 3677192; 474928, 3677106; thence returning to 475246,
3676994.
(v) Subunit 6e: Arbor Creek/Colucci. Land bounded by the following
UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 475917, 3675848; 475854, 3675822; 475695,
3675915; 475579, 3676018; 475583, 3676501; 475701, 3676520; 476070,
3676287; 476071, 3676228; 476380, 3676221; 476380, 3675858; 476001,
3675858; thence returning to 475917, 3675848.
(vi) Note: Map of Unit 6, Oceanside, follows:

[[Page 6916]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.012

(12) Unit 7: Carlsbad, San Diego County, California.
(i) Subunit 7a: Letterbox Canyon. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map
San Luis Rey, land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E,
N): 473516, 3667072; 473504, 3666941; 473516, 3666839; 473519, 3666765;
473558, 3666762; 473635, 3666758; 473759, 3666758; 473782, 3666785;
473756, 3666880; 473761, 3666926; 473777, 3666940; 473845, 3666935;
473846, 3666935; 473847, 3666778; 473848, 3666778; 473849, 3666778;
473850, 3666781; 473860, 3666822; 473904, 3666832; 473971, 3666844;
473968, 3666840; 473973, 3666838; 473978, 3666836; 474005, 3666824;
474011, 3666821; 474033, 3666818; 474036, 3666817; 474081, 3666811;
474121, 3666781; 474134, 3666779; 474136, 3666779; 474149, 3666777;
474151, 3666777; 474156, 3666777; 474159, 3666776; 474161, 3666776;
474167, 3666775; 474173, 3666774; 474160, 3666727; 474159, 3666726;
474159, 3666724; 474155, 3666721; 474153, 3666720; 474120, 3666699;
474118, 3666698; 474112, 3666694; 474100, 3666695; 474099, 3666695;
474098, 3666695; 474095, 3666695; 474090, 3666695; 474087, 3666695;
474061, 3666696; 473920, 3666753; 473848, 3666694; 473861, 3666635;
473890, 3666593; 473952, 3666506; 473930, 3666483; 473810, 3666500;

[[Page 6917]]

473706, 3666498; 473599, 3666515; 473533, 3666593; 473539, 3666667;
473480, 3666686; 473474, 3666798; 473441, 3666848; 473394, 3666880;
473370, 3666918; 473297, 3666974; 473330, 3667034; 473360, 3667013;
473404, 3667041; 473441, 3667031; 473480, 3667085; thence returning to
473516, 3667072.
(ii) Subunit 7b: Rancho Carrillo. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
maps Rancho Santa Fe and San Marcos, land bounded by the following UTM
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 478285, 3664797; 478307, 3664759; 478307,
3664749; 478251, 3664772; 478244, 3664745; 478200, 3664753; 478146,
3664747; 478085, 3664702; 478076, 3664774; 477946, 3664862; 477994,
3664920; 478066, 3664996; 478104, 3665067; 478117, 3665119; 478147,
3665221; 478249, 3665297; 478278, 3665368; 478339, 3665400; 478409,
3665501; 478419, 3665498; 478419, 3665496; 478419, 3665309; 478383,
3665244; 478345, 3665196; 478327, 3665137; 478319, 3665051; 478304,
3665021; 478303, 3664935; 478270, 3664821; thence returning to 478285,
3664797.
(iii) Subunit 7c: Calavera Hills Village H. From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle map San Luis Rey, land bounded by the following UTM NAD83
coordinates (E, N): 471354, 3670039; 471355, 3670036; 471357, 3670032;
471361, 3670025; 471364, 3670018; 471374, 3669997; 471361, 3669999;
471345, 3669999; 471310, 3670039; 471282, 3670039; 471271, 3670102;
471257, 3670129; 471225, 3670198; 471181, 3670281; 471131, 3670366;
471109, 3670410; 471099, 3670466; 471068, 3670472; 471018, 3670480;
470999, 3670495; 470982, 3670510; 470940, 3670542; 470876, 3670576;
470871, 3670578; 470893, 3670639; 470935, 3670684; 471000, 3670729;
471009, 3670731; 471066, 3670749; 471099, 3670749; 471119, 3670749;
471188, 3670741; 471258, 3670710; 471348, 3670646; 471362, 3670634;
471362, 3670629; 471351, 3670626; 471252, 3670590; 471219, 3670578;
471107, 3670536; 471141, 3670460; 471150, 3670442; 471154, 3670434;
471156, 3670431; 471158, 3670429; 471161, 3670426; 471163, 3670423;
471165, 3670421; 471168, 3670418; 471170, 3670416; 471172, 3670413;
471174, 3670410; 471176, 3670408; 471178, 3670405; 471180, 3670402;
471182, 3670399; 471183, 3670396; 471185, 3670393; 471187, 3670390;
471189, 3670387; 471190, 3670384; 471192, 3670381; 471193, 3670378;
471195, 3670375; 471262, 3670230; 471322, 3670100; 471325, 3670092;
471328, 3670086; 471332, 3670079; 471335, 3670072; 471339, 3670065;
471344, 3670056; 471350, 3670046; thence returning to 471354, 3670039.
(iv) Note: Map of Unit 7, Carlsbad, follows:

