71284 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AT75

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Designation of 

Critical Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia 

(thread-leaved brodiaea)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), propose to designate 

critical habitat pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), for the federally 

threatened Brodiaea filifolia (threadleaved brodiaea). We have determined 

that 9,403 acres (ac) (3,805 hectares (ha)) 

of habitat with essential features exists 

for Brodiaea filifolia in Los Angeles, San 

Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, and San 

Diego counties. Of this eligible habitat, 

we are proposing to designate 

approximately 4,690 ac (1,898 ha) of 

land in 10 units in Los Angeles, San 

Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego 

Counties, California, as critical habitat 

for this species. Eligible habitat in 

Riverside and portions of San Diego 

counties covered by approved and/or 

pending habitat conservation plans is 

being proposed for exclusion from 

critical habitat under 4(b)(2) of the Act.

DATES: We will accept comments from 

all interested parties until February 7, 

2005. We must receive requests for 

public hearings, in writing, at the 

address shown in the ADDRESSES section 

by January 24, 2005.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

information concerning this proposal by 

any one of several methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

and information to the Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden 

Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92009. 

2. You may hand-deliver written 

comments and information to our office 

at the above address.

3. You may send comments and 

information by electronic mail (e-mail) 

fw1cfwo_brfi@fws.gov. Please see the 

‘‘Public Comments Solicited’’ section 

below for file format and other 

information about electronic filing. 

4. You may fax your comments to 

760–431–3624. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in preparation of this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection, 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office (at the above address) (telephone 

number 760–431–9440).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES

section).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal be as 

accurate as possible. Accordingly, we 

hereby solicit comments or suggestions 

from the public, other governmental 

agencies and entities, Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, and any 

other interested parties regarding this 

proposed rule. In particular, we seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons any areas should or 

should not be determined to be critical 

habitat as provided by section 4 of the 

Act, including whether the benefits of 

designation will outweigh threats to the 

species due to the designation; 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of Brodiaea 

filifolia and its habitat, specifically 

updated information on specific 

populations or occurrences and what 

habitat or habitat components or 

features are essential to the conservation 

of this species and why; 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in or adjacent to 

the subject areas and their possible 

impacts on proposed critical habitat; 

(4) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other potential 

impacts which could result from the 

proposed designation and, in particular, 

any impacts to small entities; and 

(5) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments. 

(6) We request information from the 

Department of Defense to assist the 

Secretary of the Interior in evaluating 

critical habitat on lands administered by 

or under the control of the Department 

of Defense based on any benefit 

provided by an Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plan (INRMP) to 

the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia; 

and information regarding impacts to 

national security associated with 

proposed designation of critical habitat. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposal by any one of 

several methods (see ADDRESSES

section). Please submit Internet 

comments to fw1cfwo_brfi@fws.gov in 

ASCII file format and avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption. Please also include ‘‘Attn: 

Brodiaea filifolia’’ in your e-mail subject 

header and your name and return 

address in the body of your message. If 

you do not receive a confirmation from 

the system that we have received your 

internet message, contact us directly by 

calling our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office at phone number 760–431–9440. 

Please note that the Internet address 

fw1cfwo_brfi@fws.gov will be closed out 

at the termination of the public 

comment period.

Our practice is to make comments, 

including the names and home 

addresses of respondents, available for 

public review during regular business 

hours. Individual respondents may 

request that we withhold their home 

address from the rulemaking record, and 

we will honor such requests to the 

extent allowable by law. There also may 

be circumstances in which, as allowable 

by law, we would withhold from the 

rulemaking record a respondent’s 

identity. If you wish us to withhold 

your name and/or address, you must 

state this prominently at the beginning 

of your comment. We will not, however, 

consider anonymous comments. The 

Service will make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address. 

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides 

Little Additional Protection to Species 

In 30 years of implementing the Act, 

we have found that the designation of 

statutory critical habitat provides little 

additional protection to most listed 

species, while consuming significant 

amounts of available conservation 

resources. Our present system for 

designating critical habitat has evolved 

since its original statutory prescription 

into a process that provides little real 

conservation benefit, is driven by 

litigation and the courts rather than 

biology, limits our ability to fully 

evaluate the science involved, consumes 

enormous agency resources, and 

imposes huge social and economic 

costs. We believe that additional agency 

discretion would allow our focus to 

return to those actions that provide the 

greatest benefit to the species most in 

need of protection. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71285

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual 

Practice of Administering and 

Implementing the Act 

While attention to and protection of 

habitat is paramount to successful 

conservation actions, we have 

consistently found that, in most 

circumstances, the designation of 

critical habitat is of little additional 

value for most listed species, yet it 

consumes large amounts of conservation 

resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ‘‘Because 

the Act can protect species with and 

without critical habitat designation, 

critical habitat designation may be 

redundant to the other consultation 

requirements of section 7.’’ Currently, 

only 467 species or 37 percent of the 

1,255 listed species in the United States 

under our jurisdiction have designated 

critical habitat. We address the habitat 

needs of all 1,255 listed species through 

conservation mechanisms such as 

listing, section 7 consultations, the 

Section 4 recovery planning process, the 

Section 9 protective prohibitions of 

unauthorized take, Section 6 funding to 

the States, and the Section 10 incidental 

take permit process. We believe that it 

is these measures that may make the 

difference between extinction and 

survival for many species. 

We note, however, that a recent 9th 

Circuit judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot 

Task Force v. United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service, has invalidated the 

Service’s regulation defining destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. We are currently reviewing the 

decision to determine what effect it may 

have on the outcome of consultations 

pursuant to Section 7 of the Act. 

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in 

Designating Critical Habitat 

We have been inundated with 

lawsuits for our failure to designate 

critical habitat, and we face a growing 

number of lawsuits challenging critical 

habitat determinations once they are 

made. These lawsuits have subjected us 

to an ever-increasing series of court 

orders and court-approved settlement 

agreements, compliance with which 

now consumes nearly the entire listing 

program budget. This leaves us with 

little ability to prioritize our activities to 

direct scarce listing resources to the 

listing program actions with the most 

biologically urgent species conservation 

needs. 

The consequence of the critical 

habitat litigation activity is that limited 

listing funds are used to defend active 

lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent 

(NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, 

and to comply with the growing number 

of adverse court orders. As a result, 

listing petition responses, our own 

proposals to list critically imperiled 

species, and final listing determinations 

on existing proposals are all 

significantly delayed. 

The accelerated schedules of courtordered designations have left us with 

almost no ability to provide for adequate 

public participation or to ensure a 

defect-free rulemaking process before 

making decisions on listing and critical 

habitat proposals due to the risks 

associated with noncompliance with 

judicially-imposed deadlines. This in 

turn fosters a second round of litigation 

in which those who fear adverse 

impacts from critical habitat 

designations challenge those 

designations. The cycle of litigation 

appears endless, is very expensive, and 

in the final analysis provides relatively 

little additional protection to listed 

species. 

The costs resulting from the 

designation include legal costs, the cost 

of preparation and publication of the 

designation, the analysis of the 

economic effects and the cost of 

requesting and responding to public 

comment, and in some cases the costs 

of compliance with NEPA; all are part 

of the cost of critical habitat 

designation. None of these costs result 

in any benefit to the species that is not 

already afforded by the protections of 

the Act enumerated earlier, and they 

directly reduce the funds available for 

direct and tangible conservation actions. 

Background

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat in this 

proposed rule and that clarify the 

species description and biology 

provided in the final listing rule. 

Additional information on the biology 

and ecology of Brodiaea filifolia and the 

factors affecting the species can be 

found in the final rule listing the species 

as threatened, published in the Federal 

Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 

54975). 

Brodiaea filifolia is a perennial herb 

in the Liliaceae (lily family) that 

produces leaves and flower stalks from 

dark-brown, fibrous-coated 

underground corms (underground bulblike storage stem that lacks succulent 

leaves). Corms are dormant in the 

summer but begin growing after the first 

significant fall rains saturate the soil. 

Leaves grow slowly throughout the 

winter. At the time of flowering, 

generally early summer, the leaves of 

Brodiaea are dead or nearly so and next 

season’s corms are mature. The 

flowering period lasts for two to three 

weeks, and development of the capsules 

and seeds takes four to eight weeks. The 

rate of deposition and duration of seeds 

in the soil is unknown. However, it is 

likely that the majority of seeds 

produced in the capsules are dispersed 

nearby and as such would be expected 

to be scattered among the standing 

plants at any given occurrence. 

Conditions conducive to triggering 

natural germination are also unknown. 

Leaves are likely produced every year. 

Young plants may produce only leaves 

for a few seasons before having enough 

food stores to be capable of producing 

flower stalks. Leaves appear in early 

spring and die back by the time of 

flowering which typically occurs from 

May to June. Even mature specimens 

may not flower every year, depending 

upon environmental conditions. The 

flower stalks are 20 to 40 cm (8 in to 16 

in) tall. The tubular flowers are 9 mm 

to 12 mm (0.4 in to 0.5 in) long and are 

arranged in loose umbels. The six 

perianth segments are violet, with their 

tips spreading. The staminodia 

(characteristic sterile stamens) are 

narrow and pointed. 

All species of Brodiaea are selfincompatible, requiring crosspollination to set seed. The corm is the 

principal means by which plants of the 

genus Brodiaea perpetuate themselves 

(Niehaus 1971). Seedlings produce 

contractile roots (roots of specialized 

form designed to shrink vertically under 

conditions of seasonal drying) for the 

first few years. These roots swell with 

moisture in the wet season creating a 

space in the malleable clay substrate. As 

the season progresses, the succulent root 

dries and shrinks vertically, drawing the 

young corm down into the ground. This 

is repeated for a few years until the soil 

moisture is insufficient to support the 

contractile root. The corm from the 

previous year is replaced by an adjacent 

new corm each year. The new corm of 

a mature plant often produces two to 

fifteen cormlets (Niehaus 1971). 

The historical range of Brodiaea 

filifolia extends from the foothills of the 

San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles 

County (Glendora and San Dimas), east 

to the western foothills of the San 

Bernardino Mountains in San 

Bernardino County (Arrowhead Hot 

Springs), south through eastern Orange 

and western Riverside Counties to 

northern San Diego County (Highland 

Valley) (USFWS 1998; CNDDB 2003; 

City of San Diego 1997; SANDAG 2003). 

This species is usually found in 

herbaceous plant communities that 

occur in open areas on clay soils, soils 

with clay subsurface, or clay lenses 

within loamy, silty loam, or alkaline 

soils, and elevations of 100 ft (30 m) to 

2,500 ft (765 m), depending on soil 

71286 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

series. These plant communities are 

generally classified as non-native 

grassland, valley needlegrass grassland, 

valley sacaton grassland, alkali playa, 

southern interior basalt vernal pools, 

San Diego mesa hardpan vernal pools, 

and San Diego mesa claypan vernal 

pools (Holland 1986). Based upon 

dominant species, these communities 

have been further divided into series 

which include, but are not limited to, 

California annual grassland, nodding 

needlegrass, purple needlegrass, foothill 

needlegrass, saltgrass, alkali grassland, 

alkali playa, and bush seepweed and 

habitats such as San Diego mesa vernal 

pools, San Jacinto Valley vernal pools, 

and Santa Rosa Plateau vernal pools 

(Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1994). 

Brodiaea filifolia grows in association 

with coastal sage scrub vegetation in 

some areas, such as Los Angeles and 

San Bernardino Counties. 

Brodiaea filifolia has also been found 

in the San Mateo Wilderness Area near 

the northern border of San Diego and 

Riverside counties and in the Miller 

Peak area in the Santa Ana Mountains 

of western Riverside County. These 

occurrences appear to include some 

hybrids between B. filifolia and B. 

orcuttii. Occurrences in the San Mateo 

Wilderness Area have been observed 

along the banks of, and within, 

intermittent stream channels, and those 

in the Miller Peak area have been 

observed on clay soils in southern 

needlegrass grassland (Boyd et al. 1992). 

In Miller Canyon, a tributary that drains 

the southern flank of Miller Mountain, 

the species and some hybrids are found 

on deposits of gravel, cobble, and small 

boulders along the stream channel in 

association with tussocks of Juncus 

macrophyllus and Muhlenbergia rigens

and in vernal seeps and on open, clayey 

benches (Boyd et al. 1992).

All members of the genus Brodiaea

appear to require full sun, and many 

tend to occur on only one or a few soil 

series (Niehaus 1971). 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, CNDDB 

2003, Service GIS data 2004). In San 

Bernardino, the species is associated 

with Etsel family-Rock outcropSpringdale and Tujunga-Urban landHanford soils (Service GIS data 2004). 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 or on clay loam soils underlain 

by heavy clays derived from basalt lava 

flows (i.e., Murrieta series on the Santa 

Rosa Plateau) (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture 1971, Bramlet 1993, CNDDB 

2003). On these soils, B. filifolia is 

typically found as a constituent of 

native perennial and non-native annual 

grasslands. In San Marcos, the Santa 

Rosa Plateau, and near Hemet, these 

grasslands are often part of the 

watersheds for vernal pool and playa 

complexes (Bramlet 1993, Service 1998, 

CNDDB 2003). These soils enable the 

natural process of seed dispersal and 

germination, cormlet deposition to an 

appropriate soil depth, and corm 

persistence through seedling and adult 

phases of flowering and fruit set 

described earlier. 

Members of the genus Brodiaea likely 

rely on Tumbling Flower Beetles 

(Coleoptera) and Sweat Bees 

(Hymenoptera) for cross-pollination 

(Niehaus 1971). The home ranges and 

species fidelity of these pollinators is 

not known. Alternative pollen source 

plants may be necessary for the 

persistence of these insects when 

Brodiaea filifolia is not in flower 

seasonally or annually because of poor 

environmental conditions. Studies to 

quantify the distance that bees will fly 

to pollinate their host plants are limited 

in number, but the few that exist show 

that some bees will routinely fly 100 to 

500 m (328 to 984 ft) to pollinate plants. 

Studies by Steffan-Dewenter and 

Tscharntke (2000) have demonstrated 

that it is possible for bees to fly at least 

1,000 m (3,280 ft) to pollinate flowers, 

and at least one study suggests that 

bumblebees may forage many kilometers 

from a colony (Sudgen 1985). 

The size of a particular population of 

Brodiaea species, as well as other corm 

and bulb forming species, is often 

measured by counting numbers of 

standing flower stalks. However, 

because more plants flower in wet years 

than dry years, flowering plants likely 

represent only a portion of the total 

population of plants present at any 

given site. In addition to the annual 

fluctuation in numbers of flowering 

plants, seedlings and young plants 

likely only produce leaves for a few 

years before they are able to produce 

flower stalks. These vegetative plants 

may go undetected in surveys. 

By 1998, at least 25 percent of 

Brodiaea filifolia populations or 

occurrences were eliminated by 

urbanization and agricultural 

conversion (63 FR 54975). This species 

has also been impacted by nonagricultural disking for fire and weed 

control as well as grading (White and 

Bramlet 2004). Urban development and 

flood control projects are among the 

continuing threats to this species in 

Orange, Riverside, and San Diego 

Counties. White and Bramlet (2004) 

note that habitats for Brodiaea filifolia

in Orange County and some in San 

Diego County are degraded by ‘‘dense 

infestations’’ of the perennial Cynara 

cardunculus (artichoke thistle). The 

species is also threatened by 

recreational activities such as off-road 

vehicle use; clearing for firebreaks; 

alteration of existing hydrologic 

conditions resulting from construction 

and operation of flood control 

structures; over-grazing; and 

competition from non-native plant 

species (USFWS 1998, RECON 1999, 

CNDDB 2003). 

Translocation may also be a threat to 

this species. Translocation efforts 

associated with mitigation for 

development projects have not, on the 

whole, proved to be successful in 

conserving the species (Fiedler 1991). 

Information on file for ten mitigation 

based translocations suggests that there 

has been little consistency or recording 

of translocation methodology or project 

design, minimal effective monitoring, 

and success was either deemed negative 

or unknown. For all ten projects the 

stated objective of the translocation 

effort was to salvage plants from sites to 

be developed. Accounting for the 

numbers and origins of corms has been 

poorly documented. In some cases 

agreed-upon endowments to cover 

monitoring and management were not 

provided. Monitoring has not provided 

information about establishment of new 

plants from those translocated to the 

receptor sites. Even if individuals 

become established, the survival of 

transplanted corms does not necessarily 

indicate success for the species. Due to 

the lack of successful translocations of 

this species, listed as endangered by the 

State, staff at the California Department 

of Fish and Game (CDFG) attempt to 

negotiate the avoidance of translocation 

for this species citing take provisions 

under Section 2081(a) of the Fish and 

Game Code. The loss of all or portions 

of native populations of B. filifolia due 

to habitat loss coupled with the failure 

of translocation efforts continues to 

contribute to the decline of B. filifolia.

Previous Federal Actions 

For more information on previous 

federal actions concerning Brodiaea 

filifolia prior to the time of listing, refer 

to the final rule listing the species as 

threatened published in the Federal 

Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 

54975). A recovery plan for B. filifolia

has not yet been completed. The 

following text discusses those Federal 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71287

actions that occurred subsequent to the 

listing.

On November 15, 2001, a lawsuit was 

filed against the Department of the 

Interior (DOI) and the Service by the 

Center for Biological Diversity and 

California Native Plant Society, 

challenging our ‘‘not prudent’’

determinations for eight plants 

including Brodiaea filifolia (No. CV–01–

2101) (CBD et al. v. USDOI). A second 

lawsuit asserting the same challenge 

was filed against the DOI and the 

Service by the Building Industry Legal 

Defense Foundation (BILD) on 

November 21, 2001 (No. CV–01–2145) 

(BILD v. USDOI). Both cases 

consolidated on March 19, 2002, and all 

parties agreed to remand the critical 

habitat determinations to the Service for 

additional consideration. In a July 1, 

2002, order, the U.S. District Court for 

the Southern District of California 

directed us to publish a new prudency 

determination and/or propose critical 

habitat for B. filifolia on or before 

November 30, 2004. This proposed rule 

to designate critical habitat complies 

with the court’s ruling. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as—(i) the specific areas 

within the geographic area occupied by 

a species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species’’ and (II) that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographic area occupied by 

a species at the time it is listed, upon 

a determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use 

of all methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring an endangered or a 

threatened species to the point at which 

listing under the Act is no longer 

necessary. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

with regard to actions carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency. Section 7 requires conference 

on Federal actions that are likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of proposed critical 

habitat, and consultation on Federal 

actions that may affect designated 

critical habitat. 

In the geographic area occupied by 

the species, critical habitat designations 

identify, to the extent known using the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available, habitat areas that provide 

essential life cycle needs of the species 

(i.e., areas on which are found the 

primary constituent elements, as 

defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). 

Our regulations state that, ‘‘The 

Secretary shall designate as critical 

habitat areas outside the geographic area 

presently occupied by the species only 

when a designation limited to its 

present range would be inadequate to 

ensure the conservation of the species’’

(50 CFR 424.12(e)). Accordingly, when 

the best available scientific and 

commercial data do not demonstrate 

that the conservation needs of the 

species so require, we will not designate 

critical habitat in areas outside the 

geographic area occupied by the species. 

Our Policy on Information Standards 

Under the Endangered Species Act, 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271) and our U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Information 

Quality Guidelines (2002) provide 

criteria, establish procedures, and 

provide guidance to ensure that our 

decisions represent the best scientific 

and commercial data available. These 

policies and guidelines require us, 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 determining which areas 

are critical habitat, a primary source of 

information should be the listing 

package for the species. Additional 

information may be obtained from a 

recovery plan, 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. 

This proposed critical habitat 

designation is not intended to suggest 

that habitat outside the delineated area 

is unimportant to Brodiaea filifolia.

Areas outside the critical habitat 

designation will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions that may be 

implemented under section 7(a)(1), and 

to the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard 

and applicable section 9 prohibitions, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available information at the time of the 

action. We specifically anticipate 

federally funded or assisted projects 

affecting listed species outside their 

designated critical habitat areas may 

still result in jeopardy findings in some 

cases. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans, or other species conservation 

planning efforts if new information 

available to these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Methods 

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act, we used the best scientific and 

commercial data available in 

determining areas that contain the 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of Brodiaea filifolia. We 

designated no areas outside the 

geographic area presently occupied by 

the species. These included data and 

information from research and survey 

observations in published, peerreviewed articles, and data provided by 

the California Department of Fish and 

Game (CDFG), and data provided by the 

California Natural Diversity Database 

(CNDDB). We also reviewed available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of this species including 

the final listing rule; our draft Recovery 

Plan; data and information included in 

reports submitted during section 7 

consultations; information contained in 

species analyses for individual and 

regional Habitat Conservation Plans 

(HCPs) where B. filifolia is a covered 

species or is being proposed for 

coverage; data collected on Marine 

Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton; data 

collected from reports submitted by 

researchers holding section 10(a)(1)(A) 

recovery permits; and information 

received from local species experts. 

Habitat that contains the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species was delineated by examining (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 for Los Angeles and San 

Bernardino Counties; (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; and (4) slope data 

derived from a 30-meter digital 

elevation model (DEM). These layers 

were overlaid on digital ortho quarter 

quadrangle (DOQQ) satellite imagery 

layers, and habitat was delineated in 

areas that had an extant species 

occurrence within them, had not 

undergone development, had the PCE’s 

including suitable soil and vegetation 

71288 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

types, and had a slope of less than 20 

degrees. After creating a GIS coverage of 

the eligible areas, we created legal 

descriptions of these areas. We used a 

100-meter grid to establish Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM), North 

American Datum (NAD) 27 coordinates 

which, when connected, provided the 

boundaries of the eligible habitat areas.

Primary Constituent Elements 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, in determining which areas to 

propose as critical habitat, we are 

required to base critical habitat 

determinations on the best scientific 

and commercial data available and to 

consider those physical and biological 

features, otherwise referred to as 

primary constituent elements, essential 

to the conservation of the species, and 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection. These 

include, but are not limited to: space for 

individual growth and population 

expansion; water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; cover or shelter; and 

habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historic geographical and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

These physical and biological features 

provide for the following: (1) Areas for 

growth of individuals and populations, 

including sites suitable for sexual and 

asexual (cormlet) reproduction, 

pollination and pollen dispersal, seed 

dispersal and germination, and 

maintenance of seed banks; (2) 

intervening areas suitable to facilitate 

gene flow and connectivity or linkages 

within and among eligible occurrences; 

and (3) maintenance of areas that 

provide basic requirements for growth 

such as water, light, nutrients, and 

minerals. 

The conservation of Brodiaea filifolia

is dependent upon several factors that 

include, but are not limited to, the 

protection and management of existing 

populations and the habitat which 

supports them; the maintenance of areas 

of sufficient size and configuration to 

sustain natural ecosystem components, 

functions, and processes (e.g., 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 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. 

The areas being proposed for 

designation as critical habitat provide 

one or more of the physical or biological 

features essential for the conservation of 

this species. 

Lands being proposed for designation 

as critical habitat for B. filifolia occur 

within the historical range of the 

species. Based on the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the life history, 

ecology, and distribution of this species, 

we believe that the primary constituent 

elements of critical habitat for B. filifolia

consist of the following: 

(1) Appropriate soil series and 

associated vegetation at suitable 

elevations of either: 

(A) Clay soil series of various origins 

(e.g., Alo, Altamont, Auld, Diablo), clay 

lenses found as unmapped inclusions in 

other soils series, or within loamy soils 

underlain by a clay subsoil (e.g.,

Fallbrook, Huerhuero, Las Flores) that 

generally occur on mesas and gentle to 

moderate slopes, or in association with 

vernal pools, between the elevations of 

100 ft (30 m) and 2,500 ft (765 m) and 

support open native or non-native 

grassland communities, open coastal 

sage scrub, or coastal sage scrubchaparral communities; or 

(B) Silty loam soil series underlain by 

a clay subsoil or caliche that are 

generally poorly drained, moderately to 

strongly alkaline, granitic in origin (e.g.,

Domino, Grangeville, Waukena, 

Willows), that generally occur in lowlying areas and floodplains, often in 

association with vernal pool or playa 

complexes, between the elevations of 

600 ft (180 m) and 1,800 ft (550 m) and 

support native, non-native, or alkali 

grassland or scrub communities; or 

(C) Clay loam soil series (e.g.,

Murrieta) underlain by heavy clay loams 

or clays derived from olivine basalt lava 

flows, that generally occur on mesas and 

gentle to moderate slopes between the 

elevations of 1,700 ft (520 m) and 2,500 

ft (765 m) and support native or nonnative grassland or oak woodland 

savannah communities associated with 

basalt vernal pools; or

(D) 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 that support open riparian and 

freshwater marsh communities 

associated with intermittent drainages, 

floodplains, and seeps generally 

between 1,800 ft (550 m) and 2,500 ft 

(765 m). 

(2) Areas with an intact surface and 

subsurface structure not permanently 

altered by anthropogenic land use 

activities (e.g., deep, repetitive disking; 

grading). These features as well as 

associated physical processes (e.g., full 

sunlight exposure) are essential to 

maintain those substrate and vegetation 

types where Brodiaea filifolia is found 

and to support pollinator assemblages 

necessary to facilitate gene flow within 

and among populations of B. filifolia.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As discussed in the Methods section, 

we identified 9,403 ac (3,806 ha) of 

eligible habitat for Brodiaea filifolia. We 

delineated proposed critical habitat 

using the following criteria: (1) Essential 

occurrences; (2) presence of suitable 

vegetation; (3) presence of suitable soil 

types; and (4) an area about 250 m of 

vegetation surrounding each occurrence 

to provide for pollinator habitat. We 

then analyzed the critical habitat areas 

to determine if any areas should be 

excluded from the proposed designation 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see 

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

Act’’ for a detailed discussion). 

We defined eligible occurrences as 

areas of intact, occupied habitat 

supporting 1,000 or more naturally 

occurring individuals of Brodiaea 

filifolia, areas necessary to maintain 

gene flow, and/or areas containing 

significant populations. We defined 

significant populations as those found 

in unique habitat, supported by 

historical records in Niehaus 1971 and/

or the CNDDB 2003 reports for the 

species. For example, populations found 

within an atypical vegetative 

community, on atypical soils, and/or at 

an atypical elevation. Essential 

occurrences found within unique 

habitat types harbor genetic diversity 

that may allow for their persistence in 

these areas. This overall diversity may 

be important to the conservation of the 

species. 

Significant populations are also often 

peripheral populations. Peripheral 

populations of a species are separable 

by geographical and/or ecological 

differences from central populations 

(Lesica and Allendorf 1995). 

Conservation of species may depend 

upon protecting the genetic variability 

present across the range of a species. 

Reduced gene flow and limited seed 

dispersal may contribute to the genetic 

diversity of peripheral populations 

attributable to genetic drift from central 

populations. Population divergence may 

also be attributed to differences in 

habitat such as soil types, fire 

frequency, and climate (Lessica and 

Allendorf 1995). Ornduff (1966) found 

the highest concentration of 

morphological and cytological variants 

at the margin of the geographic range of 

species of Lasthenia. For these reasons, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71289

conservation of geographically (e.g. Los 

Angeles and San Bernardino Counties) 

and ecologically (e.g. Devil’s Canyon) 

peripheral populations may be essential 

for the conservation of this species. 

Currently, the exact number of extant 

populations or occurrences of Brodiaea 

filifolia is unknown. Reasons for this 

include the lack of surveys in areas of 

suitable habitat, false negative survey 

results yielded during inappropriate 

seasons, and variation in how survey 

data is recorded. For example, some 

surveyors may record populations 

within close proximity as a single 

occurrence while others may record 

each population as an individual 

occurrence. According to Table 3 of 

White and Bramlet (2004), 

approximately 83 occurrences of this 

species are currently known throughout 

its range. We were recently made aware 

of an occurrence at Highland Valley 

(San Diego County) not included in 

White and Bramlet’s Table 3. Of the 84 

currently known occurrences, we are 

proposing to designate critical habitat 

for 31 occurrences. Of the remaining 

occurrences, 26 are considered to be 

eligible but are being proposed for 

exclusion, and 27 are not included 

because we do not have adequate 

information about the occurrence or the 

area does not contain any of the PCEs 

for the species. Occurrences comprised 

solely of translocated plants were not 

considered eligible occurrences because 

their potential for long-term survival 

and their contribution to the species 

gene pool is currently unknown. 

However, several translocated plants are 

included in this proposed designation 

due to their proximity to or occurrence 

within a naturally-occurring population. 

To determine which occurrences are 

eligible, we also used recovery criteria 

from a draft recovery plan that includes 

this species (page 60, Bramlet and White 

2004). The draft recovery plan states 

that Brodiaea filifolia should be 

evaluated for delisting when, among 

other criteria, the following occurrences 

have been fully protected: (1) All known 

occurrences in Los Angeles and San 

Bernardino counties, (2) at least 10 core 

occurrences in Orange County, (3) at 

least 10 core occurrences in western 

Riverside County, (4) at least 12 core 

occurrences on Camp Pendleton, and (5) 

at least 20 core occurrences in 

northwestern San Diego County, 

especially in the San Marcos area. 

Where possible, we delineated a 

vegetative area of 250 m around each 

eligible occurrence to provide for 

pollinator habitat. Studies indicate that 

if pollinator habitat within 1,000 m of 

some host plants is eliminated, seed set 

of some plant species may be decreased 

by as much as 50 percent. Additional 

studies suggest that the degradation of 

pollinator habitat is likely to adversely 

affect the abundance of pollinator 

species (Jennersten 1988; Rathcke and 

Jules 1993). As discussed in the 

Background section, Brodiaea likely rely 

on Tumbling Flowers Beetles 

(Coleoptera) and Sweat Bees 

(Hymenoptera) for cross pollination 

(Niehasus 1971). Studies to quantify the 

distance that bees will fly to pollinate 

their host plants are limited in number, 

but the few that exist show that some 

bees will routinely fly 100 to 500 m (328 

to 984 ft) to pollinate plants with some 

flying at least 1,000 m (3,280 ft) to 

pollinate flowers (Steffan-Dewenter and 

Tscharntke 2000). Since we do not 

currently have information on specific 

pollinator species of Brodiaea filifolia,

we based the 250-m distance on the 

mean routine flight distance for bees.

These 250-m areas include suitable 

soils and vegetation required by 

Brodiaea filifolia. These 250-m areas 

include habitat where the species may 

be present as mature but non-flowering 

corms or immature corms rather than 

currently flowering plants. These areas 

provide some areas needed for gene 

flow, pollen dispersal, seed dispersal, 

germination, and maintenance of seed 

banks. 

It is also necessary to maintain the 

natural hydrological and fire regimes 

associated with this species. However, 

sufficient information is not currently 

available to quantify the extent of the 

area necessary to maintain the natural 

fire and hydrological regimes for 

particular populations. Therefore, we 

are unable to fully incorporate these 

areas into our identification of essential 

habitat. 

Whenever possible, areas not 

containing the primary constituent 

elements, such as developed areas, were 

not included in the boundaries of 

proposed critical habitat. However, we 

did not map critical habitat in enough 

detail to exclude all developed areas, or 

other areas unlikely to contain the 

primary constituent elements essential 

for the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia.

Such areas within the boundaries of the 

mapped units, such as buildings, roads, 

parking lots, railroad tracks, canals, and 

other paved areas, are excluded from the 

designation by text, but these exclusions 

do not show on the maps because their 

scale is too small. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the physical and 

biological features determined to be 

essential for conservation may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. We have also considered 

how designation highlights habitat that 

needs special management 

consideration or protection. For 

example, in the development of regional 

HCPs, critical habitat can be useful to 

determine which Brodiaea filifolia

habitat should be highest priority for 

special management or protection. The 

final designation will guide the Service 

and applicants to ensure habitat 

conservation planning efforts are 

consistent with conservation objectives 

for B. filifolia.