[[Page 6918]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.013

(13) Unit 8: San Marcos and Vista. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
map San Marcos, San Diego County, California.
(i) Subunit 8b: Rancho Santalina/Loma Alta. Land bounded by the
following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 482357, 3668036; 482390,
3667949; 482348, 3667946; 482282, 3667946; 482244, 3667925; 482220,
3667908; 482187, 3667931; 482127, 3667997; 482157, 3668021; 482235,
3667976; 482324, 3668168; 482336, 3668078; thence returning to 482357,
3668036. Continue to 481816, 3669068; 481771, 3669038; 481765, 3669046;
481771, 3669329; 481771, 3669358; 481807, 3669373; 481891, 3669418;
481974, 3669435; 482013, 3669456; 482007, 3669432; 481974, 3669373;
481953, 3669307; 481921, 3669274; 481879, 3669244; 481870, 3669223;
481865, 3669217; 481831, 3669175; 481819, 3669136; 481822, 3669089;
thence returning to 481816, 3669068. Continue to 481753, 3668523;
481720, 3668446; 481689, 3668496; 481648, 3668562; 481604, 3668646;
481714, 3668649; 481723, 3668661; 481756, 3668718; 481768, 3668756;
481816, 3668766; 481831, 3668715; 481819, 3668670; 481786, 3668595;
thence returning to 481753, 3668523. Continue to 482091, 3669106;
482121, 3668876; 482130, 3668802; 482091, 3668736; 482052, 3668553;
482214, 3668350; 482258,

[[Page 6919]]

3668281; 482312, 3668281; 482315, 3668230; 482258, 3668242; 482253,
3668242; 482187, 3668338; 482154, 3668356; 482091, 3668356; 482091,
3668386; 482097, 3668443; 482052, 3668502; 481995, 3668562; 482085,
3668912; 482000, 3668916; 481989, 3668917; 481980, 3668918; 481877,
3668514; 481876, 3668512; 481872, 3668496; 481872, 3668494; 481862,
3668457; 481861, 3668453; 481852, 3668416; 481837, 3668383; 481840,
3668353; 481841, 3668350; 481861, 3668308; 481933, 3668224; 482085,
3668084; 482064, 3668072; 482046, 3668072; 482025, 3668060; 481986,
3668093; 481888, 3668164; 481819, 3668260; 481809, 3668280; 481786,
3668323; 481783, 3668329; 481741, 3668407; 481828, 3668398; 481852,
3668541; 481915, 3668751; 481962, 3668927; 481974, 3668923; 482046,
3669067; 482062, 3669090; 482076, 3669110; thence returning to 482091,
3669106.
(ii) Subunit 8d: Upham. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83
coordinates (E, N): 481849, 3666534; 481819, 3666534; 481462, 3666688;
481594, 3666985; 481973, 3666823; thence returning to 481849, 3666534.
Continue to 481372, 3666489; 481677, 3666364; 481689, 3666409; 481719,
3666459; 481804, 3666429; 481801, 3666386; 481779, 3666359; 481687,
3666147; 481597, 3666102; 481550, 3666247; 481535, 3666274; 481320,
3666376; thence returning to 481372, 3666489.
(iii) Subunit 8f: Oleander/San Marcos Elementary. Land bounded by
the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 480307, 3668488; 480280,
3668462; 480137, 3668521; 480047, 3668580; 479946, 3668654; 480044,
3668711; 480087, 3668741; 480190, 3668776; 480226, 3668765; 480210,
3668748; 480149, 3668728; 480117, 3668702; 480092, 3668639; 480066,
3668592; 480125, 3668556; 480158, 3668554; 480241, 3668547; 480297,
3668531; 480310, 3668511; thence returning to 480307, 3668488.
(iv) Note: Map of Unit 8, San Marcos and Vista, follows:

[[Page 6920]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.014

(14) Unit 11: Western Riverside County, Riverside County,
California.
(i) Subunit 11a: San Jacinto Wildlife Area. From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle maps Lakeview and Perris, land bounded by the following UTM
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 488983, 3745493; 489065, 3745348; 489100,
3745144; 489088, 3745019; 489008, 3744998; 488955, 3744984; 488940,
3744982; 488834, 3744968; 488827, 3744966; 488803, 3744959; 488696,
3744929; 488626, 3744907; 488610, 3744902; 488565, 3744888; 488532,
3744878; 488500, 3744869; 488441, 3744853; 488363, 3744831; 488314,
3744794; 488285, 3744772; 488171, 3744760; 487999, 3744760; 487873,
3744819; 487818, 3744885; 487811, 3744894; 487796, 3744916; 487773,
3744954; 487767, 3744964; 487765, 3744983; 487756, 3745058; 487756,
3745172; 487783, 3745258; 487846, 3745333; 487948, 3745395; 487978,
3745412; 488042, 3745450; 488050, 3745454; 488159, 3745489; 488289,
3745470; 488336, 3745470; 488438, 3745517; 488563, 3745603; 488728,
3745658; 488786, 3745693; 488724, 3745740; 488677, 3745854; 488669,
3745964; 488692, 3746105; 488739, 3746179; 488783, 3746226; 488785,
3746227; 488803, 3746231; 488885, 3746250; 488990, 3746269; 489131,
3746336; 489273, 3746420; 489374, 3746481; 489511, 3746574; 489547,
3746598;

[[Page 6921]]

489652, 3746637; 489668, 3746643; 489719, 3746661; 489876, 3746657;
489895, 3746633; 489982, 3746517; 490025, 3746461; 490033, 3746371;
490018, 3746275; 490013, 3746242; 489983, 3746214; 489951, 3746183;
489637, 3745987; 489425, 3745858; 489198, 3745787; 489096, 3745677;
488998, 3745634; thence returning to 488983, 3745493.
(ii) Subunit 11b: San Jacinto Avenue/Dawson Road. From USGS
1:24,000 quadrangle map Perris, land bounded by the following UTM NAD83
coordinates (E, N): 483682, 3737705; 483570, 3737705; 483524, 3737712;
483463, 3737755; 483380, 3737824; 483344, 3737895; 483344, 3737975;
483366, 3738075; 483387, 3738129; 483423, 3738183; 483470, 3738269;
483491, 3738345; 483538, 3738434; 483621, 3738506; 483983, 3738506;
484059, 3738445; 484127, 3738348; 484145, 3738186; 484116, 3738104;
484023, 3738021; 483965, 3737949; 483922, 3737867; 483865, 3737777;
483789, 3737741; thence returning to 483682, 3737705.
(iii) Subunit 11c: Case Road. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map
Perris, land bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N):
481228, 3736775; 480714, 3736203; 480100, 3736631; 480093, 3736652;
480100, 3736807; 480139, 3736897; 481124, 3736908; 481192, 3736854;
thence returning to 481228, 3736775. Continue to 480689, 3736146;
480416, 3735873; 480258, 3735905; 480121, 3736024; 480082, 3736139;
480100, 3736315; 480172, 3736390; 480157, 3736473; 480150, 3736548;
thence returning to 480689, 3736146.
(iv) Subunit 11d: Railroad Canyon. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
maps Lake Elsinore and Romoland, land bounded by the following UTM
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 476192, 3732071; 476177, 3732058; 476095,
3732067; 476092, 3732068; 476075, 3732070; 475968, 3732083; 475828,
3732198; 475767, 3732413; 475789, 3732650; 475922, 3732859; 475949,
3732877; 476026, 3732931; 476086, 3732989; 476141, 3733042; 476417,
3733214; 476590, 3733286; 476816, 3733401; 476878, 3733419; 476891,
3733423; 476983, 3733450; 477099, 3733465; 477223, 3733446; 477305,
3733326; 477300, 3733201; 477280, 3733049; 477274, 3733042; 477252,
3733009; 477230, 3732975; 477227, 3732972; 477210, 3732947; 477204,
3732938; 477090, 3732890; 477055, 3732876; 476892, 3732809; 476888,
3732808; 476755, 3732787; 476694, 3732744; 476583, 3732650; 476410,
3732510; 476367, 3732352; 476342, 3732230; 476335, 3732194; 476265,
3732134; 476216, 3732091; thence returning to 476192, 3732071.
(v) Subunit 11e: Upper Salt Creek (Stowe Pool). From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle map Winchester, land bounded by the following UTM NAD83
coordinates (E, N): 495693, 3731707; 495719, 3731126; 495375, 3730970;
495372, 3731340; 494997, 3731340; 494979, 3731381; 494982, 3731490;
495018, 3731613; 495074, 3731735; 495112, 3731898; 495260, 3732003;
495334, 3732070; 495421, 3732105; 495811, 3732113; thence returning to
495693, 3731707.
(vi) Note: Map of Unit 11, Western Riverside County, Subunits a, b,
c, d, and e, follows:

[[Page 6922]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.015

(vii) Subunit 11f: Santa Rosa Plateau--Mesa de Colorado. From USGS
1:24,000 quadrangle maps Wildomar, land bounded by the following UTM
NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 473758, 3706932; 473672, 3706842; 473581,
3706815; 473540, 3706803; 473426, 3706843; 473384, 3706858; 473296,
3706997; 473298, 3707017; 473454, 3706981; 473594, 3706853; 473766,
3707097; 473785, 3707063; thence returning to 473758, 3706932.
(viii) Note: Map of Unit 11, Western Riverside County, Subunit 11f,
follows:

[[Page 6923]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.016

(15) Unit 12: San Diego County. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map
Rancho Santa Fe, San Diego County, California.
(i) Artesian Trails. Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83
coordinates (E, N): 485589, 3653612; 485575, 3653542; 485571, 3653524;
485570, 3653490; 485569, 3653489; 485569, 3653487; 485569, 3653486;
485569, 3653474; 485565, 3653471; 485564, 3653470; 485563, 3653469;
485543, 3653449; 485537, 3653450; 485493, 3653460; 485462, 3653486;
485459, 3653480; 485448, 3653449; 485448, 3653343; 485448, 3653326;
485448, 3653319; 485444, 3653319; 485370, 3653319; 485356, 3653325;
485354, 3653500; 485354, 3653526; 485354, 3653577; 485354, 3653610;
485332, 3653612; 485299, 3653597; 485307, 3653383; 485307, 3653327;
485255, 3653327; 485256, 3653411; 485257, 3653522; 485169, 3653522;
485164, 3653522; 485146, 3653473; 485144, 3653466; 485146, 3653323;
485112, 3653325; 485086, 3653397; 485086, 3653470; 485096, 3653542;
485114, 3653602; 485146, 3653657; 485216, 3653715; 485227, 3653725;
485557, 3653721; 485556, 3653713; 485554, 3653696; 485551, 3653660;
485549, 3653645; 485550, 3653644; thence returning to 485589, 3653612.
Continue to 485700, 3653157; 485748, 3653150; 485750, 3653151; 485754,
3652943; 485754, 3652911; 485759, 3652710;

[[Page 6924]]

485760, 3652681; 485761, 3652680; 485768, 3652672; 485939, 3652471;
485934, 3652466; 485932, 3652465; 485925, 3652459; 485863, 3652401;
485766, 3652366; 485761, 3652364; 485748, 3652359; 485702, 3652364;
485668, 3652395; 485636, 3652403; 485583, 3652399; 485569, 3652394;
485477, 3652439; 485406, 3652509; 485400, 3652515; 485324, 3652630;
485319, 3652795; 485346, 3652902; 485396, 3653009; 485458, 3653090;
485468, 3653103; 485481, 3653110; 485495, 3653117; 485496, 3653118;
485529, 3653134; 485557, 3653142; 485581, 3653148; 485652, 3653163;
thence returning to 485700, 3653157; excluding land bounded by 485555,
3652857; 485555, 3652822; 485572, 3652827; 485610, 3652827; 485613,
3652829; 485651, 3652882; 485667, 3652882; 485667, 3652899; 485556,
3652899; 485555, 3652857; and land bounded by 485629, 3652710; 485749,
3652710; 485749, 3652807; 485746, 3652807; 485745, 3652820; 485744,
3652822; 485723, 3652822; 485717, 3652810; 485708, 3652806; 485690,
3652791; 485679, 3652788; 485671, 3652784; 485670, 3652780; 485665,
3652765; 485663, 3652761; 485649, 3652754; 485648, 3652750; 485635,
3652718; 485629, 3652710.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 12, San Diego County, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08FE11.017

[[Page 6925]]

* * * * *

Dated: January 25, 2011.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-2403 Filed 2-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C