Many of the known occurrences face 

the following common threats: direct 

and indirect effects from habitat 

fragmentation and loss resulting from 

urban development (and associated 

infrastructure projects) and agricultural 

activities continue to be the most 

significant potential threats to Brodiaea 

filifolia. Other threats include repeated 

mowing and disking associated with fire 

suppression activities and weed control, 

military training, alteration of existing 

hydrologic conditions (particularly in 

western Riverside County), off-road 

vehicle and other recreational activities, 

over-grazing, and competition from nonnative plant species. Unsuccessful 

translocation efforts may also contribute 

to the decline of this species. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We determined that approximately 

9,403 ac (3,805 ha) of eligible habitat 

exists for Brodiaea filifolia in Los 

Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, 

Riverside and San Diego Counties, 

California. We are proposing to 

designate approximately 4,690 ac (1,898 

ha) of the total eligible habitat in 10 

units as critical habitat in Los Angeles, 

San Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego 

Counties, California (Table 1). The 10 

proposed critical habitat units 

encompass 3, 2, 13, and 15 eligible 

occurrences in Los Angeles, San 

Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego 

counties, respectively. Twelve eligible 

occurrences in Riverside and 13 eligible 

occurrences in San Diego counties 

covered by approved and/or pending 

habitat conservation plans are being 

proposed for exclusion from the critical 

habitat designation (See ‘‘Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ for a 

detailed discussion). Areas proposed as 

critical habitat are under Federal, State, 

local, and private ownership. The 

species is not currently known to occur 

on any Tribally-owned lands within its 

range. Therefore, no Tribally-owned 

lands are being proposed for 

designation. Table 2 provides the 

approximate area of proposed critical 

habitat by county and land ownership. 

71290 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

The proposed critical habitat areas 

described below constitute our best 

assessment at this time of those areas 

needed for the species’ conservation. 

Each unit or subunit contains the 

primary constituent elements related to 

an intact surface and subsurface 

structure essential to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types 

where the species is found and to 

support pollinator assemblages 

necessary to facilitate gene flow within 

and among populations of B. filifolia.

Lands within each unit or subunit are 

also are currently occupied and within 

the historic range of B. filifolia. Table 3 

provides the approximate area of 

eligible habitat, eligible habitat 

excluded from the proposed 

designation, and total critical habitat 

proposed for B. filifolia.

Descriptions of each proposed critical 

habitat unit and the reasons why they 

are eligible for designation are listed 

below. Unit descriptions also include 

the size of the unit, the general 

vegetation and soil types present in the 

unit, any known threats specific to the 

unit, and numbers of individual plants, 

if known. Because the species may be 

present as mature but non-flowering 

corms or immature corms rather than 

flowering plants, the number of 

individuals given should be considered 

an estimate of the minimum number of 

plants present. In several cases, lands 

within the unit are referred to as 

developed. Using aerial imagery and 

other information, we determined that 

PCEs for this species are still present 

within each unit, although the habitat 

may be somewhat degraded.

TABLE 1.—ACREAGE (ACRES (AC); HECTARES (HA)) AND COUNTY OF UNITS AND SUBUNITS PROPOSED AS CRITICAL

HABITAT FOR BRODIAEA FILIFOLIA

Critical habitat unit and subunit County ac; ha 

Unit 1: Los Angeles County .......................................................................................................... Los Angeles ............................. 294; 119 

1a: Glendora .......................................................................................................................... .................................................. 96; 39 

1b: San Dimas ....................................................................................................................... .................................................. 198; 80 

Unit 2: Arrowhead Hot Springs ..................................................................................................... San Bernardino ........................ 89; 36 

Unit 3: Aliso Canyon ..................................................................................................................... Orange ..................................... 151; 61 

Unit 4: Orange County .................................................................................................................. .................................................. 1,860; 753 

4a: Arroyo Trabuco ................................................................................................................ .................................................. 74; 30 

4b: Casper’s Regional Park ................................................................................................... .................................................. 259; 105 

4c: Canada Gobernadora/Chiquita Ridgeline ........................................................................ .................................................. 311; 126 

4d: Prima Deschecha ............................................................................................................. .................................................. 119; 48 

4e: Forster Ranch .................................................................................................................. .................................................. 96; 39 

4f: Telega/Segunda Deshecha .............................................................................................. .................................................. 190; 77 

4g: Cristianitos Canyon .......................................................................................................... .................................................. 588; 238 

4h: Cristianitos Canyon South ............................................................................................... .................................................. 72; 29 

4i: Blind Canyon ..................................................................................................................... .................................................. 151; 61 

Unit 5: Northern San Diego County .............................................................................................. San Diego ................................ 1,527; 618 

5a: Miller Mountain ................................................................................................................. .................................................. 1,263; 511 

5b: Devil’s Canyon ................................................................................................................. .................................................. 264; 107 

Unit 6: Oceanside .......................................................................................................................... .................................................. 198; 81 

6a: Alta Creek ........................................................................................................................ .................................................. 49; 20 

6b: Mesa Drive ....................................................................................................................... .................................................. 5; 2 

6c: Oceanside East/Mission Avenue ..................................................................................... .................................................. 64; 26 

6d: Taylor/Darwin ................................................................................................................... .................................................. 80; 33 

Unit 7: Carlsbad ............................................................................................................................ .................................................. 125; 50 

7a: Fox-Miller ......................................................................................................................... .................................................. 93; 38 

7b: Rancho Carillo ................................................................................................................. .................................................. 32; 13 

Unit 8: San Marcos ....................................................................................................................... .................................................. 315; 127 

8a: Rancho Santa Fe Road North ......................................................................................... .................................................. 86; 35 

8b: Rancho Santalina/Loma Alta ........................................................................................... .................................................. 82; 33 

8c: Grand Avenue .................................................................................................................. .................................................. 10; 4 

8d: Upham .............................................................................................................................. .................................................. 117; 47 

8e: Linda Vista ....................................................................................................................... .................................................. 20; 8 

Unit 9: Double LL Ranch ............................................................................................................... .................................................. 57; 23 

Unit 10: Highland Valley ................................................................................................................ .................................................. 74; 30 

Total .................................................................................................................................... .................................................. 4,690; 1,898 

TABLE 2.—AREA (ACRES (AC) AND HECTARES (HA)) INCLUDED IN PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR BRODIAEA FILIFOLIA

BY COUNTY AND LANDOWNERSHIP

County Federal* State or local Private Total 

Los Angeles .................................... 20 ac; 8 ha .................... 0 ac; 0 ac ....................... 274 ac; 111 ha .............. 294 ac; 119 ha. 

San Bernardino ............................... 0 ac; 0 ha ...................... 0 ac; 0 ha ...................... 89 ac; 36 ha .................. 89 ac; 36 ha. 

Orange ............................................ 0 ac; 0 ha ...................... 219 ac; 89 ha ................ 1,792 ac; 725 ha ........... 2,011 ac; 814 ha. 

Riverside** ...................................... 47 ac; 19 ha .................. 0 ac; 0 ha ...................... 0 ac; 0 ha ...................... 47 ac; 19 ha. 

San Diego ....................................... 1,239 ac; 501 ha ........... 0 ac; 0 ha ...................... 1,010 ac; 409 ha ........... 2,249 ac; 910 ha. 

Total ................................................ 1,306 ac; 529 ha ........... 219 ac; 89 ha ................ 3,165 ac; 1,281 ha ........ 4,690 ac; 1,898 ha. 

* Federal lands include Bureau of Land Management, DOD, National Forest, and Fish and Wildlife Service lands. 

** Proposed critical habitat in Riverside County is entirely on National Forest lands. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71291

NOTE: The proposed designation does not include any Tribally-owned lands. 

TABLE 3.—TOTAL ELIGIBLE HABITAT, ELIGIBLE HABITAT EXCLUDED FROM THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION, AND TOTAL

CRITICAL HABITAT PROPOSED FOR BRODIAEA FILIFOLIA IN ACRES (AC) AND HECTARES (HA) 

County Total eligible habitat Eligible habitat excluded Proposed critical habitat 

Los Angeles ............................................................................ 294 ac; 119 ha ................ 0 ac 0 ha; ........................ 294 ac; 119 ha. 

San Bernardino ....................................................................... 89 ac; 36 ha .................... 0 ac; 0 ha ........................ 89 ac; 36 ha. 

Orange .................................................................................... 2,011 ac; 814 ha ............. 0 ac; 0 ha ........................ 2,011 ac; 814 ha. 

Riverside .................................................................................. 3,314 ac; 1,341 ha .......... 3,267 ac; 1,322 ha .......... 47 ac*; 19 ha. 

San Diego ................................................................................ 3,695 ac; 1,495 ha .......... 1,446 ac; 585 ha ............. 2,249 ac; 910 ha. 

Total ................................................................................. 9,403 ac; 3,805 ha .......... 4,713 ac; 1,907 ha .......... 4,690 ac; 1,898 ha. 

* Proposed critical habitat in Riverside County is entirely on National Forest lands. 

Unit Descriptions 

Los Angeles County—There are 

currently three known occurrences of 

Brodiaea filifolia in Los Angeles 

County, each of which is proposed as 

critical habitat. 

Unit 1: Los Angeles County Unit—

This unit consists of 294 ac (119 ha) 

divided into 2 subunits. 

Subunit 1a: Glendora. This subunit 

consists of 96 ac (39 ha) of private lands 

in the city of Glendora, in the foothills 

of the San Gabriel Mountains in eastern 

Los Angeles County. Lands within this 

subunit contain Cieneba-ExchequerSobrant soils, a type of silty loam, and 

consist primarily of northern mixed 

chaparral and coastal sage scrub. This 

population represents only one of two 

occurrences located in the foothills of 

the San Gabriel Mountains part of the 

Transverse Ranges, where the species 

was historically found, and represents 

the nearest genetic connection to the 

San Dimas subunit. Lands within this 

subunit support an occurrence of about 

2,000 plants associated in part with 

northern mixed chaparral. This 

occurrence represents a peripheral 

location (Lesica and Allendorf 1995), 

being the northernmost known 

occurrence of the species, with 

populations known since 1991 [and 

rediscovery of population not reported 

since 1921] (CNDDB 2003, p. 16). The 

site is owned and managed by the 

Glendora Community Conservancy 

(GCC); however, we are not aware of a 

specific conservation or management 

plan protecting or managing for this 

species on the GCC’s property. 

Management actions to control invasive 

species may be required to maintain the 

identified vegetation types essential to 

the conservation of the species since 

invasive species can outcompete native 

species for resources. 

Subunit 1b: San Dimas subunit. This 

subunit consists of 198 ac (80 ha) of 

privately owned and Federal (Angeles 

National Forest) lands in the city of San 

Dimas in the foothills of the San Gabriel 

Mountains of eastern Los Angeles 

County. Lands within this subunit 

contain Cieneba-Exchequer-Sobrant 

soils, a type of silty loam, and consist 

primarily of coastal sage scrub and 

northern mixed chaparral. This is one of 

only two units in the foothills of the San 

Gabriel Mountains of the Transverse 

Ranges where it occurred historically 

and represents the only likely genetic 

connection to the Glendora subunit. 

This subunit supports two occurrences 

totaling about 6,000 plants and is 

associated with chaparral, with plants 

recorded since 1990 (CNDDB 2003, p. 

35). While this species is not currently 

known to occur on the Angeles National 

Forest, the species occurs directly 

outside of the National Forest so 

approximately 20 ac of the national 

forest was included in the proposed 

designation to provide for pollinator 

habitat. This site is threatened by urban 

development. Therefore, management 

actions to minimize disturbance to the 

surface and subsurface structure within 

this subunit may be required to 

maintain the identified soil and 

vegetation types as well as pollinator 

habitat essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

San Bernardino County—There are 

currently two known occurrences of 

Brodiaea filifolia in San Bernardino 

County, both of are being proposed as 

critical habitat. 

Unit 2: Arrowhead Hot Springs Unit. 

This unit consists of 89 ac (36 ha) of 

privately owned land at the 

southwestern base of the San 

Bernardino Mountains. Lands within 

this unit contain Etsel family-Rock 

outcrop-Springdale and Tujunga-Urban 

land-Hanford soils, some of which are 

considered alluvial, and consist 

primarily of coastal sage scrub. This 

unit supports the only occurrence of 

this plant in the foothills of the San 

Bernardino Mountains of the Transverse 

Ranges, where it occurred historically 

with collections dating since the late 

1800s (Niehaus 1971, CNDDB 2003 p. 5) 

and most recently 1000 plants observed 

in 1993, represents a peripheral location 

at the northern limits of the species 

range (Lesica and Allendorf 1995), and 

represents the type locality for the 

species. Lands within this unit support 

two occurrences, totaling about 1,000 

plants, that are associated with coastal 

sage scrub. Occurrences in this unit are 

threatened by invasive exotic plants. 

Therefore, management actions to 

control invasive species may be 

required to maintain the identified 

vegetation types essential to the 

conservation of the species since 

invasive species can outcompete native 

species for resources.

Orange County—There are currently 

23 known occurrences of Brodiaea 

filifolia in Orange County, 13 of which 

have been determined to have the PCEs 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and thus are being proposed as 

critical habitat. 

Unit 3: Aliso Canyon Unit. This unit 

consists of 151 ac (61 ha) of publicly 

owned land in Aliso-Wood Canyon 

Regional Park, in the city of Laguna 

Niguel, southwestern Orange County. 

Lands within this unit contain clay 

loam or other types of loam and consist 

primarily of annual grassland that has 

been graded or disturbed. Lands within 

this unit support an occurrence that is 

associated with annual grassland and 

represent a peripheral location (Lesica 

and Allendorf 1995), being the 

westernmost occurrence of the species. 

Although this occurrence is protected 

from urban development as part of 

Aliso-Wood Regional Park, these 

parklands are managed for recreational 

use and not specifically for the 

conservation of Brodiaea filifolia. The 

occurrence in this unit is primarily 

threatened by fuel management 

activities (annual mowing) conducted 

by park staff (Julie Vanderwier, USFWS, 

pers. comm. 2004). Therefore, 

management actions to minimize 

disturbance to the surface structure 

within this unit may be required to 

maintain the identified vegetation types 

as well as pollinator habitat essential to 

the conservation of the species. 

71292 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Unit 4: Orange County Unit—This 

unit consists of 1,861 ac (753 ha) 

divided into 9 subunits. 

Subunit 4a: Arroyo Trabuco. This 

subunit consists of 74 ac (30 ha) of 

privately owned land near Rancho 

Mission Viejo in southern Orange 

County. Lands within this subunit 

contain clay loam or other types of 

loam, and consist primarily of annual 

grassland and coastal sage scrub. Lands 

within this subunit support an 

occurrence that represents a regionally 

peripheral location (Lesica and 

Allendorf 1995), being the westernmost 

occurrence of the species for the unit; 

and may provide gene flow to the 

Canada Gobernadora/Chiquita Ridgeline 

subunit (about 4.5 km away). Roughly 

half of this land appears to be under 

agricultural use. Therefore, management 

actions to minimize disturbance to the 

surface structure within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified vegetation types as well as 

pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Subunit 4b: Casper’s Regional Park.

This subunit consists of 259 ac (105 ha) 

of privately owned and County 

(Casper’s Regional Park) lands in the 

city of San Juan Capistrano, in the 

southwestern region of the Santa Ana 

Mountains, southern Orange County. 

Lands within this unit contain clay 

loam, sandy loam, or rocky outcrop, and 

consist primarily of sagebrushbuckwheat scrub. Lands within this 

support an occurrence of about 800 

plants that is one of only two 

occurrences that occur in sagebrushbuckwheat scrub, are located in the 

foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains at 

or near the highest elevation of any of 

the Orange County occurrences, and 

represent the northernmost occurrence 

in Orange County as a regionally 

peripheral population (Lesica and 

Allendorf 1995). This occurrence also 

provides for gene flow to the south 

(subunit 4c, about 3.75 km away). 

Records of this plant date from 1989 

with 24 plants to 850 plants in 1995 

(CNDDB 2003 p. 51). While this 

occurrence is protected from urban 

development, being contained within 

Casper’s Regional Park, park lands are 

primarily managed for recreational use 

and not specifically for the conservation 

of the species. Management actions to 

minimize disturbance to the surface 

structure within this subunit may be 

required to maintain the identified 

vegetation types as well as pollinator 

habitat essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

Subunit 4c: Canada Gobernadora/

Chiquita Ridgeline. This subunit 

consists of 311 ac (126 ha) of privately 

owned land near Chiquita and 

Gobernadora Canyons 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 

croplands and sagebrush-buckwheat 

scrub. Lands within this subunit 

support two occurrences, totaling about 

4,400 plants, and this subunit is one of 

only two subunits to include sagebrushbuckwheat scrub vegetation. 

Approximately 2600 plants were 

observed from this subunit and adjacent 

areas from surveys conducted in the 

1990s (CNDDB 2003 p. 59). This subunit 

is central to Orange County populations 

and may provide for gene flow to 

surrounding populations in Unit 4 

(Casper’s Regional Park subunit is about 

3.75 km away, and the Arroyo Trabuco 

subunit is about 4.5 km away). 

Occurrences in this subunit are 

threatened by urban development. 

Therefore, management actions to 

minimize disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Subunit 4d: Prima Deschecha. This 

subunit consists of 119 ac (48 ha) of 

privately owned land northeast of San 

Clemente in western Orange County. 

Lands within this subunit contain clay 

soils and consist primarily of annual 

grassland. Lands within this subunit 

support an occurrence that may provide 

gene flow north to the Canada 

Gobernadora/Chiquita Ridgeline subunit 

(about 4.5 km away) and south to the 

Forster Ranch subunit (about 1.75 km 

away). Occurrences in this subunit are 

threatened by urban development. 

Management actions to minimize 

disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species.

Subunit 4e: Forster Ranch. This 

subunit consists of 96 ac (39 ha) of 

privately owned land northeast of San 

Clemente in southwestern Orange 

County. Lands within this subunit 

contain clay and clay-loam soils and 

consist primarily of annual grassland. 

Lands within this subunit support an 

occurrence that may provide gene flow 

north to the Prima Deschecha subunit 

(about 1.75 km away) as well as to 

populations on MCB Camp Pendleton. 

Occurrences in this subunit are 

threatened by urban development. 

Management actions to minimize 

disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Subunit 4f: Telega/Segunda 

Deshecha. This subunit consists of 190 

ac (77 ha) of privately owned land 

northeast of San Clemente in 

southwestern Orange County. Lands 

within this subunit contain clay soils 

and support needlegrass grassland. 

Lands within this subunit support an 

occurrence that may provide gene flow 

east to the Cristianitos Canyon subunit 

(about 1.25 km away) and to 

populations on MCB Camp Pendleton. 

Occurrences in this subunit are 

threatened by urban development. 

Management actions to minimize 

disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Subunit 4g: Cristianitos Canyon. This 

subunit consists of 588 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. Lands within this subunit 

support 3 occurrences, totaling about 

3,000 plants, as well as several smaller 

occurrences and may provide for gene 

flow to surrounding occurrences such as 

Telega/Segunda Deshecha (about 1.25 

km away) and those on MCB Camp 

Pendleton in San Diego County. 

Approximately 2600 plants were 

observed from this subunit and adjacent 

areas from surveys conducted in the 

1990s (CNDDB 2003 p.57). Occurrences 

in this subunit are threatened by 

development of the Foothill 

Transportation Corridor. Management 

actions to minimize disturbance to the 

surface and subsurface structure within 

this subunit may be required to 

maintain the identified soil and 

vegetation types as well as pollinator 

habitat essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

Subunit 4h: Cristianitos Canyon 

South. This subunit consists of 72 ac (29 

ha) of privately owned land in 

Cristianitos Canyon on Rancho Mission 

Viejo in southern Orange County. Lands 

within this subunit contain clay, clayloam, and loam soils that support 

annual grassland. Lands within this 

subunit support an occurrence that may 

provide gene flow to occurrences in 

Orange (such as Telega/Segunda 

Deshecha and Cristianitos Canyon that 

are about 1.75 km away) and San Diego 

Counties. Approximately 2600 plants 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71293

were observed from this subunit and 

adjacent areas from surveys conducted 

in the 1990s (CNDDB 2003 p. 58). 

Occurrences in this subunit are 

threatened by urban development. 

Management actions to minimize 

disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Subunit 4i: Blind Canyon. This 

subunit consists of 151 ac (61 ha) of 

privately owned land on Rancho 

Mission Viejo near the border between 

Orange and San Diego counties. Lands 

within this subunit contain clay loam 

and sandy loam soils and consist 

primarily of annual grassland and 

coastal sage scrub. Lands within this 

subunit support an occurrence that may 

provide gene flow between occurrences 

in Orange County (about 2 km away 

from the Cristianitos Canyon subunit) 

and on MCB Camp Pendleton (about 1.5 

km away). Occurrences in this subunit 

are threatened by urban development. 

Therefore, management actions to 

minimize disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

San Diego County—There are 

currently 44 known occurrences of 

Brodiaea filifolia in San Diego County, 

15 of which have been determined to be 

eligible for designation and thus are 

being proposed as critical habitat. 

Unit 5: Northern San Diego Unit—

This unit consists of 1,527 ac (618 ha) 

divided into 2 subunits. 

Subunit 5a: Miller Mountain. This 

subunit consists of 1,263 ac (511 ha) of 

private and publicly-owned (Cleveland 

National Forest) lands in northern San 

Diego County near the border with 

Riverside County. About 47 acres of 

Cleveland National Forest lands in this 

subunit lie within Riverside County. 

The majority of the vegetation in this 

subunit is valley and foothill grassland 

and northern mixed and chamise 

chaparrals. This occurrence may 

provide gene flow north and south into 

Riverside and San Diego Counties 

(about 3.5 km away from the closest 

unit, excluded, in Riverside County, and 

about 1.5 km away from the Devil’s 

Canyon subunit). Lands within this 

subunit support an occurrence of about 

20,000 plants as well as some plants 

thought to be intermediate between 

Brodiaea filifolia and B. orcuttii. This 

population is also historically recorded 

as a type locality from the late 1800s 

(Niehaus 1971), with surveys from 1992 

of about 20,000 plants (CNDDB 2003 pp. 

32 and 33). The Cleveland National 

Forest does not currently have a 

management plan specific to Brodiaea 

filifolia, however, timing of cattle 

grazing has been adjusted to avoid the 

flowering period for the species (Kirsten 

Winter, Forest Botanist, 2004 pers. 

comm.). Management actions to 

minimize disturbance to the surface 

structure within this subunit and to 

control invasive species may be 

required to maintain the identified 

vegetation types as well as pollinator 

habitat essential to the conservation of 

the species.

Subunit 5b: Devil’s Canyon. This 

subunit consists of 264 ac (107 ha). It 

occurs on private and publicly-owned 

(Cleveland National Forest) lands in 

northeastern San Diego County. The 

majority of the vegetation in this 

subunit is chaparral. Lands within this 

subunit support an occurrence that may 

provide gene flow to occurrences in 

Riverside County via the Miller 

Mountain subunit (about 1.5 km away). 

This population is also historically 

recorded as a type locality from the late 

1800s (Niehaus 1971) with surveys from 

1992 of several thousand plants 

(CNDDB 2003 p. 34). The Cleveland 

National Forest does not currently have 

a management plan specific to Brodiaea 

filifolia, however, timing of cattle 

grazing has been adjusted to avoid the 

flowering period for the species (Kirsten 

Winter, Forest Botanist (2004 pers. 

comm.). Management actions to 

minimize disturbance to the surface 

structure within this subunit and to 

control invasive species may be 

required to maintain the identified 

vegetation types as well as pollinator 

habitat essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

Unit 6: Oceanside Unit—This unit 

consists of 199 ac (81 ha) divided into 

4 subunits. 

Subunit 6a: Alta Creek. This subunit 

consists of 49 ac (20 ha) of private land 

in northern coastal San Diego County. 

Lands within this subunit contain fine 

sandy loam, loam, or loamy fine sand 

and consist primarily of coastal sage 

scrub. Lands within this subunit 

support an occurrence that may provide 

gene flow to occurrences in the Mesa 

Drive subunit (about 1 km away), and in 

Calavera Heights (about 3 km away) as 

well as other occurrences along coastal 

San Diego County. The occurrences in 

this subunit are threatened by urban 

development. Therefore, management 

actions to minimize disturbance to the 

surface and subsurface structure within 

this subunit may be required to 

maintain the identified soil and 

vegetation types as well as pollinator 

habitat essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

Subunit 6b: Mesa Drive. This subunit 

consists of 5 ac (2 ha) of privately 

owned land in the city of Oceanside, 

northern coastal San Diego County. 

Lands within this subunit contain 

loamy fine sands and consists primarily 

of extant areas of grassland. This 

subunit supports an occurrence and 

provides potential gene flow to 

occurrences in Calavera Heights via Alta 

Creek (about 1 km away). The 

occurrence in this subunit is threatened 

by urban development. Therefore, 

management actions to minimize 

disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Subunit 6c: Oceanside East/Mission 

Avenue. This subunit consists of 91 ac 

(37 ha) of privately owned land in the 

city of Oceanside, northwestern San 

Diego County. Lands within this subunit 

contain fine loamy sands and consist 

primarily of coastal sage scrub with 

some disturbed areas. Lands within this 

subunit support an occurrence that may 

provide gene flow to occurrences in 

coastal San Diego County (the Mesa 

Drive subunit is about 2.5 km away). 

Occurrences in this subunit are 

threatened by urban development. 

Therefore, management actions to 

minimize disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Subunit 6d: Taylor/Darwin subunit.

This subunit consists of 80 ac (33 ha) of 

privately owned land in the city of 

Oceanside, northwestern San Diego 

County. The majority of the subunit is 

undeveloped, but is immediately 

surrounded by urban development. 

However, areas of extant valley and 

foothill grasslands exist in the 

surrounding area Most of the soils 

present in this subunit are clay or loamy 

fine sand. Lands within this subunit 

support a regionally peripheral 

population (Lesica and Allendorf 1995), 

and an occurrence that may provide 

gene flow to the Oceanside East/Mission 

Avenue subunit (about 3.5 km away). 

Occurrences in this subunit are 

threatened by encroaching urban 

development. Therefore, management 

actions to minimize disturbance to the 

surface and subsurface structure within 

this subunit may be required to 

maintain the identified soil and 

vegetation types as well as pollinator 

71294 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

habitat essential to the conservation of 

the species.

Unit 7: Carlsbad—This unit consists 

of 125 ac (50 ha) divided into 2 

subunits. 

Subunit 7a: Fox-Miller. This subunit 

consists of 93 ac (38 ha) of privately 

owned land in the city of Carlsbad, 

northwestern San Diego County. Lands 

within this subunit contain heavy clay 

soils and consist primarily of non-native 

grassland. Lands within this subunit 

support an occurrence of about 19,000 

plants that may provide gene flow to 

surrounding occurrences (this unit is 

about 1.5 km west of a protected unit, 

and thereby excluded). This occurrence 

is threatened by urban development. 

Therefore, management actions to 

minimize disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. Though this 

unit occurs in the City of Carlsbad 

subarea of the Multiple Habitat 

Conservation Program (MHCP) Plan, we 

are proposing to designate this unit for 

the reasons provided below in 

‘‘Relationship of Critical Habitat to the 

City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat 

Management Plan—Exclusion under 

4(b)(2).’’

Subunit 7b: Rancho Carillo. This 

subunit consists of 32 ac (13 ha) of 

private land in San Diego County. Lands 

within this subunit contain clay or 

sandy loam soils and consist primarily 

of non-native grasslands and coastal 

sage scrub. Records of this plant date 

from 1991 with more than 100 plants to 

estimates of 300 to 24,000 plants, most 

as non-flowering corms (CNDDB 2003 p. 

18). Lands within this subunit support 

an occurrence that may provide gene 

flow to nearby occurrences to the 

northeast (nearest occurrence about 1.5 

km away) and occurrences in the 

Rancho Santa Fe Road North unit (less 

than 0.5 km away). Occurrences in this 

subunit are threatened by road 

realignment and urban development. 

Therefore, management actions to 

minimize disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Unit 8: San Marcos—This unit 

consists of 315 ac (127 ha) divided into 

5 subunits. 

Subunit 8a: Rancho Santa Fe Road 

North. This subunit consists of 86 ac (35 

ha) of private land in San Diego County. 

Lands within this subunit contain clay 

or sandy loam soils and consist 

primarily of non-native grasslands and 

coastal sage scrub. Lands within this 

subunit support an occurrence that may 

provide gene flow to the northeast 

(about 1.5 km away from a protected 

unit, thereby excluded). This subunit is 

also immediately east of the Rancho 

Carillo subunit. Occurrences in this 

subunit are threatened by road 

realignment and urban development. 

Therefore, management actions to 

minimize disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Subunit 8b: Rancho Santalina/Loma 

Alta. This subunit consists of 82 ac (33 

ha) of privately owned land in the city 

of San Marcos, northern San Diego 

County. The majority of the vegetation 

in the subunit is developed, however, 

there are areas of valley and foothill 

grassland and coastal sage scrub. Most 

of the soils in this subunit are clay, 

loam, or loamy fine sand. Lands within 

this subunit support an occurrence of 

about 6,000 plants, may provide gene 

flow to nearby occurrences (about 0.5 

km from the Grand Avenue subunit), 

and represent a peripheral location 

(Lesica and Allendorf 1995), being the 

easternmost known occurrence of the 

species. Portions of this subunit have 

been lost as the result of urban 

development and some of the remaining 

habitat is in narrow linear areas and 

subject to considerable edge effects such 

as persistent proximity to sources of 

invasive exotic plants and trampling by 

humans and their pets. The occurrence 

is threatened by OHV use, invasive nonnative plants, and disking. Therefore, 

management actions to minimize 

disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure and control 

invasive species within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Subunit 8c: Grand Avenue. This 

subunit consists of 10 ac (4 ha) of 

privately owned land in the city of San 

Marcos, northern San Diego County. 

The majority of the subunit is 

undeveloped, but is immediately 

surrounded by urban development. 

However, areas of extant valley and 

foothill grasslands exist in the 

surrounding area. Most of the soils in 

the subunit are loamy fine sand. Lands 

within this subunit support an 

occurrence that may provide gene flow 

to surrounding occurrences (about 0.5 

km from the Rancho Santalina/Loma 

Alta and Upham subunits). Records of 

this plant date from 1993 (CNDDB 2003 

p. 31). Occurrences in this subunit are 

threatened by urban development. 

Therefore, management actions to 

minimize disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Subunit 8d: Upham. This subunit 

consists of 117 ac (47 ha) of privately 

owned land in the city of San Marcos, 

northern San Diego County. The 

majority of the subunit is undeveloped, 

but is immediately surrounded by urban 

development. However, areas of extant 

valley and foothill grasslands exist in 

the surrounding area. Records of this 

plant date from 1978, with about 1000 

or more plants seen in 1986 and 1995 

(CNDDB 2003 p. 7). Lands within this 

subunit support an occurrence that may 

provide gene flow to surrounding 

occurrences (about 0.5 km from the 

Grand Avenue and Linda Vista 

subunits). Occurrences in this subunit 

are threatened by urban development. 

Therefore, management actions to 

minimize disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species.

Subunit 8e: Linda Vista. This subunit 

consists of 20 ac (8 ha) of privately 

owned land in the city of San Marcos, 

northern San Diego County. Much of the 

subunit is undeveloped; but is 

immediately surrounded by urban 

development. However, areas of extant 

valley and foothill grasslands exist in 

the surrounding area. Lands within this 

subunit support an occurrence that may 

provide gene flow to surrounding 

occurrences in northern San Diego 

County, such as the Upham subunit 

(about 0.5 km away). Records of this 

plant date from 1991 (CNDDB 2003 p. 

30). This subunit is threatened by OHV 

activity, encroaching urban 

development, and trash dumping. 

Therefore, management actions to 

minimize disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Unit 9: Double LL Ranch Unit—This 

unit consists of 57 ac (23 ha) of privately 

owned land in the city of Encinitas, 

northwestern San Diego County. Much 

of the unit is undeveloped; but is 

immediately surrounded by urban 

development. However, areas of extant 

valley and foothill grasslands exist in 

the surrounding area. Most of the soils 

present in this unit are heavy clays. 

Lands within this subunit support a 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71295

regionally peripheral population (Lesica 

and Allendorf 1995). This unit is 

threatened by urban development and 

the indirect effects of activities 

associated with the road that bisects the 

unit. Therefore, management actions to 

minimize disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this unit 

may be required to maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types as 

well as pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Unit 10: Highland Valley Unit—This 

unit consists of 74 ac (30 ha) of privately 

owned land east of the community of 

Ramona in northeastern San Diego 

County. Lands within this unit contain 

clay or sandy loam soils and consist 

primarily of non-native grassland or 

alkali seep. Lands within this subunit 

support an occurrence that represents 

the only known occurrence in San Diego 

County that is on alkali soils and 

because it is a peripheral location 

(Lesica and Allendorf 1995), being the 

easternmost locality for the species. 

Populations in this unit are threatened 

by urban development and agricultural 

activities. Therefore, management 

actions to minimize disturbance to the 

surface and subsurface structure within 

this unit may be required to maintain 

the identified soil and vegetation types 

as well as pollinator habitat essential to 

the conservation of the species. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal 

agencies, including the Service, to 

ensure that actions they fund, authorize, 

or carry out are not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. In 

response to recent court decisions 

invalidating our regulatory definition of 

adverse modification under 402.2, we 

are not relying on that definition in this 

discussion of critical habitat effects. 

Instead in evaluating whether 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat would occur, we rely on 

the statutory definition of critical 

habitat quoted earlier in this rule. We 

must analyze whether, if a proposed 

Federal agency action were 

implemented, critical habitat would 

remain functional to serve its intended 

conservation role for the species. 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to evaluate their actions with respect to 

any species that is proposed or listed as 

endangered or threatened and with 

respect to its critical habitat, if any is 

proposed or designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 

7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal 

agencies to confer with us on any action 

that is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a proposed species or result 

in destruction or adverse modification 

of proposed critical habitat. Conference 

reports provide conservation 

recommendations to assist the agency in 

eliminating conflicts that may be caused 

by the proposed action. The 

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report are advisory. If a 

species is listed or critical habitat is 

designated, section 7(a)(2) 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. Through this consultation, the 

action agency ensures that the permitted 

actions do not jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat, we also 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable. ‘‘Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ are defined at 50 CFR 

402.02 as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that can be 

implemented in a manner consistent 

with the intended purpose of the action, 

that are consistent with the scope of the 

Federal agency’s legal authority and 

jurisdiction, that are economically and 

technologically feasible, and that the 

Director believes would avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where critical 

habitat is subsequently designated and 

the Federal agency has retained 

discretionary involvement or control 

over the action or such discretionary 

involvement or control is authorized by 

law.

Consequently, some Federal agencies 

may request re-initiation of consultation 

or conference with us on actions for 

which formal consultation has been 

completed, if those actions may affect 

designated critical habitat or adversely 

modify or destroy proposed critical 

habitat. 

We may issue a formal conference 

report if requested by a Federal agency. 

Formal conference reports on proposed 

critical habitat contain an opinion that 

is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, 

as if critical habitat were designated. We 

may adopt the formal conference report 

as the biological opinion when the 

critical habitat is designated, if no 

substantial new information or changes 

in the action alter the content of the 

opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). 

Activities on Federal lands that may 

affect Brodiaea filifolia or its critical 

habitat will require section 7 

consultation. Activities on private or 

State lands requiring a permit from a 

Federal agency, such as a permit from 

the Army Corps under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act, a section 10(a)(1)(B) 

permit from the Service, or some other 

Federal action, including funding (e.g., 

Federal Highway Administration or 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

funding), will also continue to be 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process. Federal actions not affecting 

listed species or critical habitat and 

actions on non-Federal and private 

lands that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or permitted do not require 

section 7 consultation. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat 

include those that would impair the 

functionality of the primary constituent 

elements within a critical habitat unit to 

serve their intended conservation role 

for the species. We note that such 

activities may also jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. 

To properly portray the effects of 

critical habitat designation, we must 

first compare the section 7 requirements 

for actions that may affect critical 

habitat with the requirements for 

actions that may affect a listed species. 

Section 7 prohibits actions funded, 

authorized, or carried out by Federal 

agencies from jeopardizing the 

continued existence of a listed species 

or destroying or adversely modifying the 

listed species’ critical habitat. 

Activities involving a Federal action 

that may destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat, or may be affected by 

the critical habitat designation include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Removing, thinning, or destroying 

Brodiaea filifolia habitat (as defined in 

71296 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

the primary constituent elements 

discussion), whether by burning, 

mechanical, chemical, or other means 

(e.g., plowing, grubbing, grading, 

grazing, woodcutting, construction, road 

building, mining, mechanical weed 

control, herbicide application, etc.); 

(2) Activities that appreciably degrade 

or destroy Brodiaea filifolia habitat (and 

its primary constituent elements) 

include, but are not limited to, livestock 

grazing, clearing, disking, farming, 

residential or commercial development, 

introducing or encouraging the spread 

of nonnative species, off-road vehicle 

use, and heavy recreational use; 

(3) Activities that appreciably 

diminish habitat value or quality 

through indirect effects (e.g., edge 

effects, invasion of exotic plants or 

animals, or fragmentation); 

(4) Any activity, including the 

regulation of activities by the Corps of 

Engineers under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act or activities carried out 

by or licensed by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), that could 

alter watershed or soil characteristics in 

ways that would appreciably alter or 

reduce the quality or quantity of surface 

and subsurface flow of water needed to 

maintain Brodiaea filifolia habitat (these 

activities include, but are not limited to, 

altering the natural fire regime either 

through fire suppression or by using 

prescribed fires that are too frequent or 

poorly-timed; development, including 

road building and other direct or 

indirect activities; agricultural activities, 

livestock grazing, and vegetation 

manipulation such as clearing or 

grubbing in the watershed upslope from 

Brodiaea filifolia); 

(5) Road construction and 

maintenance, right-of-way designation, 

and regulation of agricultural activities, 

or any activity funded or carried out by 

the Department of Transportation or 

Department of Agriculture that could 

result in excavation, or mechanized 

land clearing of Brodiaea filifolia

habitat; and 

(6) Licensing of construction of 

communication sites by the Federal 

Communications Commission or 

funding of construction or development 

activities by the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development that 

could result in excavation, or 

mechanized land clearing of Brodiaea 

filifolia habitat. 

The 10 proposed critical habitat units 

are within the geographical area 

occupied by the species and have the 

PCEs essential for the conservation of 

Brodiaea filifolia. Additionally, all 

habitats within this designation are 

likely to be used by the pollinators for 

the species. Federal agencies already 

consult with us on activities in areas 

currently occupied by the species or if 

the species may be affected by the 

action, to ensure that their actions do 

not jeopardize the continued existence 

of the species. 

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

Act

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

critical habitat shall be designated, and 

revised, on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 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. 

In our critical habitat designations, we 

have used the provisions outlined in 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate 

lands eligible for designation for 

possible exclusion from proposed 

critical habitat. Lands that we have 

either excluded from or not included in 

critical habitat based on that provision 

include those covered by: (1) Legally 

operative HCPs that cover the species 

and provide assurances that the 

conservation measures for the species 

will be implemented and effective; (2) 

draft HCPs that cover the species, have 

undergone public review and comment, 

and provide assurances that the 

conservation measures for the species 

will be implemented and effective (i.e., 

pending HCPs); (3) Tribal conservation 

plans that cover the species and provide 

assurances that the conservation 

measures for the species will be 

implemented and effective; (4) State 

conservation plans that provide 

assurances that the conservation 

measures for the species will be 

implemented and effective; and (5) 

Service National Wildlife Refuge System 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans that 

provide assurances that the 

conservation measures for the species 

will be implemented and effective. A 

summary of the exclusions proposed in 

this rule follow in Table 4.

TABLE 4.—APPROXIMATE ELIGIBLE HABITAT, EXCLUDED ELIGIBLE HABITAT, AND PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT (ACRES

(AC); HECTARES (HA)) FOR BRODIAEA FILIFOLIA

Total eligible habitat identified for Brodiaea filifolia ............................................................................................................ 9,403 ac; 3,805 ha.

Eligible habitat excluded from the proposed critical habitat designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Riverside County) ............................................ 3,267 ac; 1,322 ha. 

City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan (San Diego County) ............................................................................. 321 ac; 130 ha. 

Villages of La Costa Habitat Conservation Plan (San Diego County) ............................................................................... 208 ac; 84 ha. 

‘‘Mission-essential’’ Department of Defense lands (Marine Corps Base (MCB), Camp Pendleton, San Diego County) .. 917 ac; 371 ha. 

Total eligible habitat excluded from proposed critical habitat ............................................................................................ 4,713 ac; 1,907 ha. 

Total eligible habitat proposed as critical habitat ............................................................................................................... 4,690 ac; 1,898 ha. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

Approved Habitat Conservation Plans 

As described above, section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act requires us to consider other 

relevant impacts, in addition to 

economic and national security impacts, 

when designating critical habitat. Some 

areas occupied by Brodiaea filifolia

involve complex HCPs that address 

multiple species, cover large areas, and 

have many participating permittees. 

Many of the large regional HCPs in 

southern California have been, or are 

being, developed to provide for the 

voluntary and cooperative conservation 

of numerous federally listed species and 

rare species and their habitat. Over time, 

areas in the planning area are addressed 

per the HCP, and key areas are acquired, 

managed, and monitored. These HCPs 

are designed to implement conservation 

actions to address future projects that 

are anticipated to occur within the 

planning area of the HCP, and to reduce 

delays in the permitting process. 

Approved regional HCPs (e.g., those 

sponsored by cities, counties or other 

local jurisdictions) where Brodiaea 

filifolia is addressed provide for the 

protection and management of habitat 

that contains the PCE’s essential to the 

conservation of the species while 

shifting development to non-essential 

areas. Regional HCP development 

processes provide an intensive data 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71297

collection and analysis regarding habitat 

of B. filifolia. The process also enables 

us to develop a reserve system that 

provides for the biological needs and 

long-term conservation of the species 

(Schwartz 1999).

Completed HCPs and their 

accompanying Implementing 

Agreements (IA) contain management 

measures and protections for identified 

preserve areas that protect, restore, and 

enhance the value of these lands as 

habitat for Brodiaea filifolia. These 

measures include explicit standards to 

minimize impacts to the addressed 

species and its habitat. In general, HCPs 

are designed to ensure that the value of 

the conservation lands are maintained, 

expanded, and improved for the species 

that they cover. 

Brodiaea filifolia is covered under the 

approved Western Riverside Multiple 

Species Habitat Conservation Plan, the 

approved Villages of La Costa Habitat 

Conservation Plan, and the City of 

Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management 

Plan. We have determined that the 

benefits of excluding eligible habitat 

areas within these pending and legally 

operative HCPs from the proposed 

critical habitat designations will 

outweigh the benefits of including them. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to the 

Western Riverside Multiple Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)—

Exclusion Under 4(b)(2) 

Areas of eligible habitat for Brodiaea 

filifolia in the Western Riverside County 

Management Area occur within the 

Western Riverside MSHCP area, and 

have been proposed for exclusion from 

proposed critical habitat pursuant to 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Western 

Riverside MSHCP was developed over a 

period of eight years and was approved 

and permitted on June 22, 2004. 

Participants in this HCP include 14 

cities, the County of Riverside 

(including the Riverside County Flood 

Control and Water Conservation 

Agency, Riverside County 

Transportation Commission, Riverside 

County Parks and Open Space District, 

and Riverside County Waste 

Department), the California Department 

of Parks and Recreation, and the 

California Department of 

Transportation. The Western Riverside 

MSHCP is a subregional plan under the 

State’s Natural Community 

Conservation Plans (NCCP) and was 

developed in cooperation with the 

California Department of Fish and 

Game. 

The MSHCP establishes a multispecies conservation program to 

minimize and mitigate the expected loss 

of habitat values of ‘‘covered species’’

and, with regard to covered animal 

species, their incidental take. The intent 

of the MSHCP is to provide avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures 

for the impacts of proposed activities on 

covered species and their habitats. 

Within the 1,260,000 ac (510,000 ha) 

Plan Area of the MSHCP, approximately 

153,000 ac (62,000 ha) of diverse 

habitats are to be conserved. The 

proposed conservation of 153,000 ac 

(62,000 ha) will complement other 

existing natural and open space areas 

(e.g., State Parks, Forest Service, and 

County Park Lands). The MSHCP 

identifies the following species-specific 

conservation goals that will be 

implemented for the long-term 

conservation of Brodiaea filifolia: (1) To 

include within the MSHCP conservation 

area at least 6,900 ac out of an estimated 

11,482 ac of suitable habitat; (2) to 

include within the MSHCP conservation 

area at least 11 major locations 

supporting B. filifolia; (3) to conduct 

surveys for the species in certain areas 

of suitable habitat until the conservation 

goals are met; and (4) to maintain 

floodplain processes along the San 

Jacinto River. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to the 

City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat 

Management Plan—Exclusion Under 

4(b)(2) 

Lands within the boundaries of the 

City of Carlsbad draft Habitat 

Management Plan (HMP) that contain 

eligible habitat for B. filifolia have been 

considered but are not proposed as 

critical habitat. The Carlsbad HMP, a 

draft subarea plan under the draft 

Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan 

(MHCP), is part of a large-scale habitat 

conservation planning effort in 

northwestern San Diego County. The 

draft MHCP includes the participation 

of the cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, 

Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, 

Solana Beach and Vista. The draft 

MHCP is also being proposed as a 

subregional plan under the State’s NCCP 

and is being developed in cooperation 

with CDFG. The plan area encompasses 

approximately 111,908 ac (45,288 ha). 

Each of the cities participating in the 

MHCP is preparing an individual 

subarea plan that would authorize the 

issuance of an incidental take permit for 

those species specifically identified for 

coverage with a particular city’s subarea 

plan.

The City of Carlsbad has prepared a 

draft subarea HMP for the MHCP. 

Within the boundaries of the draft HMP, 

five eligible populations of B. filifolia

are currently known to occur (Calavera 

Heights, Lake Calavera, Fox-Miller, 

Carlsbad Oaks North, Poinsettia). All 

known populations of B. filifolia that 

occur within the boundaries of the draft 

HMP, with one exception, are inside 

planned preserve areas. The draft HMP 

anticipates B. filifolia will be fully 

covered under the plan, with the 

exception of the population known to 

occur on the Fox-Miller site (Unit 7a), 

described below. For the fully covered 

populations of B. filifolia, the draft HMP 

identifies the species as a narrow 

endemic and provides for the 

conservation of 100 percent of those 

populations of B. filifolia that occur 

within the boundaries of the proposed 

preserve areas. All populations of B. 

filifolia, with the exception of the FoxMiller population, are included in the 

proposed preserve areas of the draft 

HMP. Additionally, the draft HMP 

includes provisions to manage the 

populations within the preserve areas in 

order to provide for the long-term 

conservation of the species. 

For the Fox-Miller site, the draft HMP 

would only include the plant as a 

conditionally covered species. The 

proposed hardline on Fox-Miller will 

not meet the conditions for coverage of 

the species due to the recent 

identification of 19,100 plants on the 

property. Modification of this hardline 

would need to occur for coverage of 

brodiaea filifolia. Thus, development 

that would adversely affect this species 

could not be permitted under Carlsbad’s 

HMP until such coverage is received by 

the City. The Service and CA 

Department of Fish and Game will work 

with the City of Carlsbad and the 

landowner to address the conservation 

of this plant on that property. If the 

conditions to achieve this conservation 

are met, we may consider excluding this 

area from critical habitat in the final 

rule. 

Substantial progress has been made 

on the City of Carlsbad’s subarea HMP. 

On June 4, 2004, we published a Notice 

of Availability of a Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement/Report (EIS/EIR) and 

Receipt of and Application for an 

Incidental Take Permit in the Federal 

Register regarding the MHCP and the 

City of Carlsbad’s draft subarea HMP (69 

FR 31632). Public comment on these 

documents was accepted until July 6, 

2004. The City of Carlsbad also 

modified their subarea HMP by 

addendum in order to receive a Federal 

consistency determination from the 

California Coastal Commission. 

Although the draft subarea HMP for 

the City of Carlsbad is not yet approved 

and implemented, the circulation of the 

final EIS/EIR, solicitation of public 

review and comment, and initiation of 

the intra-Service section 7 consultation 

for those species, including the 

71298 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Brodiaea filifolia, identified for coverage 

with the draft plan, demonstrates 

significant sustained progress in the 

development of this habitat 

conservation planning effort. 

We are excluding eligible habitat for 

B. filifolia at Calavera Heights, Lake 

Calavera, Carlsbad Oaks North, and 

Poinsettia from proposed critical habitat 

designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. The population of B. filifolia

identified as the Fox-Miller site (Unit 7) 

is being proposed as critical habitat. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to the 

Villages of La Costa Habitat 

Conservation Plan—Exclusion Under 

4(b)(2) 

The Fieldstone/La Costa project is on 

1,955 acres at two locations within the 

City of Carlsbad. The project is a 

housing development with limited 

commercial use, a school, park, and 

various roadways. All of the Brodiaea 

filifolia on-site occurred in the 

Northwest parcel and was estimated to 

consist of 7,000 individuals. The project 

was permitted to directly impact 1,190 

individuals (17 percent) due to 

development. As part of the HCP and 

section 10(a)(1)(B) permit issuance, the 

following conservation measures were 

required and have been implemented 

for the long-term conservation of 

Brodiaea filifolia: (1) Permanent 

protection of approximately 5,800 

individuals (83 percent) in a 702.5-ac 

natural open space preserve configured 

to provide connectivity to other 

significant areas of natural habitat; (2) 

long-term management of conserved 

habitat; (3) monitoring; (4) habitat 

restoration and enhancement; (5) 

control of invasive plant species; (6) 

implementation of a fire management 

program; (7) access control measures; 

and (8) public education. Open space 

areas on Villages of La Costa lands are 

actively managed to maintain and 

enhance biological values by the Center 

for Natural Lands Management (Don 

Rideout, City of Carlsbad, pers. comm. 

2004). 

Other Regional Natural Community 

Conservation Plans and HCPs 

There are other regional NCCP/HCP 

efforts under way in southern California 

that have not yet been completed but 

which, upon approval, will provide 

conservation benefits to Brodiaea 

filifolia. Lands within these HCPs are 

not excluded from consideration for 

proposed critical habitat. However, 

management plans and/or habitat 

conservation plans that provide for 

conservation of the species in areas 

being proposed as critical habitat 

submitted to and approved by the 

Service prior to the end of the public 

comment period for this proposed rule 

will be evaluated for exclusion from the 

final designation. 

The Multiple Habitat Conservation 

Program (MHCP) in northwestern San 

Diego County encompasses 

approximately 112,000 ac (45,324 ha). 

The cities of Oceanside, Escondido, San 

Marcos, Vista, Carlsbad, Encinitas, and 

Solana Beach are involved in the 

development and implementation of 

this multiple species HCP/NCCP. As 

discussed above, the City of Carlsbad’s 

Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is their 

subarea plan to the MHCP and has been 

proceeding ahead of the other cities in 

MHCP. The HMPs for the other 

participating cities are in various stages 

of development.

The proposed Southern Subregion 

NCCP/HCP in Orange County 

encompasses approximately 128,000 ac 

(51,799 ha) in its planning area. 

Jurisdictions and private landowners 

within the study area include the cities 

of Rancho Santa Margarita, Mission 

Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, San 

Clemente, and Rancho Mission Viejo. B. 

filifolia is being proposed as one of the 

species covered under this plan, but 

because this plan is still in review the 

lands in this plan have not been 

excluded. The preliminary draft of this 

plan conveys the importance of 

conservation of at least 75 percent of all 

the known B. filifolia occurrences (and 

an estimated 96 percent of documented 

flowering scapes) within the plan area 

(NCCP/SAMP Working Group 2003). 

North County Subarea of the MSCP 

comprises approximately 14,045 ha 

(34,705 ac) within the unincorporated 

areas of San Diego. Currently, there is 

only one known occurrence of Brodiaea 

filifolia in this planning area, and this 

population is included in proposed 

critical habitat. The North County MSCP 

Subarea Plan is in the preliminary 

stages. Draft Plans have not been 

created, and the California 

Environmental Quality Act documents 

have not been drafted. However, a group 

of independent science advisors 

reviewed the process for incorporating 

the best available science in the North 

County Subarea Plan (NCSAP). Based 

on meetings and a review of the 

Independent Science Advisors (ISA) 

Report (ISA 2002), the County created a 

Revised NCSAP Preserve Planning 

Process Report. In addition, public 

scoping meetings have been held and a 

draft Subarea Plan Working Draft map of 

the planning area with draft PreApproved Mitigation Areas have been 

identified. 

(1) Benefits of Inclusion 

The principal effect of designated 

critical habitat is that federally funded 

or authorized activities within critical 

habitat may require consultation under 

section 7 of the Act. Consultation 

ensures that action entities avoid 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

Currently approved and permitted HCPs 

and NCCP/HCPs ensure the long-term 

survival of addressed species. HCPs or 

NCCP/HCPs and IAs (implementing 

agreements) include management 

measures and protections for 

conservation lands designed to protect, 

restore, and enhance their value as 

habitat for covered species and thus 

provide benefits to the species well in 

excess of those that would result from 

a critical habitat designation. 

Another benefit of including these 

lands is that the designation of critical 

habitat can serve to educate landowners 

and the public regarding the potential 

conservation value of an area. This may 

focus and contribute to conservation 

efforts by other parties by clearly 

delineating areas of high conservation 

value for certain species. 

(2) Benefits of Exclusion 

The benefits of excluding lands 

within HCPs from critical habitat 

designation include relieving 

landowners, communities, and counties 

that have voluntarily adopted an HCP of 

the additional regulatory burden that 

might be imposed by critical habitat. 

Many HCPs become the basis for 

regional conservation plans consistent 

with the recovery objectives for listed 

species covered within the plan area. 

Many of these HCPs provide 

conservation benefits to unlisted, rare 

species. Imposing additional regulatory 

review after an HCP is completed solely 

as a result of the designation of critical 

habitat may undermine conservation 

efforts and partnerships in many areas. 

In fact, it could result in the loss of 

species’ benefits if participants abandon 

the voluntary HCP process because it 

may result in an additional regulatory 

burden requiring more of them than of 

other parties who have not voluntarily 

participated in species conservation. 

Designation of critical habitat within the 

boundaries of approved HCPs is likely 

to be viewed as a disincentive to those 

entities currently developing HCPs or 

contemplating them in the future. 

A related benefit of excluding lands 

within HCPs from critical habitat 

designation is the continued ability by 

the Service to seek new partnerships. 

These may include future HCP 

participants, such as States, counties, 

local jurisdictions, conservation 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71299

organizations, and private landowners. 

These entities together may implement 

conservation actions that we would be 

unable to accomplish otherwise.

An HCP or NCCP/HCP application 

must undergo section 7 consultation. 

While this consultation does not 

address adverse modification to critical 

habitat, it will determine if the HCP 

jeopardizes the species in the plan area. 

Federal actions not covered by the HCP, 

but in areas occupied by listed species, 

still require consultation under section 

7 of the Act. HCPs and NCCP/HCPs 

typically provide greater conservation 

benefits to an addressed listed species 

than section 7 consultations because, 

under the specific requirements for an 

HCP contained in section 10 of the Act, 

HCPs and NCCP/HCPs assure the longterm protection and management of a 

covered species and its habitat, and 

funding for such management through 

the standards found in the 5 Point 

Policy for HCPs (64 FR 35242). Section 

7 is limited to requiring that the specific 

action being consulted upon does not 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat. 

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion 

The Western Riverside MSHCP, the 

Carlsbad HMP, and the Villages of La 

Costa HCP include Brodiaea filifolia as 

a covered species. HCPs and NCCP/

HCPs provide protection for B. filifolia

and its associated habitat. The 

educational benefits of critical habitat, 

including informing the public of areas 

that are essential for the long-term 

survival and conservation of the species, 

is still accomplished from material 

provided on our website and through 

public notice and comment procedures 

required to establish an HCP or NCCP/

HCP. We have also received input from 

the public through the public 

participation that occurs in the 

development of many regional HCPs or 

NCCP/HCPs. For these reasons, we 

believe that proposing critical habitat 

has little additional benefit in areas 

covered by HCPs, provided that the HCP 

or NCCP/HCP specifically and 

adequately covers the species for which 

critical habitat is being proposed. We do 

not believe that this exclusion would 

result in the extinction of the species 

because the eligible habitat within these 

HCPs will be conserved, and we have 

already consulted on these HCPs under 

section 7 of the Act. 

Relationship of Marine Corps Base 

Camp Pendleton to Proposed Critical 

Habitat 

The Sikes Act Improvements Act of 

1997 (Sikes Act) requires each military 

installation that includes land and water 

suitable for the conservation and 

management of natural resources to 

complete, by November 17, 2001, an 

Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan (INRMP). An INRMP 

integrates implementation of the 

military mission of the installation with 

stewardship of the natural resources 

found there. INRMPs include an 

assessment of the ecological needs on 

the installation, including needs to 

provide for the conservation of listed 

species; a statement of goals and 

priorities; a description of management 

actions to be implemented to provide 

for these ecological needs; a monitoring 

plan, and an adaptive management plan.

Section 318 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Public Law No. 108–136) amended the 

Endangered Species Act to address the 

relationship of INRMPs to critical 

habitat by adding a new section 

4(a)(3)(B). This provision prohibits the 

Service from designating 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 INRMP 

prepared under section 101 of the Sikes 

Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary of 

the Interior determines in writing that 

such plan provides a benefit to the 

species for which critical habitat is 

proposed for designation. 

Camp Pendleton has completed an 

INRMP that provides a framework for 

managing natural resources. As part of 

the process of developing their INRMP, 

on March 30, 2000, a formal 

consultation was initiated between the 

Marine Corps and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service regarding their activities on 

upland areas of Camp Pendleton. The 

consultation that addresses the upland 

habitat of Brodiaea filifolia and other 

species is not yet complete. We are 

currently working cooperatively with 

Camp Pendleton to facilitate the 

completion of this consultation. Thus, 

the INRMP currently does not provide a 

benefit to listed species, including 

Brodiaea filifolia, contained within 

these habitats on the base. As such, we 

are unable to use the INRMP for Camp 

Pendleton as a basis for not including 

lands essential to the conservation of 

Brodiaea filifolia in proposed critical 

habitat pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B) of 

the Act. If, however the consultation 

that addresses upland habitat and 

species is finalized prior to the time we 

finalize the designation for Brodiaea 

filifolia, we may not include areas 

essential to the conservation of Brodiaea 

filifolia on Camp Pendleton in the final 

designation under the authority of 

4(a)(3)(B). 

Exclusion Under 4(b)(2) 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that 

the Secretary of the Interior shall 

designate or revise critical habitat based 

upon the best scientific and commercial 

data available, after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

impact to national security and any 

other relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude any area from 

critical habitat if it is determined that 

the benefit of such exclusion outweighs 

the benefits of specifying such area as 

part of the critical habitat, unless the 

failure to designate such area as critical 

habitat will result in the extinction of 

the species concerned. 

We have considered the effect of a 

critical habitat designation on national 

security and have determined that the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. We are, therefore, 

not proposing critical habitat on 

‘‘mission-essential’’ training areas on 

Camp Pendleton. In this proposal we 

refer to areas designated as training 

areas on maps created by MCB, Camp 

Pendleton as ‘‘mission-essential’’

training areas. Camp Pendleton has 

identified its training areas as ‘‘missionessential’’ to the Marine Corps’ ability to 

train Marines and Sailors for combat, 

and which is discussed in the ‘‘Benefits 

of Exclusion’’ below. 

To continue its critical training 

missions pending completion of the 

consultation covering upland habitats 

and species discussed above, the Marine 

Corps has implemented measures to 

avoid jeopardy of Brodiaea filifolia and 

other listed species within the uplands 

area. In particular, the Marine Corps is 

implementing a set of ‘‘programmatic 

instructions’’ to avoid adverse effects to 

B. filifolia.

(1) Benefits of Inclusion 

The primary benefit of proposing 

critical habitat is to identify lands 

within occupied areas that contain the 

PCEs essential to the conservation of the 

species or within unoccupied area are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. If critical habitat were to be 

designated in these areas they would 

require consultation to ensure activities 

would not adversely modify critical 

habitat or jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species. We are in 

formal consultation with the Marine 

Corps on upland activities to ensure 

71300 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

current and proposed actions will not 

jeopardize the species’ continued 

existence, and the Marine Corps 

routinely consults with the Service for 

activities on Camp Pendelton that may 

affect federally listed species to ensure 

such species are not jeopardized. On 

March 30, 2000, at the request of the 

Marine Corps, the Service initiated 

consultation regarding activities on 

approximately 125,000 ac (50,500 ha) of 

land on Camp Pendelton and their 

effects on numerous federally listed 

species, including the brodiaea. 

Although this programmatic 

consultation has not yet been 

completed, the Marine Corps has 

implemented a set of ‘‘programmatic 

instructions’’ to minimize adverse 

effects to the brodiaea. The benefits 

associated with designating critical 

habitat on mission-essential training 

areas and on lands within Camp 

Pendelton would be minimal because 

these areas are already encompassed in 

the ongoing programmatic consultation. 

Designation of critical habitat may 

provide education benefits by informing 

land managers of areas essential to the 

conservation of the brodiaea. In the case 

of Camp Pendelton there is no 

appreciable educational benefit because 

the installation has already 

demonstrated its knowledge and 

understanding of essential habitat for 

the species through the ongoing 

programmatic consultation and 

implementation of ‘‘programmatic 

instructions.’’

(2) Benefits of Exclusion 

The Marine Corps Base, Camp 

Pendleton (MCB, Camp Pendleton) is an 

amphibious training base that promotes 

combat readiness for military forces and 

is the only Marine Corps facility on the 

West Coast where amphibious 

operations can be combined with air, 

sea, and ground assault training 

activities year-round. If eligible habitat 

that occurs within ‘‘mission-essential’’

training areas is proposed as critical 

habitat, the Marine Corps would be 

required to determine if activities would 

adversely modify or destroy proposed 

critical habitat. If such a determination 

was made, the Marine Corps would be 

compelled to conference with us 

pursuant to the requirements of section 

7 of the Act. Furthermore, if proposed 

critical habitat within training areas is 

included in a final designation, 

designation of critical habitat in 

mission-essential training areas would 

trigger a requirement for the Marine 

Corps to consult on activities that may 

affect designated critical habitat and to 

reinitiate consultation on activities for 

which a consultation may have already 

been completed that assessed the effects 

to a federally listed species on MCB, 

Camp Pendleton. If ‘‘may affect’’

determinations were made, the Marine 

Corps would be further obligated to 

initiate or reinitiate consultations with 

us. In a similar proposed designation for 

the California coastal gnatcatcher and 

San Diego fairy shrimp, the Marine 

Corps warned that the requirement to 

undertake additional conferencing and/

or consultations or revisiting already 

completed consultations specifically to 

address the effects of activities on 

designated critical habitat could delay 

or impair the Marine Corps’ ability to 

train Marines and Sailors for combat in 

support of continuous, global 

deployment to the western Pacific and 

southwest Asia (Department of the 

Navy; June 23, 2003 letter). Thus, the 

Service has determined it is appropriate 

to exclude approximately 917 ac (371 

ha) of land within MCB, Camp 

Pendleton from this proposed 

designation of critical habitat.

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion 

Based on the impact to national 

security and the Marine Corps’ need to 

maintain a high level of military 

readiness and combat capability, the 

Service determined that the benefits of 

excluding mission-essential training 

areas within MCB, Camp Pendleton 

from critical habitat outweigh the 

benefits of including them in such 

proposed designation. The Service, in 

conducting this analysis pursuant to 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, determined 

that the exclusion of these lands from 

proposed critical habitat will not result 

in the extinction of the brodiaea because 

the Marine Corps has implemented 

measures to avoid jeopardy of the 

Brodiaea filifolia and other listed 

species in the uplands area. Although 

these lands are not included in 

designated proposed critical habitat, the 

Marine Corps will still be required to 

consult with the Service on activities 

that may affect the brodiaea, to ensure 

such activities do not jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. 

Additionally, management guidelines 

for all upland areas are expected to be 

developed and incorporated into future 

revisions of MCB, Camp Pendleton’s 

INRMP upon completion of the 

programmatic consultation on upland 

areas. Maps delineating habitat for B. 

filifolia, overlaid with ‘‘missionessential’’ training areas on MCB, Camp 

Pendleton, are available for public 

review and comment at the Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section) or on the Internet at http://

carlsbad.fws.gov. These maps are 

provided to allow the public the 

opportunity to adequately comment on 

these exclusions. 

Economic Analysis 

An analysis of the economic impacts 

of proposing critical habitat for Brodiaea 

filifolia is being prepared. We will 

announce the availability of the draft 

economic analysis in the Federal 

Register as soon as it is completed, at 

which time we will seek public review 

and comment. At that time, copies of 

the draft economic analysis will be 

available for downloading from the 

Internet at http://carlsbad.fws.gov, or by 

contacting the Field Supervisor, 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

directly (see ADDRESSES section). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994, (59 FR 

34270), we will solicit the expert 

opinions of at least three appropriate 

and independent specialists regarding 

this proposed rule. The purpose of such 

review is to ensure that our critical 

habitat designation is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We will send these peer 

reviewers copies of this proposed rule 

immediately following publication in 

the Federal Register. We will invite 

these peer reviewers to comment on the 

specific assumptions and conclusions 

regarding the proposed designation of 

critical habitat. 

We will consider all comments and 

information received during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during the preparation of a final 

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final 

designation may differ from this 

proposal. 

Public Hearings 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests for public hearings 

must be made in writing at least 15 days 

prior to the close of the public comment 

period. We will schedule public 

hearings on this proposal, if any are 

requested, and announce the dates, 

times, and places of those hearings in 

the local newspapers at least 15 days 

prior to the first hearing. 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write regulations and notices 

that are easy to understand. We invite 

your comments on how to make this 

proposed rule easier to understand, 

including answers to the following: (1) 

Are the requirements in the proposed 

rule clearly stated? (2) Does the 

proposed rule contain technical jargon 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71301

that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does 

the format of the proposed rule 

(grouping and order of the sections, use 

of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or 

reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description 

of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble 

helpful in understanding the proposed 

rule? (5) What else could we do to make 

this proposed rule easier to understand? 

Send a copy of any comments on how 

we could make this proposed rule easier 

to understand to: Office of Regulatory 

Affairs, Department of the Interior, room 

7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20240. You may e-mail your 

comments to this address: 

Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This document has been reviewed by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866. OMB makes the final 

determination under Executive Order 

12866. We are preparing a draft 

economic analysis of this proposed 

action, which will be available for 

public comment, to determine the 

economic consequences of designating 

the specific areas as critical habitat. 

Within these areas, the types of Federal 

actions or authorized activities that we 

have identified as potential concerns are 

listed above in the section on Section 7 

Consultation.

The availability of the draft economic 

analysis will be announced in the 

Federal Register and in local 

newspapers so that it is available for 

public review and comments. 

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 effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

At this time, the Service lacks the 

available economic information 

necessary to provide an adequate factual 

basis for the required RFA finding. 

Therefore, the RFA finding is deferred 

until completion of the draft economic 

analysis prepared pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the ESA and E.O. 12866. This 

draft economic analysis will provide the 

required factual basis for the RFA 

finding. Upon completion of the draft 

economic analysis, the Service will 

publish a notice of availability of the 

draft economic analysis of the proposed 

designation and reopen the public 

comment period for the proposed 

designation. The Service will include 

with the notice of availability, as 

appropriate, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis or a certification that 

the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities accompanied 

by the factual basis for that 

determination. The Service has 

concluded that deferring the RFA 

finding until completion of the draft 

economic analysis is necessary to meet 

the purposes and requirements of the 

RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this 

manner will ensure that the Service 

makes a sufficiently informed 

determination based on adequate 

economic information and provides the 

necessary opportunity for public 

comment. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211) on 

regulations that significantly affect 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Executive Order 13211 requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. This 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for Brodiaea filifolia is not 

anticipated to be a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, 

and it is not expected to significantly 

affect energy supplies, distribution, or 

use because there are no distribution 

facilities, power grid stations, etc. 

within the boundaries of proposed 

critical habitat. However, two pipelines 

cross portions of subunits 4f, Telega/

Segunda Deschecha, and 8d, Upham. 

Since the areas supporting the pipelines 

are considered developed areas that do 

not contain the primary constituent 

elements for this species and are 

excluded from the designation by text, 

we do not believe that activities limited 

to these areas supporting the pipelines 

would be affected by the designation. 

Therefore, we do not anticipate that this 

action is not a significant energy action 

and no Statement of Energy Effects is 

required. We will, however, further 

evaluate this issue as we conduct our 

economic analysis and, as appropriate, 

review and revise this assessment as 

warranted. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), 

the Service makes the following 

findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, 

tribal governments, or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. (At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement.) ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities who receive Federal 

funding, assistance, permits or 

71302 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action may be indirectly impacted by 

the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply; neither would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above on to State 

governments. 

(b) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. The term ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’ means 

governments of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts with a population of 

less than 50,000 (U.S.C. title 5, part I, 

chapter 6, section 601[5]). The lands 

being proposed for designation as 

critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia are 

owned by Federal, State, and local 

government entities. None of these 

government entities fits the definition of 

‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ As 

such, a Small Government Agency Plan 

is not required. We will, however, 

further evaluate this issue as we 

conduct our economic analysis and 

revise this assessment if appropriate. 

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, this rule does not have 

significant Federalism effects and, 

therefore, a Federalism assessment is 

not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior policies, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated the development of this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with appropriate State resource agencies 

in California. We anticipate that the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

in the areas currently occupied by 

Brodiaea filifoli a will imposes no 

additional significant restrictions 

beyond those currently in place and, 

therefore, should have has little 

incremental impact on State and local 

governments and their activities. 

However, we will re-evaluate this 

assessment after conducting our 

economic analysis for the species and 

for the final designation. 

The proposed designation of critical 

habitat may have some benefit to the 

State and local resource agencies in that 

the areas and features essential to the 

conservation of this species are more 

clearly defined, and the primary 

constituent elements of the habitat 

necessary to the conservation of this 

species are specifically identified. While 

this definition and identification does 

not alter where and what federally 

sponsored activities may occur, it may 

assist local governments in long-range 

planning (rather than waiting for caseby-case section 7 consultations to 

occur). 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Department of the Interior’s 

Office of the Solicitor has determined 

that this rule does not unduly burden 

the judicial system and does meet the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We are proposing to 

designate critical habitat in accordance 

with provisions of the Endangered 

Species Act. The rule uses standard 

property descriptions and identifies the 

primary constituent elements within the 

designated areas to assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of 

Brodiaea filifolia.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This proposed rule does not contain 

new or revised information collection 

for which OMB approval is required 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Information collections associated with 

certain Act permits are covered by an 

existing OMB approval and are assigned 

clearance No. 1018–0094. This includes 

Forms 3–200–55 and 3–200–56, with an 

expiration date of July 31, 2004. This 

rule will not impose record keeping or 

reporting requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

It is our position that, outside the 

Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by the NEPA in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

assertion was upheld in the courts of the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 

1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 

(1996)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. We 

have determined that there are no tribal 

lands eligible for the conservation of 

Brodiaea filifolia. Therefore, critical 

habitat has not been proposed for 

designation on Tribal lands. 

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available, upon request, from 

the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Field 

Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Author 

This rule was prepared by staff at the 

Carlsbad Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, the Service hereby 

proposes to amend part 17, subchapter 

B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

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.

2. In § 17.12(h), revise the entry in the 

table for ‘‘Brodiaea filifolia’’ under 

‘‘FLOWERING PLANTS,’’ to read as 

follows:

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71303

Species 

Historic range Family Status When

listed 

Critical

habitat 

Special

rules Scientific name Common name 

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * * 

Brodiaea filifolia ....... Thread-leaved 

brodiaea.

U.S.A. (CA) ............. Liliaceae—-Lily ....... T 650 17.96(a) NA 

*******

3. In § 17.96(a), add critical habitat for 

Brodiaea filifolia, in alphabetical order 

under Family Liliaceae to read as 

follows:

§ 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. 

(a) Flowering plants.

* * * * *

Family Liliaceae: Brodiaea filifolia

(Thread-leaved brodiaea) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Brodiaea filifolia on the maps below. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia

consist of the following: 

(i) Appropriate soil series and 

associated vegetation at suitable 

elevations of either: 

(A) Clay soil series of various origins 

(e.g., Alo, Altamont, Auld, Diablo), clay 

lenses found as unmapped inclusions in 

other soil series, or within loamy soils 

underlain by a clay subsoil (e.g., 

Fallbrook, Huerhuero, Las Flores) that 

generally occur on mesas and gentle to 

moderate slopes, or in association with 

vernal pools, between the elevations of 

100 ft (30 m) and 2,500 ft (765 m) and 

support open native or non-native 

grassland communities, open coastal 

sage scrub or coastal sage scrubchaparral communities; or 

(B) Silty loam soil series underlain by 

a clay subsoil or caliche that are 

generally poorly drained, moderately to 

strongly alkaline, granitic in origin (e.g., 

Domino, Grangeville, Waukena, 

Willows), that generally occur in lowlying areas and floodplains, often in 

association with vernal pool or playa 

complexes, between the elevations of 

600 ft (180 m) and 1,800 ft (550 m) and 

support native, non-native, or alkali 

grassland or scrub communities; or 

(C) Clay loam soil series (e.g., 

Murrieta) underlain by heavy clay loams 

or clays derived from olivine basalt lava 

flows, that generally occur on mesas and 

gentle to moderate slopes between the 

elevations of 1,700 ft (520 m) and 2,500 

ft (765 m) and support native or nonnative grassland or oak woodland 

savannah communities associated with 

basalt vernal pools; or 

(D) 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 that support open riparian and 

freshwater marsh communities 

associated with intermittent drainages, 

floodplains, and seeps generally 

between 1,800 ft (550 m) and 2,500 ft 

(765 m). 

(ii) Areas with an intact surface and 

subsurface structure not permanently 

altered by anthropogenic land use 

activities (e.g., deep, repetitive disking; 

grading). These features as well as 

associated physical processes (e.g., full 

sunlight exposure) are essential to 

maintain those substrate and vegetation 

types where Brodiaea filifolia is found 

and to support pollinator assemblages 

necessary to facilitate gene flow within 

and among populations of B. filifolia. 

(iii) Critical habitat does not include 

existing features and structures, such as 

open water, buildings, roads, aqueducts, 

railroads, airport runways and 

buildings, other paved areas, lawns, and 

other urban landscaped areas not 

containing one or more of the primary 

constituent elements. 

(3) Index map of critical habitat units 

for Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-leaved 

brodiaea) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

71304 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C


EP08DE04.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71305

(4) All map units are in the Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate 

system, North American Datum of 1927 

(NAD27) projection. 

Map Unit 1: Los Angeles County, 

California, from USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle map Glendora, California. 

(i) Subunit 1a: Glendora; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 422400, 3779900; 

422400, 3779800; 422500, 3779800; 

422500, 3779700; 422600, 3779700; 

422600, 3779300; 422400, 3779300; 

422400, 3779200; 422100, 3779200; 

422100, 3779300; 422000, 3779300; 

422000, 3779500; 421900, 3779500; 

421900, 3779800; 422000, 3779800; 

422000, 3779900; returning to 422400, 

3779900. 

(ii) Subunit 1b: San Dimas; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 425300, 3778600; 

425300, 3778500; 425400, 3778500; 

425400, 3778400; 425500, 3778400; 

425500, 3777900; 425400, 3777900; 

425400, 3777800; 425300, 3777800; 

425300, 3777700; 425200, 3777700; 

425200, 3777500; 424700, 3777500; 

424700, 3777600; 424600, 3777600; 

424600, 3778200; 424700, 3778200; 

424700, 3778500; 424900, 3778500; 

424900, 3778600; returning to 425300, 

3778600. 

(iii) Map of proposed critical habitat 

unit 1a, 1b for Brodiaea filifolia

(Thread-leaved brodiaea) follows:

71306 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 


EP08DE04.027</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71307

(5)(i) Map Unit 2: Arrowhead Hot 

Springs, San Bernardino County, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle map San Bernardino North, 

California, land bounded by the 

following UTM coordinates (E, N): 

475400, 3783000; 475400, 3782800; 

475500, 3782800; 475500, 3782500; 

475400, 3782500; 475400, 3782400; 

475300, 3782400; 475300, 3782300; 

475000, 3782300; 475000, 3782400; 

474900, 3782400; 474900, 3783000; 

returning to 475400, 3783000. 

(ii) Map of proposed critical habitat 

unit 2 for Brodiaea filifolia (Threadleaved brodiaea) follows:

71308 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C


EP08DE04.028</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71309

(6) Map Unit 3: Aliso Canyon, Orange 

County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle map San Juan Capistrano, 

California, land bounded by the 

following UTM coordinates (E, N): 

432200, 3712100; 432200, 3712000; 

432500, 3712000; 432500, 3711900; 

432600, 3711900; 432600, 3711800; 

432700, 3711800; 432700, 3711400; 

432600, 3711400; 432600, 3711300; 

432400, 3711300; 432400, 3711200; 

432200, 3711200; 432200, 3711300; 

431900, 3711300; 431900, 3711400; 

431800, 3711400; 431800, 3711900; 

431900, 3711900; 431900, 3712000; 

432000, 3712000; 432000, 3712100; 

returning to 432200, 3712100. 

(7) Map Unit 4: Orange County, 

California, from USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle maps San Juan Capistrano, 

Canada Gobernadora, and San 

Clemente, California. 

(i) Subunit 4a: Arroyo Trabuco; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 439600, 3712900; 

439600, 3712800; 439700, 3712800; 

439700, 3712500; 439600, 3712500; 

439600, 3712400; 439500, 3712400; 

439500, 3712300; 439300, 3712300; 

439300, 3712400; 439100, 3712400; 

439100, 3712900; returning to 439600, 

3712900. 

(ii) Subunit 4b: Casper’s Regional 

Park; land bounded by the following 

UTM coordinates (E, N): 447200, 

3715700; 447200, 3715600; 447300, 

3715600; 447300, 3715500; 447400, 

3715500; 447400, 3715400; 447500, 

3715400; 447500, 3714900; 447600, 

3714900; 447600, 3714800; 447700, 

3714800; 447700, 3714400; 447600, 

3714400; 447600, 3714300; 447500, 

3714300; 447500, 3714200; 447200, 

3714200; 447200, 3714300; 447000, 

3714300; 447000, 3714500; 446900, 

3714500; 446900, 3714700; 446800, 

3714700; 446800, 3714900; 446700, 

3714900; 446700, 3715600; 446900, 

3715600; 446900, 3715700; returning to 

447200, 3715700. 

(iii) Subunit 4c: Canada Gobernadora/

Chiquita Ridgeline; land bounded by the 

following UTM coordinates (E, N): 

444600, 3711000; 444500, 3711000; 

444500, 3710600; 444600, 3710600; 

444600, 3710400; 444700, 3710400; 

444700, 3710200; 444600, 3710200; 

444600, 3710100; 444500, 3710100; 

444500, 3710000; 444200, 3710000; 

444200, 3710100; 443900, 3710100; 

443900, 3710200; 443800, 3710200; 

443800, 3710600; 443900, 3710600; 

443900, 3710900; 444000, 3710900; 

444000, 3711400; 444100, 3711400; 

444100, 3711500; 444500, 3711500; 

444500, 3711400; 444600, 3711400; 

returning to 444600, 3711000; and land 

bounded by 444600, 3711000; 444700, 

3711000; 444700, 3711100; 444800, 

3711100; 444800, 3711200; 445100, 

3711200; 445100, 3711100; 445200, 

3711100; 445200, 3710600; 444700, 

3710600; 444700, 3710700; 444600, 

3710700; returning to 444600, 3711000. 

(iv) Subunit 4d: Prima Deshecha; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 442600, 3706000; 

442600, 3705900; 442700, 3705900; 

442700, 3705700; 442800, 3705700; 

442800, 3705500; 442700, 3705500; 

442700, 3705300; 442100, 3705300; 

442100, 3705400; 442000, 3705400; 

442000, 3705900; 442100, 3705900; 

442100, 3706000; returning to 442600, 

3706000. 

(v) Subunit 4e: Forster Ranch; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 443300, 3703500; 

443300, 3703400; 443400, 3703400; 

443400, 3703300; 443500, 3703300; 

443500, 3703100; 443400, 3703100; 

443400, 3702900; 443300, 3702900; 

443300, 3702800; 443000, 3702800; 

443000, 3702900; 442800, 3702900; 

442800, 3703400; 442900, 3703400; 

442900, 3703500; returning to 443300, 

3703500. 

(vi) Subunit 4f: Talega/Segunda 

Deshecha; land bounded by the 

following UTM coordinates (E, N): 

446400, 3705600; 446400, 3705100; 

446300, 3705100; 446300, 3705000; 

446100, 3705000; 446100, 3704600; 

446000, 3704600; 446000, 3704500; 

445500, 3704500; 445500, 3704600; 

445400, 3704600; 445400, 3705200; 

445600, 3705200; 445600, 3705300; 

445800, 3705300; 445800, 3705500; 

445900, 3705500; 445900, 3705600; 

returning to 446400, 3705600. 

(vii) Subunit 4g: Cristianitos Canyon; 

land bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 448300, 3707600; 

448300, 3706600; 448200, 3706600; 

448200, 3706500; 448100, 3706500; 

448100, 3705900; 448300, 3705900; 

448300, 3705800; 448500, 3705800; 

448500, 3705700; 448600, 3705700; 

448600, 3705600; 448700, 3705600; 

448700, 3705300; 448600, 3705300; 

448600, 3704700; 448700, 3704700; 

448700, 3704500; 448800, 3704500; 

448800, 3704400; 448700, 3704400; 

448700, 3704100; 448600, 3704100; 

448600, 3704000; 448200, 3704000; 

448200, 3704100; 448100, 3704100; 

448100, 3704200; 448000, 3704200; 

448000, 3704600; 448100, 3704600; 

448100, 3704700; 448000, 3704700; 

448000, 3704900; 447900, 3704900; 

447900, 3705000; 447800, 3705000; 

447800, 3705100; 447700, 3705100; 

447700, 3705600; 447800, 3705600; 

447800, 3705800; 447700, 3705800; 

447700, 3705900; 447600, 3705900; 

447600, 3706000; 447500, 3706000; 

447500, 3706300; 447600, 3706300; 

447600, 3706400; 447900, 3706400; 

447900, 3706500; 447700, 3706500; 

447700, 3706600; 447600, 3706600; 

447600, 3707000; 447700, 3707000; 

447700, 3707400; 447800, 3707400; 

447800, 3707600; returning to 448300, 

3707600.

(viii) Subunit 4h: Cristianitos Canyon 

South; land bounded by the following 

UTM coordinates (E, N): 447000, 

3702800; 447000, 3702700; 447200, 

3702700; 447200, 3702200; 447100, 

3702200; 447100, 3702300; 446800, 

3702300; 446800, 3702400; 446600, 

3702400; 446600, 3702500; 446500, 

3702500; 446500, 3702700; 446600, 

3702700; 446600, 3702800; returning to 

447000, 3702800. 

(ix) Subunit 4i: Blind Canyon; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 451500, 3703900; 

451500, 3703800; 451700, 3703800; 

451700, 3703200; 451400, 3703200; 

451400, 3703100; 451300, 3703100; 

451300, 3702900; 450800, 3702900; 

450800, 3703400; 450900, 3703400; 

450900, 3703500; 451100, 3703500; 

451100, 3703700; 451200, 3703700; 

451200, 3703800; 451300, 3703800; 

451300, 3703900; returning to 451500, 

3703900. 

(x) Map of critical habitat units 3 and 

4a–i for Brodiaea filifolia (Threadleaved brodiaea) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

71310 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 


EP08DE04.029</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71311

(8) Map of excluded eligible habitat 

for Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-leaved 

brodiaea), Corona area, Riverside 

County, California follows:


EP08DE04.030</GPH><FNP>
71312 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

(9) Map of excluded eligible habitat 

for Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-leaved 

brodiaea), Perris area, Riverside County, 

California follows:


EP08DE04.031</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71313

(10) Map Unit 5: Northern San Diego 

County, California, from USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle maps Sitton Peak, Margarita 

Peak, and Fallbrook, California. 

(i) Subunit 5a: Miller Mountain; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 464300, 3707400; 

464300, 3707300; 464400, 3707300; 

464400, 3707200; 464500, 3707200; 

464500, 3707000; 464800, 3707000; 

464800, 3706900; 464900, 3706900; 

464900, 3706800; 465000, 3706800; 

465000, 3706700; 465100, 3706700; 

465100, 3706600; 465200, 3706600; 

465200, 3705900; 465100, 3705900; 

465100, 3705700; 464400, 3705700; 

464400, 3705400; 464300, 3705400; 

464300, 3705300; 464200, 3705300; 

464200, 3705200; 464100, 3705200; 

464100, 3705100; 464000, 3705100; 

464000, 3705000; 463900, 3705000; 

463900, 3704900; 464100, 3704900; 

464100, 3704400; 464000, 3704400; 

464000, 3704300; 463800, 3704300; 

463800, 3704100; 463700, 3704100; 

463700, 3704000; 463600, 3704000; 

463600, 3703900; 463300, 3703900; 

463300, 3704000; 463200, 3704000; 

463200, 3704100; 463100, 3704100; 

463100, 3704500; 463200, 3704500; 

463200, 3704600; 463400, 3704600; 

463400, 3704800; 463200, 3704800; 

463200, 3704900; 463100, 3704900; 

463100, 3705400; 463300, 3705400; 

463300, 3705500; 463400, 3705500; 

463400, 3705600; 463500, 3705600; 

463500, 3705700; 463300, 3705700; 

463300, 3705800; 463100, 3705800; 

463100, 3705900; 462900, 3705900; 

462900, 3706000; 462800, 3706000; 

462800, 3706100; 462600, 3706100; 

462600, 3706300; 462500, 3706300; 

462500, 3706800; 462600, 3706800; 

462600, 3707000; 463100, 3707000; 

463100, 3707100; 463300, 3707100; 

463300, 3707200; 463400, 3707200; 

463400, 3707300; 463500, 3707300; 

463500, 3707400; returning to 464300, 

3707400. 

(ii) Subunit 5b: Devil’s Canyon; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 465000, 3702200; 

464800, 3702200; 464800, 3702100; 

464500, 3702100; 464500, 3702200; 

464300, 3702200; 464300, 3702700; 

464400, 3702700; 464400, 3702800; 

464800, 3702800; 464800, 3702700; 

464900, 3702700; 464900, 3702600; 

465000, 3702600; returning to 465000, 

3702200; and land bounded by 465000, 

3702200; 465400, 3702200; 465400, 

3702100; 465500, 3702100; 465500, 

3701500; 465400, 3701500; 465400, 

3701300; 465300, 3701300; 465300, 

3701200; 464800, 3701200; 464800, 

3701300; 464700, 3701300; 464700, 

3701700; 464800, 3701700; 464800, 

3702000; 464900, 3702000; 464900, 

3702100; 465000, 3702100; returning to 

465000, 3702200. 

(iii) Map of proposed critical habitat 

units 5a and 5b for Brodiaea filifolia

(Thread-leaved brodiaea) follows:

71314 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 


EP08DE04.032</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71315

(11) Map of proposed critical habitat 

units 4g–i, 5a and 5b and excluded 

eligible habitat for Brodiaea filifolia

(Thread-leaved brodiaea), Orange, 

Riverside and San Diego Counties 

follows:

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C


EP08DE04.033</GPH>
71316 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

(12) Map Unit 6: Oceanside, San 

Diego County, California, from USGS 

1:24,000 quadrangle map San Luis Rey, 

California. 

(i) Subunit 6a: Alta Creek; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 469300, 3673300; 

469300, 3673100; 469400, 3673099; 

469400, 3672800; 469100, 3672900; 

469000, 3672900; 469000, 3673000; 

468900, 3673000; 468900, 3673300; 

returning to 469300, 3673300. 

(ii) Subunit 6b: Mesa Drive; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 469000, 3674300; 

468900, 3674300; 468900, 3674500; 

469000, 3674500 returning to 469000, 

3674300. 

(iii) Subunit 6c: Oceanside East/

Mission Avenud; land bounded by the 

following UTM coordinates (E, N): 

471400, 3676300; 471500, 3676300; 

471500, 3676200; 471600, 3676200; 

471600, 3676100; 471600, 3676000; 

471600, 3675900; 471600, 3675800; 

471500, 3675800; 471500, 3675700; 

471400, 3675700; 471300, 3675700; 

471200, 3675700; 471200, 3675800; 

471100, 3675800; 471100, 3675900; 

471100, 3676000; 471100, 3676100; 

471100, 3676200; 471200, 3676200; 

471200, 3676300; 471300, 3676300; 

returning to 471400, 3676300. 

(iv) Subunit 6d: Taylor/Darwin; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 475100, 3677200; 

475100, 3677000; 475400, 3676900; 

475300, 3676700; 475300, 3676600; 

475100, 3676500; 474900, 3676500; 

474800, 3676300; 474700, 3676300; 

474700, 3676600; 474800, 3676700; 

474800, 3677000; 474900, 3677100; 

returning to 475100, 3677200. 

(13) Map Unit 7: San Diego County, 

California, from USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle maps San Luis Rey, Rancho 

Santa Fe, and San Marcos, California. 

(i) Subunit 7a: Fox-Miller; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 473900, 3666900; 

474200, 3666800; 474400, 3666700; 

474400, 3666600; 474500, 3666400; 

474400, 3666400; 474200, 3666300; 

474100, 3666200; 474000, 3666200; 

474000, 3666300; 473600, 3666300; 

473600, 3666600; 473800, 3666600; 

473800, 3666700; 473900, 3666800; 

returning to 473900, 3666900. 

(ii) Subunit 7b: Rancho Carrillo; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E,N): 478300, 3665200; 

478400, 3665200; 478400, 3664500; 

478300, 3664500; 478300, 3664600; 

478100, 3664600; 478100, 3664800; 

478200, 3664800; 478200, 3665000; 

478300, 3665000; returning to 478300, 

3665200. 

(14) Map Unit 8: San Marcos, San 

Diego County, California, from USGS 

1:24,000 quadrangle maps San Marcos 

and Rancho Santa Fe, California. 

(i) Subunit 8a: Rancho Santa Fe Road 

North; land bounded by the following 

UTM coordinates (E, N): 478700, 

3665300; 478700, 3665200; 478800, 

3665200; 478800, 3665000; 478700, 

3665000; 478700, 3664700; 478800, 

3664700; 478800, 3664500; 478900, 

3664500; 478900, 3664100; 478700, 

3664100; 478700, 3664000; 478600, 

3664000; 478600, 3664300; 478500, 

3664300; 478500, 3665300; returning to 

478700, 3665300. 

(ii) Subunit 8b: Rancho Santalina/

Loma Alta; land bounded by the 

following UTM coordinates (E, N): 

482000, 3668900; 482200, 3668900; 

482200, 3668300; 482400, 3668100; 

482400, 3668000; 482100, 3668300; 

482100, 3668700; 482000, 3668500; 

482000, 3668300; 481900, 3668200; 

482000, 3668100; 482200, 3667900; 

482200, 3667800; 482100, 3667800; 

481900, 3668000; 481700, 3668400; 

481700, 3668600; returning to 482000, 

3668900. 

(iii) Subunit 8c: Grand Avenue; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 482000, 3667300; 

482000, 3667100; 481800, 3667100; 

481800, 3667300; returning to 482000, 

3667300. 

(iv) Subunit 8d: Upham; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 481600, 3666800; 

481700, 3666800; 481900, 3666700; 

482100, 3666700; 482100, 3666800; 

482300, 3666800; 482300, 3666400; 

482200, 3666400; 482000, 3666300; 

481900, 3666300; 481900, 3666200; 

482000, 3665900; 481900, 3665900; 

481900, 3665800; 481700, 3665800; 

481700, 3665900; 481600, 3666100; 

481400, 3666100; 481400, 3666300; 

481700, 3666300; 481700, 3666200; 

481800, 3666200; 481800, 3666400; 

481500, 3666400; 481500, 3666600; 

481600, 3666600; returning to 481600, 

3666800. 

(v) Subunit 8e: Linda Vista; land 

bounded by the following UTM 

coordinates (E, N): 483000, 3666500; 

483100, 3666500; 483100, 3666400; 

483000, 3666400; 483000, 3666300; 

482800, 3666300; 482800, 3666600; 

482900, 3666600; 482900, 3666700; 

483000, 3666700; returning to 483000, 

3666500. 

(15) (i) Map Unit 9: Double LL Ranch; 

San Diego County, California. From 

USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Rancho 

Santa Fe, California, land bounded by 

the following UTM coordinates (E, N): 

479700, 3658600; 479700, 3658200; 

479800, 3658200; 479800, 3657900; 

479500, 3657900; 479500, 3658000; 

479600, 3658000; 479600, 3658100; 

479400, 3658100; 479400, 3658400; 

479300, 3658400; 479300, 3658600; 

returning to 479700, 3658600. 

(ii) Map of proposed critical habitat 

units 6a-d, 7a-b, 8a-e and 9 for Brodiaea 

filifolia (Thread-leaved brodiaea), San 

Diego County, follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71317


EP08DE04.034</GPH><FNP>
71318 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

(16) (i) Map Unit 10: Highland Valley, 

San Diego County, California. From 

USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map San 

Pasqual, California, land bounded by 

the following UTM coordinates (E, N): 

505500, 3655100; 505500, 3655000; 

505600, 3655000; 505600, 3654600; 

505500, 3654600; 505500, 3654500; 

505200, 3654500; 505200, 3654600; 

505100, 3654600; 505100, 3654700; 

505000, 3654700; 505000, 3655000; 

505100, 3655000; 505100, 3655100; 

returning to 505500, 3655100. 

(ii) Map of proposed critical habitat 

unit 10 for Brodiaea filifolia (Threadleaved brodiaea), San Diego County, 

follows:

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C


EP08DE04.035</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71319

* * * * *

Dated: November 30, 2004. 

Craig Manson, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks.

[FR Doc. 04–26687 Filed 12–7–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P